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 seat cushion could be either a loose one or an attached upholstered panel, while the inside upholstery might best be a thin foam or batting covered with fabric. Fabric is featured prominently in this project, with scarves decorating both the table and the chair, while patterned cloth portieres are shown at the doorways and carpets with randomized patterning drawn for the floors.
There is a world of difference between copying an existing piece of furniture, and attempting to create a chair from a poorly drafted, inaccurate, interior perspective, and a small scale plan.
It has proved difficult enough to recreate the Origami chairs, despite the fact that whilst the dimensions of the individual elements have been published, the angles of the cuts are often a matter of trial and error.
Folk touring the American System B1 house expect to see a building designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, faithfully restored. Do they really want to see a piece of furniture, never previously constructed, the provenance of the drawings of which is indeterminate, and some of the details a matter of conjecture?
If constructed, surely this chair would have to bear a label describing the above mentioned factors, and that being the case, what is the point of fabricating it?
There would appear to be a measure of desperation with regard to this project.
It is analogous to the situation in Edinburgh, Scotland, where the battle axe of Robert the Bruce is on display. Since it was last used in the early 14th century, it is attributed to have had 4 new heads and 3 new handles!
I think this is worth exploring with the FLW Foundation.jhealy wrote:Are there more complete/detailed architectural plans for the Stephen M.B. Hunt II residence in Oshkosh, WI. If there are such plans, would those perhaps include a chair for the dining table?
Just a thought.
To date, defense of this proposal, and reaction to this valid criticism, has been non-existent. Moreover, there has been neither reference to measures relating to the forestalling of the possibility of the breach of copyright legislation, nor to the provision of a suitable explanation for visitors to the American System B1 house, should this unfortunate proposal be realized. Contributions to most threads on this forum are continued until the subject is virtually exhausted, but it would appear that the proponents of this proposal have taken shelter. Why is this?
Roderick Grant makes the salient point that Frank Lloyd Wright did not persist with, or pursue, this design. That is a possible reason why the details are so scant. Its presence on the perspective was notional only.
Should this proposal proceed, may I suggest that a label be affixed to the chair, bearing the following text:
â€˜This chair is the result of a collaboration between two highly talented cabinet makers, one of whom is also known as a gifted designer. The latter, working primarily from a inaccurate, interior perspective drawing, having no shown dimensions and a paucity of detail, produced this design. Fabrication, by the former. is to the highest possible standard. Despite the best intentions, the concept was ill conceived, and later in life both artists regretted their involvement.â€™
If the intent was to show the chair as original to the house then yes, what is the point? I would however, venture to say that the chair would be a worthwhile exhibit if it was simply shown as, "based on a drawing by FLW". If you included documentation on its design and construction; I think it would be a very interesting piece.
I am certain that there will be no attempt to fool anyone as to the history of the design, the drawing, or the creation of the object itself.
Knowing firsthand the character and integrity of both Stephen and Stafford, there are several things of which I am confident. The scholarship will be there. The craftsmanship will be there. The history and decision making process will be transparent.
A copy of the original sketches should be made available to the viewer, along with a detailed explanation of the processes of interpreting the drawings and building of the chair.
Date of Design: Prior to 1 Dec. 1990
Date of Construction: Not constructed by 31 Dec. 2002
Copyright Status: Protected only as plans or drawings
Works Registered or First Published in the U.S.
Date of Publication: Before 1923
Copyright Term: None. In the public domain due to copyright expiration
This chair would seem to fall under what is called a "derivative work."
In the United States, the Copyright Act defines "derivative work" in 17 U.S.C. Â§ 101:
A â€œderivative workâ€� is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a â€œderivative workâ€�. source: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ41.pdf