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 realize it is substantially putting the cart before the horse, but what sort of furniture would be here? I'm not really sure what Wright was designing in the 1920s.
This is a country cabin, albeit a dramatic and decorated one, and not an urban environment; I wonder if Wright would have designed with wicker or reed ?
Wright did not design furniture suites for the Textile Block houses, as far as I know; Freeman is more often photographed with furnishings designed by R M Schindler. Roderick would know more . . .
information but inventing nothing from whole cloth.
Granted, this calls for considerable self-restraint on the part of the creative artist with a rich palette of tools at his disposal. So be it. To make such an "incomplete" model worth looking at, perhaps the remaining time and
energy could be put into an attractive setting, and -- even more important, to me -- a well-considered and generous video tour, with long sequences of movement around, into, and through the model . . . all without drawing a
line or choosing a color that didn't come from the original designer's hand or mind, to the greatest extent possible ?
Perhaps the work might bifurcate at some point: two models could be the result, one as described above and the other with all the bells and whistles the artist might be capable of. The first model would satisfy the Wrightian
purist (and the owners of the copyright ?), which in an ideal environment would pay for the entire project, including the second, more self-indulgent and perhaps more entertaining version of the model.
Here's the basics of it. Wasn't as bad as I thought it would be, but still a challenge. I have no idea what to do on the inside of this for the ceiling - none at all, but that will be thoughts for a later time.
Ignore the view of the chimney from above. It needs work.
Generally this feels correct to me.
The chimney is an issue for sure, but one I don't know how to fix. First, it is very wide in the perspective, but that does not jive with the plan at all. The only way I could get it to actually work that way is to have it sit on the four rectangular piers along the "hallway" between the kitchen and living room. That seems very awkward to me.
As for the stagger of the masonry, I tried doing that initially, having each course be set 1/2" behind as it went up. The result was that it basically disappeared by the time it got as high as it should. I am considering making the stagger only begin above the roof line. I would love for the chimney to be wider though. I think it makes a bigger impact.
I'm not sure exactly what your objection is to the retaining wall. Each block is set back 1" from the course below it. I initially started with 1/2" and it was so subtle it almost didn't seem worth it. I feel that the angle I've currently got follows the perspective pretty well. Eventually there will be terrain, which I'm sure will help.
I have no quarrel with the slope of the foreground walls. My comment about the prow was that it seems to come down a bit too far onto those walls, making its diagonal leading edge a bit too vertical, or long, to match the view drawing.
I haven't studied how the chimney might be made wider -- but if it had to grow at the bottom to encompass those colonnades, that would nicely explain their presence . . . !
Though Mr Wright did favor whole numbers -- as I do -- in designing, it may be that the correct set-back on walls and chimneys to achieve the right batter could be some fraction of an inch. Whatever achieves a recognizable correspondence to the drawing(s) . . . ?