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.
The last two issues of the Taliesin Fellows newsletter lists "all" those who "apprenticed" at the Taliesins from 1932 to present. The list is as complete as that has been attempted before, but obviously will change frequently, as info presents itself. The list includes name, and year(s) in the fellowship.
You ask the average age, well, that would be difficult. Those living who actually apprenticed until 1959, well, those numbers are dwindling every year. In Northern California, there are numerous, and many still practicing Architecture, ages range from mid 80's to perhaps mid 70's.
Remember that not all who joined the fellowship were interested in becoming Architects. While Architecture was the main interest, it was a center for those interested in the "allied arts". Many former apprentices are in fact not Architects, some I know here are successful printers, teachers, artists, sculpters, consultants, etc....
None of these fascinating people I have had the good fortune to know could ever be considered "useless".
Each year we lose someone who has priceless information about their time with Wright. The stories these people have to tell are not as * as the stories we get from the axe grinders.
We have always been ambivalent towards minorities and their place in our society, welcoming "huddled masses" yet exhibiting violent hatred at times. Blacks, Chinese, Jews, Irish (and my Scot great grandfather) have all at one time or another been treated as outcasts or subject to blatant racism. We've been very democratic, discriminating against them all.
To keep this relevant to the board, Frank had more of a benign ignorance rather than a hateful soul, and I think it's a stretch to say he was what would today be considered racist. There are just as many references to his humanity towards those who he would appear to have had prejudices against.
myLiebermeisterAGG wrote: My main point being, those who approached the Wrights on their own terms gained much more from the Taliesin experience than those who were and still are simple followers. Jim, I believed we have discussed this very topic in regard to Aaron Green before.
Yes, but I see this a little different. Approaching the Wrights on ones own terms required a certain personality and character makeup. Those who "didn't work out", at least to me, seemed to have had a much stronger constitution and self esteem that could never flourish in such a restrictive environment. Of course, this was not always the case.
No argument on the subjective issue of accomplishment, but as you know, I fail to see the "accomplishments" of many who remained. I'm sure in their minds and hearts they benefited greatly; who could not benefit from Frank's genius? Those who left also did so on their own terms independent of later success or "failure". Imagine the strength it must have taken to "leave the fold". So who gained more than who? Once Frank died it was moot anyway. Lacking a purpose, the Fellowship willingly morphed into a complete culture of Olga.
We have to remember that Frank was always the draw, before, during and after Olga. It was natural that as Frank deteriorated, Olga's messianic personality would relentlessly fill the void. In my opinion, she ultimately did more harm than good-and I maintain that Frank was well aware of it towards the end.
BTW, myLieb, I finally took the time to enjoy your photos on the other site. Was that woman in the small picture across the board from Frank you? If not, I beg your pardon "Mr." myLiebermeisterAGG!
That is to say, can anybody say whether or how Olgivanna influenced the most important aspect of FLW's legacy -- the architecture?
Not being as steeped in Wrightiana as most of the other posters, I can only draw on one relevant story: the Burns series' account of how FLW didn't want to build Johnson Administration in the dodgy industrial area of Racine, but Olgivanna (apparently sick of being house-poor) said something like, "Build what they want, Frank, or you'll lose the job."
If true, then maybe Olgivanna deserves credit for at least one thing. Now, if this book can show how she ruined or quashed other projects, it might be worth reading.
Here are a few insights into this gossipy, bitchy, sensationalistic volume. Philip Johnson was in love with the young * Jack Howe. This account can be read in chapter 19, The * Clubs. Mrs. Wright in her blind declining years would enjoy being read to in her room, her favorite being * erotica...and a final little tidbit, Gene masselinks brother Ben fondly remembers all the guys wanted to"f**k Mrs. Wright.
It is clear the what the authors focus is, *, religion, Gurdjieff, Olga and Iovanna, drugs, alcohol, *. Architecture....not so much.
pharding wrote: her business acumen saved FLW so that he could practice architecture
Then who was responsible for all of the pre-Fellowship architecture? Does her business savvy account for the condition she left the Fellowship in? Yes, Olga was probably a whip at an opportune time, but Frank never let reality, his finances, or anything else interfere with his drive to create and innovate; regardless of his personal situation. What was his first thought after the human tragedy of the first fire? To rebuild!
Some view some of his architecture and the times of the twenties to early thirties as a listless and lethargic era waiting for "someone" to snap him out of it. In fact, Olga (and Mariam Noel before her) factored into many of the problems in those years. Rather, I feel it was just a natural prediliction to allow himself to "suffer" himself, swelling from a combination of the Taliesin disaster, demands of the Imperial an ocean away, his real "job" at the time as print merchant, then the market crash, etc... life is cyclicle.
Olga helped invigorate him to develop the Fellowship, but it was originally intended as an extension of a collaborative lifestyle he had experienced for years, except he would now be paid for it, undoubtedly a prime element. Even if that was Olga's idea, I fail to see any direct connection to her (or anyone else for that matter) that accounts for his creative art. Olga was not Frank's Rove.
It is pointless to consider "what if's". His architecture, to me, has proven to have always transcended his relationships and there is every reason to believe he would have created brilliant architecture with or without Olga and/or the Fellowship. His work prior to them is evidence enough for me.
As far as that book goes, I'm not going to prejudge the authors until I learn more about them, but have no reason to have a rote negative reaction without reading it. Why are people so quick to suspect the veracity of these stories? We all have skeletons in our closets, but we'll see. If the narrative is accurate, prurient or not, it is a part of the legacy and I look forward to learning more. Perhaps the dead have actually been respected by delaying "sordid" reality.
Frank had to make his peace with Olga due to old age. I hope the book sheds some light on what I have always thought to be his understandable dissatisfaction with what was becoming "Olga's Fellowship long before his demise.
I was looking forward to this book, but if this is the kind of inaccurate info in there, I have my doubts right off the bat. Perhaps the book was misquted by the person who wrote the post.
As for Mr Harding's comments re: Olga: Olga was very unconventional, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if she wanted to read * erotica. Also, when you see or read many of the interviews of the apprentices, a lot of them remarked how beautiful Olga was in her time, and this would fall into the proper timeline in the creation of the Fellowship. All the guys lusting after her wouldn't surprise me.
The boys of the Fellowship were exhibiting behavior not all that different from today's college boys. I know, I used to be one.
I just really dont see the point, even if accurate, of "outting" Jack and some others in this way.
* In Patagonia 1977
* The Viceroy of Ouidah 1980
* On The Black Hill 1982
* The Songlines 1987
* Utz 1988
* What Am I Doing Here? 1989
* Photographs and Notebooks 1993
* Anatomy of Restlessness 1997
* Winding Paths 1998
Initially his illness and death were attributed to Denghy Fever, but the family knew the "awful truth"; he had * with too many * men, and had contracted HIV, leading to full blown AIDS some years later.
His was a somewhat scandalous life, but the details were hidden from public view until well after his death. The family (not my side by the way, we'd rather the truth came out) fought tooth and nail to prevent an unauthorized biography from being released, and even went so far as to commission the "authorized" version to try and defuse the unofficial one somewhat.
The simple fact of the matter is that the unofficial book is 99% correct in everything it says about Bruce: all his personal failings, illegal smuggling activities while he worked for Sothebys, his flagrant *, his many affairs, his eccentric behaviour, and his questionable morals.
I say this because, it is quite likely that the contents of this new book are the truth - or at least, a version of the truth which details previously unknown facts. Whether the truth is dealt his honestly, or some mischevious treatment of the truth is the question. Factual errors are usually exposed rapidly, by supporters, so it would seem unlikely that the facts will be wrong. The interpretation of the facts is what counts, and how gently people deal with the data.
Do not dismiss information just because it upsets you to hear it, or because it runs against your beliefs about FLW.
*Plotting to take over the world since 1965
myLiebermeisterAGG wrote:The chance meeting of Olga and Frank in the high priced box seat at the theater seems to have all been orchestrated by the Gurdjieffians.
Now that is interesting. Not a cosmic collision, fate or inevitability? Talk about kidding the kidder!