Page 1 of 97

Sure, we can call anything "Frank Lloyd Wright"

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 5:59 pm
by DavidC
This thread is purely for entertainment purposes only. In it, we can post links to the myriad of objects - big and small - that are given the "Frank Lloyd Wright" label - no matter how far removed from reality or how absurd and tenuous it may be.

Let me start out the fun with this current one from eBay:

VINTAGE FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT STYLE METAL MAILBOX


David

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 6:27 pm
by Rood
I like anything from Ms. Jeannie Ology's Frick and Frack Scraps collection, especially the Prairie Style Table Centerpiece (to see it ... please scroll down).

http://msjeannieology.wordpress.com/tag ... yd-wright/

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 6:32 pm
by KevinW
Then there is the "Urban Usonian"...because of course....it has an orange floor.
http://www.dwell.com/articles/Urban-Usonian.html

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 6:50 pm
by m.perrino
the examples are already, 'too much'. Bringing laughter to a dreary day. Shouldn't the FLWFDN or the Archives be contacting these people regarding the usage of the name Frank Lloyd Wright ? After all, it is al licensed trademark. Or is it legal to infer 'kind of like FLW, sort of like FLW, we want you to think it's like FLW"......???

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 7:26 pm
by victoriad
This has been driving me crazy for months:

http://boston.curbed.com/archives/2012/ ... 1k-off.php

Posted: Tue Jun 26, 2012 9:23 pm
by jmcnally
I really did LOL at the mailbox

Posted: Wed Jun 27, 2012 6:28 am
by DavidC
And, of course, the never-ending parade of "Frank Lloyd Wright-style" homes:

Frank Lloyd Wright style Contemporary Home - [3:02]

Frank Lloyd Wright Inspired Gated Estate - [4:47]


David

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:12 am
by Paul Ringstrom
not very Wrightian, but a nice prairie-style house...


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 70.html#/1

Re: Sure, we can call anything "Frank Lloyd Wright"

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 10:59 pm
by John
DavidC wrote:This thread is purely for entertainment purposes only. In it, we can post links to the myriad of objects - big and small - that are given the "Frank Lloyd Wright" label - no matter how far removed from reality or how absurd and tenuous it may be.

Let me start out the fun with this current one from eBay:

VINTAGE FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT STYLE METAL MAILBOX


David
Of course, is anyone outraged at the myriad of "tchotchkes" put out by Wright-affiliated organizations?! They are sanctioned, but Wright didn't design any of them!

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 11:08 pm
by peterm
It doesn't outrage me, but at the same time, it certainly doesn't seem to serve the cause of architecture or the interests of the Wright community when a great artist's work can become confused with horrible kitsch.

Are there Picasso, Duchamp, Stravinsky, or Le Corbusier tchotchkes?

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 9:19 am
by Reidy
Just about any museum shop sells Picasso tchotchkes. The Carpenter Center at Harvard has (or once had) a "Cafe Corbu" whose merchandise wouldn't quite qualify as tchotchkes. I once heard a disco version of The Firebird.

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 9:45 am
by peterm
You might be right, but nothing that i have seen in a museum shop rivals the seemingly endless assortment of poorly designed Wright related objects available for sale.

In the case of Picasso, one sees mostly books, posters and maybe some t shirts, not frosted tumblers.

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 10:55 am
by Wrightgeek
peterm-

If you want examples of art/artists that have been turned into all manner of tchotchkes and kitsch to the extreme, consider DaVinci's "Mona Lisa", Munch's "The Scream", Hopper's "Nighthawks", and possibly the most egregious of all, Wood's "American Gothic".

Come to think of it, in the realm of sculpture, Rodin's "The Thinker" and Michelangelo's "David" have been exploited savagely as well.

When you consider these examples, maybe FLW has not been treated so poorly by comparison?

tchotchkes

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:03 am
by John
Wrightgeek wrote:peterm-

If you want examples of art/artists that have been turned into all manner of tchotchkes and kitsch to the extreme, consider DaVinci's "Mona Lisa", Munch's "The Scream", Hopper's "Nighthawks", and possibly the most egregious of all, Wood's "American Gothic".

Come to think of it, in the realm of sculpture, Rodin's "The Thinker" and Michelangelo's "David" have been exploited savagely as well.

When you consider these examples, maybe FLW has not been treated so poorly by comparison?
But was the exploitation done by their own people?
I don't believe many museums sell copies of "American Gothic" with Bill and Hillary in it. Others do.
I'm not sure that selling copies of a work of art is the same thing as taking parts of a work of art and turning it into earrings.

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:20 am
by Wrightgeek