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.
pharding wrote:Interview with Marion Mahoney Griffin January 1940 at 1946 Estes Avenue Rogers Park.
Many eventually were given their justified due, an almost impossiblity at the time along side such a giant as Wright. It must have been very frustrating as a creative person, especially since Wright was always loathe to acknowledge the influence of others upon him or his work. It would make any talented person crazy. He was certainly aware of others' abilities, but it appears Wright made little effort (if any) to soothe the egos of the talented people worki9ng with him. Some things don't change, and quality workers usually expect acknowledgement of their efforts in some form. With Wright, it probably was not verbal or through steady compensation. It would be fascinating to know more about these relationships.
After all is said and done, no matter where anyone fit into the scheme of things, Wright's genius shone above all others. It still does, and for ill or good, he knew it!
gwd wrote:The above comments miss the mark........
While many of your points about Wright and his process of getting his work built are valid, you don't seem to acknowledge, or grasp, the extent of Wright's genius. Any influences or personnel are practically incidental to his strengths. If anything, many followers have actually been given too much relevance and importance, Griffin comes to mind, and Schindler and Neutra to a degree. Great designers, sure, but genius's and ground breaking masters of architecture? Hardly.
Wright's body of work speaks for itself. Again I ask, whose accomplishments compare?
"Without the constant daily presence and interpretive efforts of (and dialogue with) Mahony, Griffin and Drummond, I don't think Wright would have been able to make his extraordinary break-throughs of the early 1900's"
No offense, but frankly: what a stretch! Creative associations are valuable...but who worked for who?
The buildings I referenced above indicate to me that Richard Neutra, along with E. Fay Jones and John Lautner, were disciples of FLW who truly understood the concepts of organic architecture, and took their understandings of these concepts and created their own styles of this unique form of architecture, rather than to try to copy or re-create the works of their teacher, and undoubtedly, the master of the genre.
Wrightgeek wrote: little more that a "great designer".
Lautner, Jones, yes, more than great designers, and along with Goff they stand apart from many apprentices offering real contributions. With Neutra-great clients; Schindler at least was not as addicted to international modernism. I see little organic thought or evidence of genius in their work, at least in the context of, or comparisons to, Wright. They essentially remained European modernists, the first wave before the invasion of Gropius and Mies into academia cemented their stranglehold on American architecture.
Actually, Frey in Vegas eventually did much more interesting work at times.
I certainly agree with you that Albert Frey is an often overlooked and underappreciated practitioner of organic architecture who deserves to be mentioned in this discussion.
While there is no denying that Neutra was certainly a modernist, his best works also demonstrate a virtually seamless blending of interior and exterior spaces and vistas, in keeping with some of the most basic tenets of organic architecture.
The above statements are questionable. Of course there was dialog between those three employees and FLW. That is how architectural firms produce work. Virtually every architectural office has worked that way. To somehow suggest that FLW would not have created a wonderful modern architecture at the turn of the century without Mahoney, Griffin, and Drummond is absurd. Neither of the three is considered a great architect in their own right. I respect what they each did after they left the employee of FLW, but they did not produce great architecture when left to their own devices.gwd wrote:...Without the constant daily presence and interpretive efforts of (and dialogue with) Mahony, Griffin and Drummond, I don't think Wright would have been able to make his extraordinary break-throughs of the early 1900's. Similarly, I think he was dependent on the work, design strategies, insight, and methodologies of Henry Richardson and Louis Sullivan (and to a lesser degree Stanford White, Bruce Price, Elbert Hubbard, Harvey Ellis, Gustav Stickley, Arthur Dow, Frederick Olmstead, Jens Jensen, Charles and Margaret Mackintosh, Josef Hoffman, CFA Voysey, Erich Mendelsohn, and many, many others) to suggest directions and to clarify his own ideas. Without the highly experimental work of Richard Schindler, I don't think there would have been a Usonian resurgence in the thirties and early forties. ....
To suggest that FLW was "dependent" on other architects is not accurate. FLW like other great architects was aware of what is happening around them. Every architect, mediocre or great, is aware of what is happening at that time. Does that mean that they are dependent on those other architects? Of course not. On Thursday I went to the Paul Cezanne Exhibit at the National Gallery of art in Washington. He borrowed some ideas from other Impressionists early in his career. Does that somehow detract the greatness that he achieved? Do knowledgeable art historians say that he was dependent on those other Impressionist painters? Of course not. The bottom line is that he produced a significant body of great paintings.
Schindler borrowed from FLW and International Style architects in Austria and created his own architecture. FLW may have been influenced by the same International Style architects as Schindler. Certainly Schindler was not the only International Style architect. I have the highest respect for Rudolph Schindler. He did achieve greatness, but he did not have a monopoly on the International Style. FLW certainly did not rely on Schindler to create those wonderful Usonian houses.