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.
It is self-evident that the warm tones and solid-wood construction of furniture by the various makers mentioned, would make them at home in Wright's Usonian homes. That said:
I would think that Wright's criticism of Nakashima's work would center on its overt "naturalism" -- the free edge of the table-top, the structural expressiveness, perhaps. But there are enough straight lines in his work to make them at home in Wright's houses, I think.
Sam Maloof's work, and Mr Foley's (from what I can see), would seem to be even further from Wright's aesthetic, with their embrace of curvature -- more Art Nouveau than anything else, by comparison to the geometries of his own furniture pieces ? Organic, perhaps -- but not at all what Wright meant by the term.
Thomas Moser has made clear-finished hardwood furniture -- beginning with chairs -- that might be a bit less willful in its forms, a bit more disciplined, than that of the makers mentioned so far. (Recent years have brought a cornucopia of new designs from the firm, not all of them aesthetic triumphs by any means.)
Perhaps its the variance from Wright's geometries, itself, which makes these others' furniture a good choice; no one would mistake the furniture with Wright's, which is comforting to those who wish to clarify that they haven't introduced pseudo-Wright objects into these historic interiors ? (A secondary benefit would be that only non-orthogonal geometries in seating pieces are capable of providing true comfort to the human form !)
Perhaps it is that, "variance" from Wright's geometric grammar, that makes Nakashima's woodwork fit so well in a Usonian home. The clean simple lines of his furniture seem to be fitting, while that natural edge provides a contrast or relief.
If Mr Wright could stray from his "draftsman's angles" -- 15, 30, 45, 60 degrees -- when it came to stairs and roof pitches, so too did he (sometimes) favor the human form with a sloping chair or couch seat and back. Even he, then, recognized (and increasingly accommodated) the inevitable when it came to the necessities of physical comfort -- while he, always and ever, addressed the visual prerogatives so dear to his heart.
Nakashima's Conoid series dates from 1960, according to this page:
Here are three pieces: