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.
Most interesting. (I don't find Schindler's name in Peter's second citation ?) For what it's worth, neither Esther McCoy, who worked for "RM" (as he was universally called, in the office certainly) from 1944 and published her
appreciation of him c. 1960, nor David Gebhard, whose work appeared in 1980 (with a preface by H-R Hitchcock dated, oddly, 1971), wrote the word Jew or Jewish in their respective texts. Gebhard says only that Schindler's
parents were "Viennese bourgeois," and McCoy is even more terse: "His father was from Prague . . ." Nor do March and Scheine (1993) nor James Steele (1999) touch this subject.
Sad to say, Wikipedia is only as good as its contributors and its self-appointed editors. Why would we not take the word of Mark Schindler ? Understand that I have no problem with Schindler being Jewish, if that is the fact . . . !
Perhaps, if he was not "religious" and never spoke of the matter, even his closest friends and companions might have remained uninformed ?
It has long been fashionable to include mention of a Jewish background or heritage when writing of any notable figure, it seems to me, as if this had an inevitable bearing on the life or the work of the subject . . .
YouÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re, right. It doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t matter, and yet, in order to place the man within an historical, intellectual, cultural and sociopolitical context, it does become relevant. Antisemitism was pervasive in the US, and there were many who kept their Jewish heritage a secret, including Marcel Breuer.
This book, well researched, has me wondering how Johnson was ever re-embraced by the arts/architecture community after his actions not only in support of Hitler and Nazi Germany but also his active role in the United States promoting fascist leaders. I was unaware of the extent of his involvement.
the Me Too movement or any other attempts to right wrongs and call out criminals. I suppose those acts do raise the question of "character" and "fitness for office." And yes, I do believe Anita, and Christine . . .
Those who learned what they know about Philip Johnson long after his youthful errors -- like me -- were able to judge him as a designer and an architectural gadfly, which (as I see it) are the pertinent areas of interest. I really don't
believe that Johnson's life and career should be judged by his political leanings -- during any period of his life -- any more that I would want my work to be assessed in the light of my being a Democrat, or a gay man. In the early 'thirties
many, on both sides of the Atlantic, were able to overlook the problems of Nazism, just as some today see nothing wrong with Donald Trump . . .
Johnson's pertinent sins, such as they were, are architectural, it seems to me. And I say that Johnson's commercial (i.e., large-building) work is a separate thing entirely from the houses, and should be judged accordingly.
Wikipedia still persists with Frank Lincoln Wright, so getting them straight about anything is unlikely. Once a 'fact' is published, it spreads like bacteria.
One can only speculate on why Johnson left Schindler out, but it could be that he simply didn't understand RMS's work. His houses of the 20s were very un-International. I doubt Johnson would have found much to laud in Schindler/Chase, Lowes, Packard, How, Wolfe or even Lovell.
With a little effort at understanding the procedure, any of us could edit the Wikipedia entry on Wright, or any other page. There is no central editor there; how could there be, with the volume of material
that makes up the site. It's a unique feature; try editing someone's erroneous printed publication ! Wiki leaves it to the "experts" in each field to police their own, as it were.
In Hitchcock's preface to Gebhard he readily admits to having misjudged Schindler, as I expect many another architect, critic, or layman may have done. Time heals all wounds -- and wounds all heels ?
https://archenvironment.uoregon.edu/arc ... ith-sheine
"He spent many years in Vienna as Architect, doing mostly interior decorating and forming the only serious opponent against the architectural atrocities of the 'Secession.' "
This, from the young student who took the trouble to attend school under Wagner ? Or had Schindler's opinion of the Secession evolved since his school days . . .