Heritage Auctions' site

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.
DRN
Posts: 3908
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:02 am
Location: Cherry Hill, NJ

Post by DRN »

I feel similarly...I know of a Wright homeowner who attempted to buy prints of his own house but was outbid by another party.
Small consolation that at least these images are online. I've saved a number of JPEGs from the site, but some information is still lost due to the limits of resolution.

I still question where all of these came from, and how they got to one place at one time.

Roderick Grant
Posts: 9798
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

outside, I agree, investors who buy art and stow it away, making it inaccessible, do damage to the art world. But if it was Van Gogh's "Irises" you mention, while it was stored in a vault after the 1987 purchase by a Japanese businessman, it was sold in 1990 to the J. Paul Getty Museum, so it is safe and accessible.

A similar situation exists with art work that is privately owned, but just hanging on the buyer's living room wall, available for view by guests only. Should all art should be kept in museums? Upon the auction of her estate, it was reported that Elizabeth Taylor kept a Renoir in her bathroom so she could view it while she bathed, so even her guests weren't privileged.

Another habit I find troubling is the common behavior of writers on the subject of art to hold onto information they want to publish exclusively, sometimes for decades.

outside in
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:02 pm

Post by outside in »

I guess its fair to ask big questions about the nature of art, and who is "allowed" to view it, and I'm glad the Getty purchased the Van Gogh piece (didn't know that) but in this particular case, the "author" (Wright) and to some degree Bruce Pfeiffer intended to keep these drawings together, as an archive, and I have to wonder how so many of his drawings ended up in the market. Makes me ask the question if there is any provenance associated with these things. For example, what would stop a contractor when running prints and keep a few, or "forget" to return them, etc.

The most interesting thing, as recently explained to me by a "dealer", was that the primary value of the drawings comes from having FLW's signature in the little red square, rather than actual content of the drawing sheet itself!

SDR
Posts: 18675
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

And, on that last point, it is perhaps a bit troubling that the signature block is enlarged to the point that a forger might benfit from the display . . . ?

Yet another Wright sub-topic that would "make an interesting research paper," is the matter of who has which drawings---and, in particular, how many clients
did not return Taliesin drawings as (so often) specifically requested. The Zimmerman drawing set was among those mentioned by Pfeiffer as having
disappeared from the archive---one way or another---and not available for inclusion in the Monographs or the Taschen volumes . . .

I have enlarged many of the Zimmerman and Palmer drawings to the maximum screen size, if anyone has a wish to see them.

S

outside in
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:02 pm

Post by outside in »

you can add Fredrick to the list - all three of the designs that Wright did for him.

SDR
Posts: 18675
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Perhaps some clients are just too much in love with the drawings once they appear---and can't bear to be without them . . . ?

S

Tom
Posts: 2900
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:53 pm
Location: Black Mountain, NC

Post by Tom »

Wondering what prompts Wright to design like the Paul Palmer house
as opposed to something like Jacobs and Rosenbaum?
Budget would obviously be one criteria, but there are large budget designs
of his that are more "restrained" and don't go "all out".

Second, the date of the Palmer house. It's listed here as 1930.
However some of the drawings are dated as late as 1948.
That's a studio life of almost 20 years!

That "oculus" window at the end of the living room -
and usually even when Wright goes "all out" there seems to remain
some dignity, never a complete fantasyland.
"taste is less important than non-conformity"
FLLW

SDR
Posts: 18675
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Don't believe everything you read; 1930 is entirely spurious, and puzzling to encounter in what should be a reliable source of information.

The first Paul Palmer project, based on the Ralph Jester opus, appears in Monograph 7 (pp 158-9, five plates) and in Taschen III (p 139, one plate),
and is dated 1947.

The second project appears only in Taschen (p 178, one plate); it is dated 1948.

The sources of the artist's inspiration can only be deduced by the presumptuous critic. Wright was said by his close associates to have
appeared first thing in the morning with fresh designs, and himself confessed to be awake very early. Personal experience will attest to the fact
that the mind works by itself when the owner is asleep, and that a certain amount of concentrated thinking on a problem will occur upon awaking.

But that says nothing about forms chosen, or schemes concocted. To ask the question is understandable; to expect an answer is folly.

S

Roderick Grant
Posts: 9798
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

Tom, could that date you saw have been a sloppily written 1950? That would be reasonable. 1930 would not.

Another client who absconded with drawings was the daughter of R. W. Lindholm. Fortunately, it was not a great design, one that Geiger insisted saw little if any direct input from FLW. It's in Mono, but I cannot recall the name.

SDR
Posts: 18675
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

The 1930 probably comes from the signature block, which seems to say "Aug 30" . . .


Here's what I gleaned from the site. The initial colored rendering does not seem to belong to either of the Paul V Palmer designs; some of the Jester-derived scheme elevations appear to have desert masonry walls---but all of its street-side forms have circular elements, not seen in this drawing.


Image


Image


Image


Image


Image


Image


Image


Image


Image


Image


Image


Image


Image


Image


Image


Image

Roderick Grant
Posts: 9798
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

Thanks for the images, SDR.
This is looking like a lost masterpiece, and surprisingly like a forerunner of the much more modest Robert Sunday House.

Tom
Posts: 2900
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:53 pm
Location: Black Mountain, NC

Post by Tom »

Notice the "T-Steel Strut" partitions.
One N/S with glass infill descending outdoor terrace steps
is actual wall of house.
The other E/W separating carport from "bicycle and wagon space"

Fireplace on dining room side - looks like there is a note about the
hearth being a pool. Hard to understand

and yes - thanks for the images.
much appreciated.
"taste is less important than non-conformity"
FLLW

dkottum
Posts: 424
Joined: Sun Jan 09, 2005 8:52 pm
Location: Battle Lake, MN

Post by dkottum »

Wow, the detailing! And 4", 8", 12" concrete block laid up in random ashlar?

Is there an air conditioning plenum running over both bedroom and living wings of the house, with louvered openings a each end? Not sure what I'm seeing? Is the air cooled, or simply ventilated throughout the house?

So many unusual features, perhaps it will take some study to understand it all. This is a beauty that ought to be built exactly per plan, in the Southwest desert as planned.

Tom
Posts: 2900
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:53 pm
Location: Black Mountain, NC

Post by Tom »

Dkottum: the name "Weinstube" occurs in realtion to the air-conditioning
system.
I've tried to Google this but nothing comes up.
Would love to know the answer to your inquiry.
AC Plenums run over the living and bedroom wings as you say.
If the ends were in fact louvers how would that work?
The roof plenums seem to tie into the central masonry mass and vent down into the basement.
"taste is less important than non-conformity"
FLLW

Tom
Posts: 2900
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:53 pm
Location: Black Mountain, NC

Post by Tom »

Well ... those ends are labeled as open louvers.
and there is an "air conditioning machinery room" in the basement.
how does it work?

wait a minute ... actually the plenum does not cross above the bedrooms.
The volume of the bedrooms pops up to the high ridge of the roof.

Looks like only the living room receives whatever kind of AC is going on.
"taste is less important than non-conformity"
FLLW

Post Reply