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.
I was under the impression that Mr Monaghan had sold his Wright possessions; I was clearly ill-informed. One object shown in the article puzzles me: a watercolor rendering of a post-war house I don't recognize at all. Is this the work of Wright and/or his apprentices ? Has anyone seen a (partial) watercolor rendering in the postwar period of Wright's practice ? Does anyone recognize this (unidentified) design ?
Could someone have been pulling Mr Monaghan's leg ?
peterm wrote:I thought the same thing. What is this?
Good question. In some ways the design resembles an adumbrated Christian Residence (Samara) from 1954, but the backward slant of the stone wall at the left is a puzzle. The foliage is fascinating, too ... just interesting enough to want to see more. Too bad the photographer didn't photographs the entire drawing.
PS: I'm not sure of his dates, but the Anthony Gholz mentioned in the story was an apprentice in the 60's or 70's.
There are vertical and horizontal line textures in the drawing/painting; were it not for those I would completely discount it as a Taliesin product. But the style and technique do not match anything I'm familiar with, there.
The building material is not clearly communicated; this is itself another red flag, as I see it. The outward-canted wall is, despite Wrightian echoes, not an element found, as shown, in any Usonian I'm aware of.
SDR wrote:Interesting, isn't it. I wonder, why now ?
There are vertical and horizontal line textures in the drawing/painting; were it not for those I would completely discount it as a Taliesin product. But the style and technique do not match anything I'm familiar with, there.
The building material is not clearly communicated; this is itself another red flag, as I see it. The outward-canted wall is, despite Wrightian echoes, not an element found, as shown, in any Usonian I'm aware of. SDR
The coloured drawing appears to come fairly close the Talbot Smith house for Ann Arbor, Michigan from 1948 (4817), which was to have been constructed with battered stone walls similar to those at Taliesin West.
Unfortunately the only other published drawing, or sketch, I've found looks toward the carport and the end of the living room. This sketch might have been published in Wright: 1943-1959, page 181, because ... it appears to have come exclusively from Mr. Wright's hand.
Well done, Rood -- that must be it -- though openings are in different places on the plan from what we see in the color view. The stonework is rendered in the same way (very large pieces) in this view from the
opposite side. As at Pauson, there are walls battered in and out.
Two different media, possibly by different hands -- but apparently the same house. I imagine if this color rendering had remained at (or been returned to) Taliesin, it might have been included in Taschen . . . ?
Aha. Thanks, jmcnally. This explains the reflections on the colored drawing originally shown -- to start at the end. Now we have two versions of the second view, one in line and one rendered in (presumably) watercolor. A very close examination would show whether one line drawing is a tracing of the other, or a mechanical copy. The latter is doubtful, because of the terrain surface sketched on the black-and-white version of the drawing.
". . . were done by Frank Lloyd Wright . . ." is open to interpretation; I doubt very much that the plan drawing is Wright's work. I wonder how many unfortunate exaggerations are found among the labels in the Dominos exhibition. Mr Hanks is presumably long gone . . .
SDR wrote: I wonder how many unfortunate exaggerations are found among the labels in the Dominos exhibition. Mr Hanks is presumably long gone . . .
Considering the odious pablum he spewed in the book about the collection, justifying why the items were better off with Monahan than in situ, I don't think his presence was of much benefit to history, anyway ...
Docent, Hollyhock House - Hollywood, CA
Humble student of the Master
"Youth is a circumstance you can't do anything about. The trick is to grow up without getting old." - Frank Lloyd Wright
I met Monaghan in 1989, at his last FLW Fest, which he ended because they weren't going the way he wanted them to go. He was a testy one. I doubt he is well-liked by those who have to deal with him on a regular basis.
Heh. Yup. As for how these drawings escaped Taliesin, I'd guess they were sent to Mr Smith, and not returned. (How often have we seen the request, in Wright's or more often in Gene's notes to clients, asking to have the enclosed drawings returned. I suppose they weren't about to send someone to the client's door . . .?)
Interesting ... I have a Mary Gholz who is a member of my Wright Attitude Facebook group, and always seems to know what's going on at Domino Farms ... now I understand why!
Docent, Hollyhock House - Hollywood, CA
Humble student of the Master
"Youth is a circumstance you can't do anything about. The trick is to grow up without getting old." - Frank Lloyd Wright
Now we have two versions of the plan to compare, thanks to jmcnally. (Good thing that photos were permitted at Dominos ? When were those photos taken, JM ?)
Thus, there are three versions of the design, on this page; the color rendering doesn't sport the corner window in the master bedroom that's shown on both plans . . . for instance.
Still no explanation for the form of the chimney mass, which doesn't seem to match what's on the plans.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
