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.
Another thing to consider, Taliesin was rather casual about collecting fees. Shortly after arriving at Taliesin, Geiger told Gene Masselink he was short of money. Gene told him not to worry about paying, and John went on without paying anything at all. The same thing happened with Jim DeLong. If FLW liked what you did, he wouldn't worry about money.
hours), and other "love-of-the-art" sacrifices. But I doubt that any other master got his apprentices to pay him for the privilege of working under his roof .
Dr Gunderman is hardly the first to analyze Wright as an egoist, with all the demerits that accrue to that description . . . and he won't be the last. Needless
to say, that's only one side of Wright's character; the sorts of concern and generosity that appear in apprentices' accounts show another side to the man.
I am not contending that FLW was not an egotist (or egoist, as you say), but that there are flaws in the casual ways Gunderson talks about certain subjects that indicate he has not put enough effort into understanding the patient he never met. It would appear, for instance, that "The Fellowship" was one source of information. Would that pass muster with you?
It's never too late to examine, and reassess, an historic figure, is it ? And, certain current events have shown that there's a place for remote psychoanalysis, professional norms notwithstanding . . .
There's a fascinating concept by James R Flynn that the growth of IQ over the past century is due to the "liberation" of abstract thinking from the primary concrete world of thought. He explains it better:In fact, there may have been more change, worldwide, in that thirty years than in any comparable span in the entirety of human civilization ?
https://www.ted.com/talks/james_flynn_w ... anguage=en
It makes me wonder, if the human population experienced a collective inward growth, with its ability to disconnect from outward associations and reassemble them into purely mental constructs, is the collective "ego" growths of the corresponding generation(s) a byproduct of this internalization?
Maybe FLLW was just a bit ahead of his time. A highly abstract mind who struggled in humbling his self-perspective.... And perhaps a psychologist should show compassion towards a person's shortcomings instead of chastising them? Of course, you'd first have to conclude that toxic egoism is a sign of mental instability before coming to find empathy for its ugliness.
Historic characters are always judged and re-judged. But those judgments should be carefully evaluated. Things change, as you say, SDR. Morality, for instance, changes with the wind.
Sometimes, as a result of jumping to conclusions, condemnations cause ridiculous results. To wit: Since it has been (accurately) determined that John C. Calhoun was a villainous character because he owned slaves (like Washington and Jefferson), Minneapolis changed the name of Lake Calhoun, which had been bestowed in his honor in 1817, to the unpronounceable and historically questionable Bde Maka Ska. Or maybe it should have been Mde Maka Ska, or Mde Med'oza, or Heyate Mde, or the old WASP name, Lake Medoza. Anyway, something vaguely Dakota, Ioway or Baxoje to honor Native Americans who have not inhabited the area for over 150 years. That such a change violated state law meant nothing.
To study historical characters is one thing. To judge them retroactively is another.