Jack Howe Notes?

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.
Matt
Posts: 430
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 11:24 am

Jack Howe Notes?

Post by Matt »

I'm enjoying the book on Jack Howe...only wish there were even more drawings. The book basically states that numerous homes from the late 50s were designed by apprentices, some from unused Wright designs, but others from scratch. It also states that Howe kept meticulous notes on who was working on what when...at least in the 5 years he was with TAA.

Does anyone know if he kept such records for earlier decades? It would be interesting to work up a "provenance" of each Usonian and see which ones were by Wright and which ones were by apprentices (or some combination of both).

SDR
Posts: 19284
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Are you reading Hession and Quigley ?

SDR

SDR
Posts: 19284
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Note 7 of Chapter 4, "After Wright," referring to the statement that Howe kept meticulous notes about drafting room attendance and assignments, says that the John Howe Collected Papers are held by the Wisconsin Historical Society. Thus, they should be available to those who study Howe and matters pertaining to Taliesin, the Fellowship, and TAA.

SDR

Matt
Posts: 430
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 11:24 am

Post by Matt »

Yes, it's a nice book thought I'd have liked more details. I also saw that in the notes and wondered if anyone here might know if those notes in his archive went back before Wright's passing. I'll shoot the archives a question.

DRN
Posts: 3942
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:02 am
Location: Cherry Hill, NJ

Post by DRN »

A few months ago, there was a set of Monographs (6,7,8) for sale on eBay which had been annotated by Howe as to who drew which drawing.

JChoate
Posts: 993
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 4:29 pm
Location: Atlanta
Contact:

Post by JChoate »

here's a thread where we talked about the Howe annotated monographs:

http://wrightchat.savewright.org/viewto ... cafc21e5ef

This post was from a little over a year ago. I wonder what happened to the set.

pharding
Posts: 2253
Joined: Sat Jun 25, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: River Forest, Illinois
Contact:

Re: Jack Howe Notes?

Post by pharding »

Matt wrote:I'm enjoying the book on Jack Howe...only wish there were even more drawings. The book basically states that numerous homes from the late 50s were designed by apprentices, some from unused Wright designs, but others from scratch. It also states that Howe kept meticulous notes on who was working on what when...at least in the 5 years he was with TAA.

Does anyone know if he kept such records for earlier decades? It would be interesting to work up a "provenance" of each Usonian and see which ones were by Wright and which ones were by apprentices (or some combination of both).
They were all by Wright using his ideas, concepts, aesthetic, details, etc. Staff members like every architects office contribute to some degree, but ultimately the Architect was Frank Lloyd Wright.
Paul Harding FAIA Restoration Architect for FLW's 1901 E. Arthur Davenport House, 1941 Lloyd Lewis House, 1952 Glore House | www.harding.com | LinkedIn

Matt
Posts: 430
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 11:24 am

Post by Matt »

Technically, yes, all by Wright. And granted all in Wright's style by people who knew that style well. But the book walks right up to the line of attributing several un-named houses to apprentices. In some cases Wright was too busy with other projects and clients were clamoring for drawings. I wish the book had been more forthcoming as it's a question that deserves to be researched.

SDR
Posts: 19284
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

In his book Curtis Besinger details the inception of the Howard Anthony residence, in the summer of 1949. Jack Howe "was away most of the season; he was supervising the construction of several houses in Michigan and would return to Taliesin on some weekends to have Mr Wright approve supplementary drawings that he had done, such as those for cabinetwork and furniture. He also returned to do the presentation drawings of projects for which Mr Wright had done preliminary sketches."

"On one of his visits to Taliesin Jack suggested that I start a preliminary design for a house in Michigan for Howard Anthony and his wife. They were anxious to get construction started on their house. Mr Wright had not yet done a design for it." Besinger goes on to describe the designs Wright had made for the Maginel Barney cottage and his choice of the 30-60 design as an inspiration. "Jack looked at my plan and suggested a few changes, which I made. When we showed the drawings of this plan to Mr Wright he changed the flat roof over the cooking area and the carport into a pitched roof and made the hipped roof which I had drawn with equal slopes into one with unequal slopes."

This is consistent with other houses designed then, like the Mathews residence in California and a number of others, which have hipped roofs with pitches of 3:12 and 6:12.

"After the Anthonys had approved the design for their house (they first asked for a few changes) I started on the working drawing by myself. They were nearly complete when one afternoon Gene told me that the Anthonys were coming the next day to pick up prints of the drawings. Apparently they had been promised completed ones by that date. Davy Davidson, who was working in the drafting room at the time, volunteered to help me finish the drawings that night. They were complete the next morning, after Davy and I worked on them all night. Mr Wright signed them without further changes."

According to this account, it was Jack who got this design started, trusting the design to Besinger and making a few changes before Mr Wright saw the plan; he changed only the roof forms and ultimately signed the drawings without further modifications. And this was at the beginning of the decade, not at its zenith.

SDR

SDR
Posts: 19284
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Image Barney


Image Anthony

Is it possible that the wing is drawn at a slight angle to the main body because of the tree ? The effect is not due to photographic distortion . . .
If Besinger had originally made his kitchen roof flat, that would not be in the Usonian tradition for pitched-roof residences.


Image


Image

Balthazar Korab photo


In both the Barney and Anthony plans the master bedroom is located in the narrow prow of the plan, separated by a C-shaped partition and accordion screens. The unqual-pitch roof is confined to the bedroom/laboratory wing.

SDR

JChoate
Posts: 993
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 4:29 pm
Location: Atlanta
Contact:

Post by JChoate »

Regarding the Howe annotated Monographs, I really hope that someone somewhere brought them to Columbia's attention last year and that they spent the $9 - 10K to obtain them all for the archives they now hold. That price tag would be a stiff one for mere mortals like us, but probably just a rounding error out of petty cash for Columbia.

What an apt acquisition that would be in the 150th birthday year -- the year when Columbia became the archive's new home.

SDR
Posts: 19284
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

We won't know, I suppose, until the new owner reveals the fact by publishing in some form (we can dream -- actual new information about the life and work of the Taliesin studio !) or at least the appearance of the set on some institution's accessions list -- hopefully, I add, a collection available to scholars.

SDR

[Notice how I attempted a correct use of "hopefully," there ? Ed.]

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

There are those who would say that there is no correct use of the word hopefully.

SDR
Posts: 19284
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

"It is to be hoped that . . ." is what most users intend, these days; it's a bit disappointing that this online dictionary entry seems to accept that usage. "In a hopeful manner" would be the orthodox meaning.

hope·ful·ly
ˈh�pfəlē/
adverb
1.
in a hopeful manner.
"he rode on hopefully"
synonyms: optimistically, full of hope, confidently, buoyantly, sanguinely; expectantly
"he rode on hopefully"
2.
it is to be hoped that.
"hopefully, it should be finished by next year"
synonyms: if all goes well, God willing, with luck, with any luck; More

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10119
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

Online references are less discriminating than the old-fashioned Webster Dictionary of the English Language. Many words are allowed to creep into the language simply by persistent misuse. Such a misuse is 'dove' with a long 'o' as the past tense of dive. In the 1956 Webster, it is prefaced with 'Colloq.' By 1975, Webster had given up on that one, and included it without comment.

While in the classic 1956 Webster, the adverbial form of hopeful is not listed, in the 1975 edition of Doubleday and 1991 edition of The American Heritage Dictionary it is included with this caveat:

"The use of hopefully to mean "it is to be hoped," as in "hopefully we will get there before dark," is grammatically justified by the analogy to the similar uses of happily and mercifully. However, this usage is by now such a bugbear to traditionalists that it is best avoided on the grounds of civility, if not logic."

A similar note is appended to the commonly misused definition of parameter, but is more adamant that it is not acceptable.

On the freewheeling, often amateurish and misinformed, Internet, anything goes. Wikipedia even refers to Frank Lincoln Wright without comment.

Post Reply