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.
I find that I have no information on the history of Wright's chair as to date of original design and, more particularly, the date when the word Origami was first applied to the design.
Can anyone provide facts ?
McCobb was not the most original or innovative designer, but I find the results always pitch perfect. His wood designs owe much to Nakashima, and the rest riffs on Wormley, Knoll, Nelson and Eames. Not much of a Wright influence, however; McCobb's furniture is much lighter and airier...
I'm not sure that Wright ever referred to his creation as the Origami, at least on drawings of the chair...
Here's the thread that alerted me to the issue:
http://www.designaddict.com/design_addi ... d_id=14671
Both have links to high resolution versions of the images, with legible dimensions and angle measurements.
And the name Butterfly Chair -- I had forgotten that term completely. So, who called it what, and when, becomes a question to be answered. Origami vs Butterfly: here we go . . .
indicated, and then removed, the "tail" to the (original) seat plane; note that he adjusts the seat angle with an extra panel just under the foam.
Parallel fin-like rear legs replace the "bird's tail" rear foot. I like the triangular glue-blocks under the arms. Howe mentions that the measurements
were taken from a built example -- but we don't know which one.
The other, squarer sheet (Dec, 1986), shows a chair pared down to the minimum number of parts. It also has relatively conventional parallel
plywood rear legs -- perhaps Howe's contribution to the type ? Its narrow "lapels" (arms) are notable; in this it reminds me a bit of the pair of chairs
made for the Sturges residence, presumably drawn by John Lautner. See p 3 of this thread.
Perhaps the Butterfly moniker is not applied much if at all to this chair because there is another, much more ubiquitous modern chair with the same name:
I would really like to build a more representative version of this beautiful chair. It was mentioned early on in this thread that the archives won't provide the 1946 stand alone plans for this chair, to probably prevent people from making the chair themselves, and to protect Copeland (at the time) and now Cassina. However, I have read that a design for the origami chair was included in the Stromquist residence plans, and wonder if anyone has gone to the effort to get a copy of those plans from the archives, and if so, did it include the chair design in those plans?
chair. A full sheet, undated, is reproduced on page 89 of "Frank Lloyd Wright 1943-1959" (Taschen). The chair is shown with some decorative
perforations to the spine and arm; the arm perforation is identical to that found on the unique chair seen in photos of the Nathan and Jeanne Rubin
house, Canton, OH, 1952. Virtually all of the dimensions on the drawing are visible, though the reproduction measures only 6 1/2" x 8 1/4".
Persons attempting to construct a copy of this chair will have to interpret the drawings for themselves. I have not seen a Taliesin drawing of the chair
that was 100% reliable or complete; there are internal inconsistencies in all the ones I have studied. And, there are variations in almost every part of the
chair, from one drawing to another, including in the way the chair meets the floor, the detailing of the spine, and the width and angle of the arms.
All of this means that experimentation, mock-ups, and trial parts will have to be a part of the process. And, as mentioned, some choices are to be made,
as well. The photographs here, and elsewhere, will be useful in making the initial selection as to the particular version of the chair you would like to own.
bdey01 should be directed to the links in owenCollins's post, above, for Jack Howe's version of the chair.
Anyway, how readable are the plans from the Taschen book? I hesitated in purchasing these books when they arrived a few years ago as I spent my FLLW book allowance for the decade when I acquired a set of the monographs a few years back (a deal I thought at $2500, but the wife still didn't like!), and don't know if the cost for a single page of plans is worth it. If someone could post a high quality image or a emailable version, that would be great! Otherwise, is the '73 plans of Howe close to the dimensions that the chairs at Taliesin West have? Just sat in those again recently on a business trip to Phoenix, and they fit like a glove.
Other than the materials, angle to the back, and the cushion thickness, what other changes do folks here think were made to the design that the Cassina people made? Howe's plan from '73 shows the raised cushion bottom so as to get the angle between the back and cushion just over 90 degrees, but by how much? Did the original Taliesin West chairs have the cushion support raised as well? Were these new Cassina chairs modeled after the Howe design? Or something else entirely new?
Finally, does anyone know the answer to my question about the Stromquist residence plans? Specifically, do they have the chair design in the plans, and if so, will the Foundation provide a copy to a requestor like me?
I am calling this the Rubin Origami; see photo below of the Rubin chair in situ. A peculiarity of the drawn chair is the raised upholstered headrest, not
found on any built Origami that I have seen -- including the Rubin chair as built. Another difference there is that the arm is called out as 1/2" plywood,
clearly not the case with the built chair.
The seat-to-back angle is a rigid 90Ã‚Âº; one sitting in the chair as drawn might experience an even more acute angle.
Ã‚Â© 2009 by TASCHEN GmbH and by the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation
photo Ã‚Â© Alan Weintraub
I do not recall where this second drawing was published.
A note on the Howe drawing cautions that the views are "schematic" and should not be scaled. Howe dispenses with the "tail," and wraps padded upholstery over the arms.
Then, comparative section drawings of four chairs, from drawings already cited in most cases. Note that in three of the designs the sitter is presented
with a less-than-ideal seat-to-back angle of ninety degrees; only in Howe's personally-credited variant is the angle opened a bit. This is a move
independent from the insertion of a second seat panel, presumably included so that (in comparison to the Rubin chair, anyway) a standard and not
tapered seat cushion material could be used.
In the Rubin and TAA drawings, the back panel appears to lean slightly forward of the 90Ã‚Âº mark. To me this oddity is a reflection of Wright's stated
antipathy toward seating as an activity, and a consequent or parallel misunderstanding of what seated comfort requires ?
Rubin, and Howe
Lamberson (?), and TAA
is supported. In the case of the Origami -- about which one hears little in the way of complaint -- a quick solution would be a small but somewhat firm pillow
thrown into the "catcher's mitt" and allowed to stand upright on the seat. After sitting, depending on personal anatomy, moving the pillow up a bit could elicit
that gratifying "Aaah . . ." that is music to the furniture-maker's ears . . .
I recall sitting in a small armchair that a fellow design student had made. He took two squares of plywood, capped them on three sides with handrail
molding, and placed a seat and back at a seriously reclined angle between them. I recall being surprised and delighted at the sensation. It may be
that those upholstered surfaces met at a 90Ã‚Âº angle. If so, it may be that the normal rule about a lounging posture -- that the angle between seat and
back should increase as the seat is tilted back more, on a continuous scale, ceases to operate when the seat angle is severe enough.
Conversation from a semi-reclined position is hard enough when the knees begin to interfere with sight of one's companions; perhaps when that point is
reached, the mind/body begins to crave a bit more back support, even at the expense of bending further at the waist ?