Wright and Copyright

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.
Post Reply
Matt2
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2018 1:07 pm

Wright and Copyright

Post by Matt2 »

So we're getting another batch of public domain material on Wed. Everything from 1924 will be fair game. Does this mean all Wright drawing/writings etc from pre-1924 will be fair game (if they aren't already)?

SDR
Posts: 18695
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

The two volumes of the A.D.A EDITA Wright monographs 1-8 that cover 1914 to 1936 are among the slenderest of the set---and include more years of work than any other two consecutive volumes, with three to spare.

1924's output, per B B Pfeiffer et alia, c. 1985:

1. Project: National Life Insurance Company Office Building for A. M. Johnson, Chicago, Illinois
2. Project: Automobile Objective and Planetarium for Gordon Strong, Sugarloaf Mountain, Maryland
3. Project: Phi Gamma Delta Fraternity House, Madison, Wisconsin
4. Project: House for Mrs Samuel William Gladney, Fort Worth, Texas
5. Project: Nakoma Country Club, Madison, Wisconsin
6. Project: Nakoma Sculpture Basin, Madison, Wisconsin


This is, in fact, a choice group of projects. The last and perhaps least familiar of them is illustrated in one version in Monograph 5, p 21, while a different view of a companion design appears in Taschen II, p 158. Both
birds-eye view drawings are published in full color. They show a pair of shallow pools, round or hexagonal, each containing a human figure, placed at an intersection in the approach to the country club.

It should be noted that Alofsin, "The Lost Years" (p 293) gives a date of "around 1926" for this "Memorial Gateway" project, and shows a photo of Mr Wright's designs, modeled in the round, for the proposed figures to
be placed in the pools, facing each other across the divide. They were to be limestone erections 16 and 18 feet high, of Nakoma and her companion Nakomis (an "Indian" warrior).

S

Roderick Grant
Posts: 9810
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

I believe Nakoma and Nakomis as they were executed for Johnson Wax appear in another thread somewhere here.

National Life Insurance Company Office Building would have, if erected, advanced design by 30 years. Biggest loss of FLW's career.

DavidC
Posts: 7333
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:22 pm
Location: Oak Ridge, TN

Post by DavidC »


SDR
Posts: 18695
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »


Reidy
Posts: 1564
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:30 pm
Location: Fremont CA

Post by Reidy »

Three Quarters of a Century of Drawings, which wants to be a complete list of buildings and projects, puts the frat house in 1925. This is in the catalog at the back of the book; the captions in the main body say 1924.

Matt2
Posts: 193
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2018 1:07 pm

Post by Matt2 »

The key here is what was published prior to 1924. Things like the Warmth portfolio have been PD for a long time. I'm not sure Wright published much in 1924 that would now be fair game.

SDR
Posts: 18695
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

"Three Quarters ..." was not intended to be a "complete works" (as the Monographs might have been, and as the Taschen volumes are subtitled). It is
described in the introduction to the 1976-1981 publication, in the Introduction by Izzo and Gubitosi, as "the third presentation of Wright's work after the
1910 exhibition in Berlin and the 1951 exhibition in Florence" (omitting several other exhibitions of the work, in New York and elsewhere ?). Further: "It
was not meant to offer a complete anthology of Wright's work, but to present its development and historical evolution."

Numerous projects (I routinely use the term expansively, to indicate both built and unbuilt work) in the various standard sources are given multiple and
varying dates. Some scholars date a work to its earliest recording on paper---a practice which Mr Wright himself would on occasion push to an unprec-
edented degree---while others are satisfied by a dating which represents the mature work, ready to be built. Who is to say which, if either, is the correct
protocol; has the SAH or another entity published a guideline on the matter ?

S

Reidy
Posts: 1564
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:30 pm
Location: Fremont CA

Post by Reidy »

The selection of drawings in 3/4 wasn't supposed to be complete, but apparently the catalog at back was.

I thought the standard practice was to date a design to the client's signoff on the drawings. That wouldn't tell historians what to do if the client never got around to it.

SDR
Posts: 18695
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

I believe I read Pfeiffer's explanation for the dating of projects. That explanation doesn't appear in the first two volumes of the Monographs---at least.

Storrer has his own determination of project dates, the rationale for which appears somewhere in the "Companion." I'll find and copy it . . .

S

SDR
Posts: 18695
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

William Allin Storrer, in describing the heading given each entry (Preface to "The Frank Lloyd Wright Companion" [1993, p xii]), mentions the Taliesin
number ("the first two digits of which identify the year the first plan was drawn for the project") and his own dating, thus: "the date the project first took a
form fully identifiable in the final built work". . .

So, right there we have both Bruce Brooks Pfeiffer's dating of the work (or John Howe's; Storrer credits both men as providing documentation) as well as
Storrer's own take on the issue ?

Then, at the end of each Monograph volume, Pfeiffer posts this note:

Image

And we have seen that the two-digit suffix to the file numbers as published in the '80s, in the Monographs, have grown to three-digit suffixes by the
time of the Taschen volumes of 2009, as the (published ?) sheets for certain projects grew past 99 in number. . .

S

Roderick Grant
Posts: 9810
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

I gave up on dates. I found Northome dated from 1908 through 1914, and decided it was hopeless. As it turns out, the 1908 date refers to the first unbuilt plan for the Minnetonka house. Even Monographs and Taschen don't agree on the year, Mono 1912, Tasch 1913.

Tomek was listed as 1907 for years, even in Mono 4/30-37, which was published in 1987, after owner Maya Moran had found a photograph of the house in a magazine ad from 1905. Taschen gives the 1905 date, but, considering that the house would probably not have reached the stage of being used for advertisement so quickly after being built, it could be even older.

I will take a shot at the correct decade, but won't bother being any more accurate.

SDR
Posts: 18695
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

The chronological listing of work found at the back of "Three Quarters of a Century of Drawings" (1976-81) begins with this:

Image


The very first date given, that of Wright's birth, is false; perhaps this is the last time the year 1869 would appear in print ?

Did Mrs Wright's loyalty to her husband extend to carrying forth this vanity (or, honest error) indefinitely ?


Projects listed in "Three Quarters of a Century of Drawings" versus those found in Monographs 1 through 8:


1887-1901: "Three Quarters" = 94; Monograph 1 = 91

1902-1906: "Three Quarters" = 76; Monograph 2 = 80

1907-1913: "Three Quarters" = 99; Monograph 3 = 89

1914-1923: "Three Quarters" = 65; Monograph 4 = 61

1924-1936: "Three Quarters" = 69; Monograph 5 = 58

1937-1941: "Three Quarters" = 75; Monograph 6 = 80

1942-1950: "Three Quarters" = 162; Monograph 7 = 172

1951-1959: "Three Quarters" = 208; Monograph 8 = 226


That tallies to "Three Quarters" listing 848 built and unbuilt projects, while the Monographs contain 857---if my arithmetic is correct.

S

DavidC
Posts: 7333
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:22 pm
Location: Oak Ridge, TN

Post by DavidC »


Post Reply