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.
http://www.metmuseum.org/collection/the ... ght&pos=13
This chair, and cousins in at least two other locations, are found on pages 2, 4, 8, 10, and 14 of this thread. On pages 10 and 14 Bill Schwarz provides us with two of his typically generous contributions.
On page 14 we see a chair identified as belonging to the Walker or the Neils house, in which the bottoms of the side wings of the chair are not cut back as in the earlier versions at Hanna (but not, curiously, at the postwar Sun Cottage); this change would presumably have enhanced the stability of the chair somewhat . . .
Sturges has a variant of the Goetsch-Winckler/Sondern/Rosenbaum/Wall/Baird three-legged design; see pp 5 and 7 of the thread. As a living-room chair the front leg extends further and the seating position is a bit lower; as an upright dining chair the leg is pulled in, resulting in a tippier chair ?
The difference between the pair of designs is analogous to the difference between the Eames LCW and DCW chairs, I guess.
http://wrightchat.savewright.org/viewto ... 34303f10f6
photo by Alan Weintraub, from "Frank Lloyd Wright Mid-Century Modern" (2007), p 167
But this is the only case I've seen of a hassock turned into a chair. And I didn't notice it before now, oddly. I suppose it would be a surprise if no one at Taliesin had thought of it---sooner or later.
Anybody have info or further thoughts on this ?
This photo of the Cabaret was probably taken during Mr. Wright's life-time ... in fact it's entirely possible it was he who decorated the tables for the photo. The Cabaret seating arrangements, with place settings arranged on the back of the upper edges of the built-in seating, as shown in this photo, were completely torn out in the winter of 1964-65, and replaced by the seating arrangements now in existence.SDR wrote: ↑Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:44 pmSemi-comfortable group dining accommodation abounds at T West, apparently. Here is the full photo of the Cabaret, and one of the
Garden Room (should these be capitalized ?), both appearing on the same page of "FLLW's House Beautiful" (Diane Maddex; Hearst Books Â©2000).
No dates are given for photos in this book, whose contents are apparently drawn from the pages of the magazine. There is a thirty-year gap in
coverage of Wright at the magazine (at least as far as special Wright issues is concerned), so these photos probably date either from 1963 or
earlier, or from special issues of 1992 or 1996 -- as near as I can tell. I suspect the latter dates apply.
I ask because I see a molding applied around the base of the hassock---whose form is probably the most common of all the Usonian hassocks, a rectangle or (occasionally) a square volume of plywood, with the sides canted outward toward the top. To these hassocks has been applied several different remedies to what must have been a problem of instability in some cases---on carpet, if not on a bare slab. In the case of this handsome hassock form and function did not perfectly align, and form won out for the architect, it seems.
I recall only one admission, by any user, appearing in print in connection with this little flaw. (I have also heard denials that there was a problem---of course. The additions do not in any case enhance the appearance of the hassock so altered, and I cannot imagine Mr Wright accepting such alteration unless impelled to do so by circumstance.) I would have to search for a while to lay my hands on that bit of evidence, as I do not recall where it was printed. On the whole it seems this problem was addressed if not solved---by how many different hands ?---in different ways at various times and places.
The complete story, if it could be put together, would make an interesting short article, perhaps. Photos of the various altered hassocks are easily found in the literature; getting the details---timing, persons involved, etc---would if available at all today take considerable legwork of course. I don't expect it to be done---by me, in any case ?