Model of Taliesin 1

To control SPAM, you must now be a registered user to post to this Message Board.

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.
JimM
Posts: 1551
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 5:44 pm
Location: Austin,Texas

Post by JimM »

Agreed, Roderick.

SDR
Posts: 19603
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Oh, I'd like to see that first. Just as Wright and many another designer gets his juices flowing, and his pencil sharpened, when confronted with a
"minimal" job---one with not an ounce of fat, in the budget and on the sheet---I imagine from your description that this is what you're after, in this
case ?

S

JimM
Posts: 1551
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 5:44 pm
Location: Austin,Texas

Post by JimM »

Exactly... a final flight of fantasy resulting from a (probably too) lengthy flirtation with what I consider to be a perfect house.... lower level windows notwithstanding-or to be included!

juankbedoya
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:30 am

Post by juankbedoya »

Nice job..!! Could you share us the plans of Taliesin I please..!!

SDR
Posts: 19603
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Image

. . . . . As reproduced in "Wright Studies, Volume One -- Taliesin 1911-1914," Narciso G Menocal, ed., Copyright © 1992, Southern Illinois University. Drawing © The Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation

juankbedoya
Posts: 169
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:30 am

Post by juankbedoya »

AMAZING I FALL IN LOVE WHEN I SEE THIS..!!

By the way here is a beautiful video of a recreation of Taliesin I ( sometimes I look it even better and more beautiful than taliesin III)

https://vimeo.com/279915855

JimM
Posts: 1551
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 5:44 pm
Location: Austin,Texas

Post by JimM »

Thanks so much for posting this! We had information on this collaboration with Taliesin Preservation a year or so ago. Since then I've been checking back hoping to see the promised video on the SkylineInk site. For some reason they still only have a still photo and not the video (?). I never thought to Google Vimeo...

Regardless, even what little of the video they let out at the time was very informative, and a special thanks to TP. To see this now is indeed a treat. Although certain aspects may not be completely accurate, with their abilities I wish they had depicted the "stick-out" masonry more faithfully. I also feel that since Wright's own descriptions of Taliesin are fairly specific, and with TP involvement, a color rendition would have been preferable (although I do respect their "period appropriate" black and white decision for all those nebulous historic restoration justifications!). Thanks again for posting.

There's really no reason, actually impossible, to "compare" T1, 2, & 3 as individual entities. Still, as originally conceived and executed the beauty and originality of T1 was on a level all its own, IMO. The extensive laboratory and campus it became is not as cohesive versus the simplicity of T1... all things considered, the heart of Taliesin has always been the living room, and arguably the one place the original spirit has remained throughout its evolution.

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10292
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

The simplicity of T-I gives it the cohesion that the vast, rambling T-III lacks; it is more residence and less 'corporate campus.'

As the living room is the heart of the interiors, the tower is the exclamation point of the exterior which has not been changed too much.
On the other hand, the studio of T-III - a magical space in its own right - is superior to T-I.

The video, with the minor exception of the stonework, is a marvelous thing! One thing about computer videos is that they can be altered.
A color version could be made, and cleaning up the stones would not be too difficult, would it?

JimM
Posts: 1551
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 5:44 pm
Location: Austin,Texas

Post by JimM »

Certainly agree about the tower, Roderick. However, the ill-conceived (IMO) plastered addition over the dovecots eliminated the soaring nature of the upper tower eave. Other changes around it have also lessened the originally intended effect. At the time it made a stronger statement with reference to the whole. I see the studio issue a bit different. They are both appropriate in context and in that respect T1 & T3 are very different buildings and, to me, neither superior or inferior one way or the other... but I know what you mean!

"Stick-outs" are surely not in any material library to simply select, and I have no idea how difficult it would be to replicate them. It is interesting isn't it, that such known differences are acceptable for re-creation while including colorization is not. The stone can be seen there today. Wright made it a point to mention color in an almost rhapsodic manner in "An Autobiography", and that alone would seem to make it an important element to include.
There I go nitpicking again!

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10292
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

I agree, Jim, the loss of the dovecote is unfortunate, but I believe the most important view of the tower was intended to be, and is, from the court.
The elimination may also have had something to do with what accrues when one gives succor to doves.

I also agree that the use of the early and late studios was different, calling for different resolutions.
However, the early version is more straightforward and less of an architectural event than that spectacular room that stands there now.
To me, the studio vies with the living room.

SDR
Posts: 19603
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Skyline Ink probably feel that they did a credible job with the Taliesin stonework. One's first impression is that there are too many "stick-outs" of
the same thickness; looking carefully at available photos does show a predominance of thick projecting stones. Comparing a favorite Feurmann
photo with a similar still from the video does in fact show an attempt at stone-for-stone replication of the wall in the foreground. The chimney behind,
on the other hand, does not really replicate the actual stonework. Instead, it reveals a too-regular underlying coursing.

As for modification by the illustrators who made the film, I wouldn't say that was an easy fix. Note that each surface was treated individually; there is
no impression of repeated use of a "master panel" on the various stone walls. Modification would be at best a tedious exercise---unfortunately.

Another slip is the treatment of the roof edge. Rather than Wright's projecting thin edge of shingle, the modelers have substituted a thick edge.
Compare to Jim's model, where the beveled molding immediately below the shingles is recessed (and in shadow, where it eluded most photographers.)

Three bells are shown hanging beneath one of the roofs of the folly. These don't appear in most photos of the house---perhaps because the usual
photographic viewpoints are too low ? I assume these are not a latter-day invention ?


Image
© 2011 by Skyline Ink Animation Studios


Image
Photo by Henry Feurmann, as found in Menocal, "Wright Studies"
Last edited by SDR on Wed Dec 11, 2019 2:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10292
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

The trouble with the stonework is not sticking in or out, but the quality of the surface finish, which seem, in the video, a bit glossy.

SDR
Posts: 19603
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Ah--yes, that it is. I don't know if that is an easy fix; David Romero could tell us ?

Here are two more comparisons between early photos and the digital model animation.


Image
© 2011 by Skyline Ink Animation Studios

Image
Taylor Woolley c. 1912





Image
© 2011 by Skyline Ink Animation Studios

Image

. . . Taylor Woolley, as found in Ron McCrea, "Building Taliesin"

JimM
Posts: 1551
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 5:44 pm
Location: Austin,Texas

Post by JimM »

Stephen, yea... I'd like to know how they go about modeling things like that masonry. With no criticism intended, other than the stick-outs I would only say there's somewhat of a regularity to the size and coursing of the stones. As shown in various photos there was/is a range of sizes-and even more so in the studio fireplace-which I think would have alleviated what seems to make the differences most obvious.

One other thing I noticed... no doubt your "favorite Fuermann" was used during modeling and although it's a "pick your plan" type of thing with T1, have to wonder if the representation of the terrace wall masonry as a solid mass in the video was intentional or not. Although not shown on early plans, did you notice the second lower wall in the foreground of the photo concealing steps from the hillside to the terrace? I assume the steps would have been in place at the same time as both the living room/kitchen roof array and the windows added at the upper tower; both shown in the video (and that photo along with others taken at the same shoot. Date of photo: Mid-1912, Pub.: Jan. 1913).

SDR
Posts: 19603
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

In the first Skyline still on this page, the living-room chimney (just imagine ordering a stone chimney like that one for your own first mature residence)
seems to show some panelization of the stone motif; there are four vertical lines that are just too identical to dismiss as accidental. It may be that this
piece---though not very obviously many others---was indeed begun with a repeated "tile," which was then customized across the field ?

S

Post Reply