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.
Back to our subject.
I do find it interesting that the TaliesinIII chair can be flat or angled seat front, solid or curved arms, and angled or flat cut struts.
I guess different houses, different cuts.
This seems an easily-missed point -- especially as, when an arc or circle is rendered in perspective it of course takes an elliptical form. I believe Wright's drafters have a somewhat spotty record when it comes to drawing such ellipses. But in this case, the plan view of our chair shows what must be an arc in plan. It is carelessly drawn -- but not as unconvincingly as the curve in the drawing you refer to (see below).
I've about concluded that this drawing is the work of Lloyd Wright -- mainly because the foliage in all the ASBH drawings looks like his, and the plant material at the top center of the C3 drawing is an especially sweet example. And, as I've said, I believe the C3 drawing was hurried, as evidenced by wonky perspective work and careless inking.
(Another anomaly in the original drawing, which suggests to me that the chair was an undeveloped concept, is that the position of the rear legs is impossible if they are intended to travel all the way to the top of the chair -- as they appear from the outside to do. The problem is illustrated by the leg terminations I've added to the drawing below.)
But there's one interesting detail in this drawing that deserves mention. After constructing a (dashed) line on the floor, emanating from the left-hand vanishing point, I found that the legs of the table didn't align correctly with it (E). Looking further, the shadows thrown by the table top arrive at different altitudes on the two near-side legs (F, G) -- another anomaly. A single feature of design would neatly explain both "errors": if the legs were located at different places relative to the edge of the table top. For some reason, the table seems to have been designed to be asymmetrical; not only are the pairs of legs at different centers, but the panels between leg pairs seem to differ as well, with spindles at one end and a plain panel at the other.
What do you think ?
A member of the board has asked that we go no further in describing the process of (re)design of the chair, but let it suffice to say that it wasn't difficult to make this sketch into a Wrightian reality -- once the fact of a semicircular plan element was accepted. It sounds like you're indicating a solution somewhat like that found in the Little chair seen on the first page of the thread ? If so, what are we to make of the clear indication of patterned upholstery seen inside the chair in the drawing, and what about the flat-plate top with its circular shape, which could not by definition help but overhang the semi-octagonal row of spindles it rests upon ?
It's always of interest to see what different Wrightians will see in any individual project . . . which is perhaps the real point of this topic, strictures or not !
I would also add that I think this project is not a very good idea. Furniture fabricated from a design sketch which may or may not have been done by Lloyd? Seems like more of a fantasy to me.