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.
First, there was this, from Philip Johnson. https://franklloydwright.org/philip-joh ... ociety_200
Then, we had Vincent Scully, in an undated lecture: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xp6pZQS ... e=youtu.be
Yesterday I came across a bit of text under the Robie house listing in Taschen I: Barry Byrne, on his time with Wright early in the career, quoted by Pfeiffer and/or Goessel:
". . . by 1908, when I left the studio, by sheer force of circumstances Wright as draftsman had almost ceased to exist and that more vital being, Wright as architect, was operating in full possession of his extraordinary creative power." (Byrne, "The Drawings of Frank Lloyd Wright" rev., p 109)
Byrne, from another source:
If erasing and redrawing under Wright was a wearisome task
imagine what is was like under standard circumstances.
As a kid my first book of Wright drawings was the black and white compilation by Arthur Dexler.
I thought Wright drew those perspectives first thing and by himself.
I also thought he drew them in graphite.
When I learned they were in color I was incredulous.
I didn't believe it at first - so garish!
For drawings to copy legibly in traditional reproduction techniques---blueprint or cyanotype, for instance---it was necessary to provide an original with high contrast between mark and ground, so inked drawings were the norm---despite the obvious increase of labor and risk in comparison to pencil drawings. In the postwar period diazo and other methods, along with increased use and affordability of more transparent papers, produced acceptable prints from graphite originals. It would be clear that altering inked drawings would be a great deal less efficient than updating them while still "in pencil." (Am I the only one who recalls a fluid called "ink eradicator" ? Would this substance have been in use in drafting rooms during the period when inked drawing was the norm ?)
As a sidebar, it could be stated that there was no diazo machine at Taleisin, North or West, until sometime in the 'fifties---as I have it. Original drawings were frequently sent to clients and contractors, with request for return to Taliesin after local reproduction. One wonders how many hand-drawn copies of drawings---CDs and presentation drawings---were made over the years, there . . .
I think you imply that in other offices the practice of altering drawings rather than starting anew would have been if anything more prevalent that at Taliesin. If so, why do you think that ?
I am always interested to hear about first impressions and early experience with Wright. Most students of early Twentieth Century architecture have had the experience of appreciating the work in monotone only. We recall the moments when we first saw some of this work in color, on the page . . .
(A Google search for the issue in question brought up a different issue of the publication, from April rather than June of 1963. By changing a digit in the URL I was able to bring up the June issue. Who knows how many other issues of this publication are available online ?)
I will copy and post the relevant pages of the Journal forthwith. Byrne alludes to Walter Gropius and mentions Philip Johnson by name; I will post the letter by the former that appears in the same issue of the publication. One will also find therein a review of the first published monograph of Johnson, making interesting reading c. 1963.