Wright Chat

[jmcnally]

I visited Legoland today, on the grounds of the old Cypress Gardens in Winter Haven, Florida. Each Legoland features an area with famous cities reproduced in Lego bricks. The New York and Florida areas at Miniland in this park include two famous FLW structures: the Guggenheim museum, and the Pfieffer Chapel at Florida Southern College. As "miniatures" these are still a few feet tall - they are not as small as the Lego "architect" series models of Fallingwater, the Guggenheim, or the Robie house.

Enjoy these photos!

[SDR]

The Pfeiffer Chapel model seems a worthy object in terms of representing reasonably the original. The Guggenheim, on the other hand, is unfortunate -- though not as bad, I guess, as the kit (?) currently on sale. Who would have put all that trouble into a representation that cannot hope to be taken seriously -- because the medium is so poorly suited to the form ?



As it happens, an artist named Tibor Kárpáti has contributed drawings to The New Yorker this year, which the magazine uses as "spots" -- incidental illustration sprinkled throughout each edition. These are from the July 25, 2011 issue. If these ten drawings, each apparently composed upon an invisible checkerboard grid, are more successful as art objects than are the Lego building models (which are also composed upon a grid), perhaps a reader will be able to suggest why that is so . . .

[jmcnally]

I guess I'm naive; I had hoped the reaction would be "that's kinda cool."

[Jeff Myers]

I actually think the models are worthy and neat
_________________
JAT
Jeff T

[SpringGreen]

I liked them both. For some reason, I'm particularly impressed with the perforated blocks at the Pfeiffer Chapel.
_________________
"The building as architecture is born out of the heart of man, permanent consort to the ground, comrade to the trees, true reflection of man in the realm of his own spirit." FLLW, "Two Lectures in Architecture: in the Realm of Ideas".

[DamiensGreve]

It's quaint to see your earnestness in thinking that people on this board would not take the opportunity to insult anything that violates their strict rules of what is acceptable in the Wright-universe.

Just remember: any outside entity is evil (including this one, which hosts the chat page for free); everyone who lives or works at the two Taliesins worships Olgivanna (oh, sorry, "Olga"); and nobody but them knows what they're doing.

[SDR]

Thank you, Damiens. To whom is your message addressed ? Perhaps its content would be clearer (to me) if that was made explicit.

It has nothing to do with Wrightiana when I decry the mistake made in the Guggenheim "model" shown above -- except perhaps insofar as Wright's dictum to "[build] in the nature of materials" is so clearly violated in that effort. The resulting defacement of what should have been faultless radiused and sloping planes may not offend every eye -- but the mistake is plain to see, and is fatally distracting, in my estimation. I'm disappointed when the (commendable) impetus to applaud everything that celebrates Mr Wright and his creations blinds us to the less-than-worthy. But -- so be it. I'm sorry to say that I expect Mr Wright's teeth would hurt him if he could see his creation so mutilated . . . !

SDR

[JimM]

my, my...... evil? Regardless, it's great to welcome another opinionated post!

I've had a very slow day, so why not critique a plastic toy model?..... It appears to me that persons/teams with very different levels of skill may have produced each model. The chapel is clearly superior. Although Legos are rectilinear-centric, a talented assembler can do just about anything with them. The top of the Guggenheim ramp actually works well, but as they descend, the ramps look as if they're still "under construction". The disproportionate scale of the cantilever to the rest of the model makes a huge difference in proportion. Of course, it would be nice if the name stretched along the facade, rather than just looking like a sign hanging over the entrance. As a professional effort, it could/should have been much better.

I've only been to LL in California, but from what I remember the quality of the models there was far above that of the GM model shown here. Possibly not an "in house" model?

Thanks for the post!

PS... before they think about doing the model, the Heald House is not Wright...

[jmcnally]

Lego blocks are toys.

[egads]

Not to the serious brick guy. Remember this link from a while ago?

http://www.sj-r.com/top-stories/x995825658/Frank-Lloyd-Wright-rival-City-man-builds-LEGO-version-of-Dana-Thomas-House?photo=0

And this thread about the Unity Temple winning a prize at BrickCon:

http://savewright.org/wright_chat/viewtopic.php?t=5893

Those folks are serious. And I bet one of them could do a decent Guggenheim.

I did see the one at the California Park, and just looked a photos of it online. It does read better from the typical viewers distance.

[SDR]

Lots of unfortunate things are done by serious people ! I'm sorry to be so adamant about this, but:

It is literally impossible to make a reasonable and respectful model of a cylinder -- much less a spiral with canted surfaces -- with rectangular
blocks -- and, I contend, it is therefore a fool's errand to try. What is the point of this exercise, unless it is a commercially-driven effort to display
"the wonders of Lego" or some such ?

If Lego blocks are modified so that such a form can be built with them, then they are no longer Legos -- are they ? (Isn't the point of these
exercises to "make anything and everything out of Legos" ?) But that would be the correct route to go, it seems to me. The special blocks, if
that's what they are, that recreate the lower portion of the FSC model, are indeed impressive.

SDR

[DRN]

SDR wrote: