Wright Chat

 
FAQ FAQ Register Register
Search Search Profile Profile
Memberlist Memberlist Log in to check your private messages Log in to check your private messages
Usergroups Usergroups Log in Log in

>> Return to SaveWright Home Page

Spaulding Print Room
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Wright Chat Forum Index -> Click Here for General Discussion Posts
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Meisolus



Joined: 06 Jun 2010
Posts: 102

PostPosted: Sun Mar 25, 2018 3:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I need some help with the hanging pendants. I've come to the conclusion that I shouldn't add any kind of decorative stripe to the glass of the shade, which means that all I need to determine is what would be the decorative elements near the ceiling and just above the shade. I'm really struggling with it though. I think it needs something but I'm not sure what. As I've listed before on page 4 of this thread, I'm looking somewhat at the Heurtley hanging lamp for inspiration. Of course, it isn't helped by the fact that the pendants are drawn differently in each elevation and the perspective.

On some of Wright's pendants, they are hung from four cords instead of one, and those are occasionally decorated near the top or bottom. A great example of this are the famous butterfly lamps in the Dana Thomas dining room. I was thinking that the cord could just be plain and continuous and then split into four near the top and the bottom. I did a very rough approximation of what I'm talking about. Just imagine the white verticals being cords with large balls on them, like the Heurtley light. They would have to be held in place with some kind of square or X-shaped plate.



The problem with this is that I can't find a single example where Wright changed his hanging cords from 1 to 4. I'm open to any and all suggestions. If we can't make it work, there does seem to be an example where the cord is still a single element but with extra decoration on it. I was planning on just adding some of the Heurtley balls to it.

Lastly, there is the problem of whatever it is that hangs down from globe. There is something in all the illustrations, but they all seem to indicate that it's two cords, not one. I don't know what this could be. My current plan is that there will be one hanging cord, with a ball on the end, that would be a pull cord to operate the lamp.

As always, I'd love your collective thoughts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Roderick Grant



Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 8122

PostPosted: Sun Mar 25, 2018 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

As always, simplify. By the time of Spaulding, FLW had set aside his Prairie decorative devices, as well as his planning. He was not likely to use something as elaborate as the Dana light fixtures as a source, although the slightly upturned corners would not be out of bounds. The balled cords, as seen also at Midway, are probably a bit much. Notice that all drawings show pull cords, however. Even that late, wall-mounted light switches were not always used. The lights on the Barnsdall living room furniture had pull chains for the (unexecuted) lights on the posts and the lamps, and toggle switches for the light trays.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meisolus



Joined: 06 Jun 2010
Posts: 102

PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 8:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote





I finished the pendant, and I'm happy with it. The plate that attaches to the ceiling is identical to the one on the sconce. Per Wright's drawings, there was something decorative at the top and bottom of the cord, so I added a few spheres. I think it's in the spirit of the drawings, and is similar to what is shown in the perspective drawing. I realized from looking at the Heath light, that part of what sticks above the shade in that example is actually the connection from the cord to the socket. The shade essentially hangs off of it; I copied it as well as I could. I tried to keep it simple.

Architecturally, I think the room is done. All that is left for me is the prints, before I send it to David for him to work his magic. We've discussed it and have decided we're actually going to do two versions of the room. One will have a limited number of Japanese prints in it, in order to emphasize the architecture. The other will be as if Frank Lloyd Wright was holding a print exhibit in the space. He tended to pack them in, so I'm going to copy the effect as best I can without overwhelming the room. Should be fun!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
SDR



Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 15471
Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Where is the original image that you used for this shade ? I'm not convinced that the corner flares (for want of a better word) are as large as they should
be. I seem to remember them, or see them in the mind's eye, as occupying a slightly or somewhat larger portion of the overall form. As I see it here, if they
were as large as I recall them, there wouldn't be a need for further decoration.

What do you think ? I'm not going to review the rest of the advancements until I've seen an answer to this question.

SDR
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Meisolus



Joined: 06 Jun 2010
Posts: 102

PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 9:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote



If anything SDR, I made the corner flares too big. They were more substantial on the Heath lights - perhaps that's what you were thinking of?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
SDR



Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 15471
Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 9:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mmm -- I guess so. Just shows my taste differs from that of the master -- on occasion . . .

Now to see what else you've done. I'd still opt for less invention on these shades, than more. Just because the digital modeler is able to devise new antenna for
the ladybug, or spots for the butterfly, doesn't mean that he has to . . . !

What we see in Wright, and what your explorations bring out, is that he liked to invent, to explore. Each job was an opportunity to try something new. So, while
it might be "legit" to pick details from other commissions of the same period, it's a toss-up as to what he would have done here, when it isn't recorded.

I therefore agree with Roderick; if your aim is to make it Wright, the less inventing you do the greater the likelihood that you've done no wrong. If, however, your
desire is to create, perhaps historic recreation isn't your field . . . ?

SDR
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Meisolus



Joined: 06 Jun 2010
Posts: 102

PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think if you look at the perspective drawing, on the first page of this thread, you'll see that I followed that drawing pretty closely. In fact, I have fewer little spheres (or whatever they're supposed to actually be) than is shown in that drawing. I tried to keep it simple without being severe.

Also, regarding the size of the globe, it's proportionately similar to the Heath light. I realize it seems small, but I think that's what Wright was going for.


Last edited by Meisolus on Sun Apr 01, 2018 10:16 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
SDR



Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 15471
Location: San Francisco

PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 10:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay -- well, if both the spirit and the letter (where possible) of the original are observed, that's the best that can be done.

S
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Meisolus



Joined: 06 Jun 2010
Posts: 102

PostPosted: Sun Apr 01, 2018 10:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Okay -- well, if both the spirit and the letter (where possible) of the original are observed, that's the best that can be done.


That's always my goal. It's hard not to insert yourself into these things, and it's going to happen from time to time, but hopefully the end result is at least close to what it would have been.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Roderick Grant



Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 8122

PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 12:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The size of the shades, the scale of the corner "upturns" and the few decorative spheres look good to me. Is that a sphere within, or a spherical bulb? There would have been a bare bulb, which was commonplace in those days, and the pull chain would be off to one side; penetrating the bulb would interfere with the vacuum within the bulb that makes it work. The fixture into which the bulb is set would extend down a couple of inches, a mundane, off-the-shelf socket with the pull chain to one side, possibly even draped against the bulb. Perhaps you are too young to have encountered such a fixture? I have one in my closet.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Meisolus



Joined: 06 Jun 2010
Posts: 102

PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 1:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm flattered that you think I'm too young to have encountered one, Roderick. Smile

I debated about what you're saying, but all the sketches show the cord going straight down, so I assumed it's a globe with a smaller bulb inside.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Roderick Grant



Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 8122

PostPosted: Mon Apr 02, 2018 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another thing I have been thinking about is the material of the shades. In all probability, the space between the skylight and the lay light would accommodate electric lights to turn the lay light into a light fixture, as he did at Hollyhock (1919), and as early as Unity Temple ("Unity Temple," Joseph M. Siry, page 173). That would mean that the 4 hanging fixtures would not be needed at all for ambient lighting. Notice in the sections that the hanging fixtures are half way below some of the prints on display, so they would cast disturbing shadows and refracted light on them if the shades were glass. They were apparently intended to be used for prints located on tables and easels. I think FLW may have intended them to be metal, perhaps enameled in white on the underside, and some other color on top. That is not to say it is so, but it's something to think about.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Wright Chat Forum Index -> Click Here for General Discussion Posts All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14
Page 14 of 14

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
Protected by Anti-Spam ACP