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.
ONE: the Barrel chair evolves into the [circle} side chair
TWO: the [box] chair evolves into the [origami] easy chair
THREE: the ottoman evolves into the Usonian hassock
FOUR: the square spindle straight back [side or dining] chair evolves into the perforated straight high back panel dining evolves into the low slant back panel (dining) chair
i like this idea!
category one is good, and needs to include the metal circular form chairs also: midway, johnson wax, etc.
category two and three are good.
category four is a bit strange for me, because i don't think that the spindle chair evolves first into the perforated high back usonian chair and later the low back chair. isn't the perf high back chair almost a nostalgic look back to the high back spindle chairs? i think the larkin chairs (with their de stijl stylings) evolve naturally into the usonian plywood chairs.
maybe category four should have a straight back and a slant back subcategory, or a category four and five.
PeterM: The dining set was sort of unresolved for me too. The permutations dining chairs have gone through are vast and reflect, I think, a greater change in the social function chairs around a meal table than other forms of seating. The dining chair certainly in the active Usonian house were "all purpose" chairs requiring portability and a broader range of balance to support a greater variety of body positions.
Wright's early stick and panel "Rietveldian" chairs also confuse the timeline.
My visual mind has to put some graphics together to think out when the perf high backs returned in Usonians. The early ones: Jacobs and G-W and Pope were low slant backs...yes you are right. The perf chairs were a throwback...which was the first ? Why did it happen?
The Johnson Wax circle chairs certainly are in that first set. These chairs were only Johnson Wax and only produced by Steelcase for Johnson Wax? right? I saw patent papers on eBay just yesterday and Michael and I discussed the relationship with the circle chair. BTW, when was the 4 legged chair designed - from the beginning or later when need arose?
eBay information: cgi.ebay.com/US-Patent-for-a-FRANK-LLOYD-WRIGHT-Chair-116-3_W0QQitem auction ends 1/17/09
See if others would be of like mind with me on this: I decided during the hassock taxonomy not to call handholes perfs...I dithered over this because there is a variety of cut-out shapes. The clincher for me was relating the cut shape to any other design motif ...I couldn't seem to do that... the function seems to be the only intent.
We live with the crafted working copy of the Penfield chairs for both houses I & II, the second is a straight back with cutouts and added painted squares chair (not as Baroque as Loveness); I call that perf. But the dining chair with the habdhols I would never related to perf boards.
van patten living room unit chair, plywood and solid
http://www.pushpullbar.com/forums/attac ... 1137172709
van patten sofa
"We live with the crafted working copy of the Penfield chairs for both houses I & II, the second is a straight back with cutouts and added painted squares chair (not as Baroque as Loveness); I call that perf. But the dining chair with the habdhols I would never related to perf boards."
penfield house (1955) chairs:
high straight back with perfs. are these the same as yours, palli?
images, as usual.
Here are two such, from the Hannas' book. Get a load of that wild easy chair ! Essentially three-legged, and top-heavy to boot. Even the dining
chairs get narrower at the bottom. He never learned. . .
My take on the Van Patten pieces is that they are odd, ugly and essentially irrelevant. They are akin to Sardi's: A 'thirties Deco dalliance
for Schindler, who had more original fields to plow. The curious bulging upholstery of these living-room pieces results from a play with geometry,
and with the idea to make a fully-exposed convertible sofa. Of course, we are interested in any modular or "unit" designs, wherever they occur.
designers, is bound to be frustrating. Creative persons know that ideas come from a variety of places, or from "nowhere," and out of sequence.
We can find trails: there are photos of cube and barrel chairs which echo Wright's and which were published before his own designs. And there are
pieces by Wright which predate by a decade or more some constructivist European works. Also, designers and artists can be expected to return to
their own ideas when the inspiration strikes, developing them for new times.
None of this should discourage us from trying to make sense of it all. We can be the Darwin or the Audubon of Wright's work, and learn something
in the process -- as well as having the pleasure of revisiting some cool objects and perhaps seeing some of them in a new light. But I wouldn't
expect a neat "table of elements" to result from the labors; Wright of all architects was so fecund, and so restless, that his output will defy all
efforts at neat classification, I'm afraid. After all, such a clearly-defined catalog was nowhere on his to-do list.
That said, carry on !
The contrast between the chairs is stark and speaks to the essence of each house...
SDR- so right and surely even more so with Wright with so much material to work with, so many years of thinking and making. Not to mention the joys and complications created by the nature of the learning environment and the skills and ideas of the apprentices. What I look for are the jumps, ideas that have time warped forward or rethought backward. It's often a subjective process and dialogue with others keeps it more honest.