Robert Green Links?

To control SPAM, you must now be a registered user to post to this Message Board.

EFFECTIVE 14 Nov. 2012 PRIVATE MESSAGING HAS BEEN RE-ENABLED. IF YOU RECEIVE A SUSPICIOUS DO NOT CLICK ON ANY LINKS AND PLEASE REPORT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION.

This is the Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy's Message Board. Wright enthusiasts can post questions and comments, and other people visiting the site can respond.

You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, *-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned (and your service provider being informed). The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators of this forum have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time they see fit.
RJH
Posts: 682
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Contact:

Post by RJH »

This is clearly not a case of "imitation." It is a case of "copying" and claiming credit for Wright's idea.

Here are the pics again:

FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT (HAYNES HOUSE)
Image

ROBERT GREEN (ARROWHEAD)
Image
Last edited by RJH on Mon Oct 01, 2007 3:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

SDR
Posts: 20086
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Claiming credit for Wright's ideas ? In what way. Just because a designer includes something in a design doesn't mean that he's claiming that he originated it. Does every classical design that includes, say,the Doric order (which somebody, somewhere, designed) have to include a disclaimer, or be accused of fraud ?

I suspect the fact that it's a house you own that has been "infringed upon" is the issue here. Would you be as outraged if the Green house copied the cut-out design from a different Usonian ? Really ?

The pics are visible now. There is a remarkable similarity, but it's not an identical design. The same elements have been assembled in a different way; the "turned-down" rectangle isn't present. So, you're safe !

With all due respect -- SDR

RJH
Posts: 682
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Contact:

Post by RJH »

SDR, With all due respect, the reason why I caught this was because I own the Haynes and know the intricacies of the design. So, when I see something like this it immediately catches my attention. Almost as if pharding or another Wright homeowner might notice an exact similarity between an item Wright designed in their opus and a copy.

If this is the way the Democratic American public works then I am leaving this country for good. A Communist or Socialist country would be better to live in then a country that allows and encourages fraud. Maybe Joe Blow architect will take a trip to Robie and draw and exact copy of their windows….change 2% of the design…..put it in a house he is designing and claiming it was 100% his idea.

We have a real problem in this country with China producing knock offs of American designs. Especially computer software. I guess you are saying this is all good? Welcome to the United States!

jlesshafft
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 2:56 pm

Post by jlesshafft »

It's not an "exact similarity." It might be close, but it's not exact.

How do you know....maybe FLW stole it from something Green designed first? Also, it might not be covered under any applicable copyright law as it could be considered a "derivative" work.

And there's no sense in getting upset, because as I understand it, you might own the house, but you wouldn't own any copyright anyway; that would fall to Taliesin at this point.

So....nothing to get all hot and bothered about; but feel free to move overseas if that's what you want to do. The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.

johnnyapollo
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2007 12:47 pm
Location: Atlanta GA USA
Contact:

Post by johnnyapollo »

There are some other similarities between the Hayes House and Arrow Head - they both feature a corner glass room - though the Arrow Head house makes this the "point" of the arrow and slopes the roofline upwards at the corner. There are many other aspects of this house that are different enough from other FLW designs that I feel the window treatment in question a wonderful enhancement, even if derivative. I also have the opinion that the house stands on its own right (wright!) as a prime example of an original design (sans window in question) - how about we talk about the other aspects and accept that RG did the windows in homage to he whom he called "the Master." After all, RG has left us, as have so many other apprentices, so why all this bickering?

Here's the album for Arrow Head House:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/14338634@N ... 225231786/

-- John
"Whether you believe you can do a thing or not, you are right."
-Henry Ford

http://www.modusmodern.com
http://modernseeker.blogspot.com
http://modernwoodworking.blogspot.com

SDR
Posts: 20086
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Note that the Arrowhead cut-out detail is at 45 degrees, while Haynes is a 60 degree design.

SDR

RJH
Posts: 682
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Contact:

Post by RJH »

Good observation. I checked my drawings and Haynes is indeed 60 degrees. Although Haynes is based on a 4’ square module, there are an abundant amount of details in 30, 60 and 120-degree angles (dining table legs, great room mullions, breakfast table…) which also increased the construction costs due to more intricacy.

It was common for Wright to twist two sections of a house together at 45-degree angles. Harper house is one that comes to mind. I see RG copied Wright’s technique as well and did the same:

http://www.modusmodern.com/robertgreen/ ... owblue.jpg

So, perhaps that's why he went with 45 degrees on the triangle in the board.

Despite this, I still insist the perforated pattern is a rip-off from Haynes.

jlesshafft
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 2:56 pm

Post by jlesshafft »

So are we to assume that any design involving triangles and parallelograms is a rip-off of haynes? Shouldn't that properly be a rip-off of FLW's design for haynes? Or are you saying that haynes did the design.

KevinW
Posts: 1287
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 6:41 pm

PERFORATED PANEL

Post by KevinW »

Now this is entertainment! Some should perhaps lighten up a bit. Perhaps these perforated panels are ALL just stylized abstracts of what ever came before. The Rosenbaum House is nearly 20 years before the Hayes, and it has geometric patterned panels with similar geometry, as do others such as Bazett, also much earlier than Hayes. Robert Green did some fine work, and was well thought of by Wright.
One thought though, I wonder if Hayes would have been bothered by the fact his home shared characteristics with other Wright or Wrightian designs as its current owner seems to be.
KevinW

jlesshafft
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 2:56 pm

Post by jlesshafft »

I doubt if anyone would be as bothered.... :D

SDR
Posts: 20086
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Wouldn't you suppose Wright owners would be pleased to be "part of the family". . .?

RJH
Posts: 682
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Contact:

Post by RJH »

MyLiber, It is Haynes and not Hayes. I’ve seen enough Wright designed clearstory panels to know they weren’t “stylized abstracts on what came before.� They were unique themes or fingerprint based on the architectural design of each house. I have been to Rosenbaum in person and don’t recall those panels being anything close to the Haynes panels. I also did a web search for photo confirmation. I know nothing about Bazett and that particular house is unfortunately never really publicized. Wright sent Mr. Haynes to see Anthony prior to building. But that house too has a unique panel. Therefore, I don’t even think Mr. Haynes gave any thought because every one of Wright’s houses were “totally� different. That’s the difference.

If you read the Monographs, you’ll notice BBF constantly states over and over and over again that Wright never repeated himself and that each house and theme was different for each client/site.

Are you Jan? I assume AGG is Aaron Green Assoc..

Deke
Posts: 692
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2006 10:18 am
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Post by Deke »

What's the big deal? There are scores of architects that created Wrightian influenced designs...some quite interesting variations, others rather clunky. Fact is all creative work builds on what came before. Copyright has nothing to do with it as architectural works weren't protected by copyright until 1990.

Deke

KevinW
Posts: 1287
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 6:41 pm

haynes

Post by KevinW »

Yes, Haynes not Hayes, my apologies. No I am not Jan, but we worked together at Aarons office. He is a wonderful person. BBF has done some great things, but tends to be a bit of a blowhard. The panels actually vary from house to house from totally unique to very similar. The Buehler House has similar characteristics to yours, where the Fawcett house panels are quite unique. I like them all, including those from Wrights former apprentices.
I must visit the Haynes house, I am a hoosier by birth and have still have all my family in Northwest Indiana. The inclimate seasons though, have secured my status as a Californian.
Best regards
KevinW

RJH
Posts: 682
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Contact:

Post by RJH »

Aaron Green is my second most favorite architect of all time (behind FLW). I hope you have the chance to experience Haynes.

Post Reply