FLW Foundation out of control

To control SPAM, you must now be a registered user to post to this Message Board.

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.
KevinW
Posts: 1283
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2005 6:41 pm

Post by KevinW »

KevinW

Ethos Erlanger
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 6:51 pm

Post by Ethos Erlanger »

myLiebermeisterAGG wrote:http://malburns.vodspot.tv/video/506963 ... oses-doors

fascinating....
You should join us some time for one of our meetings in Second life. Voice is somewhat like a Skype conference call and you get a sense of presence that is very conducive to collaboration. Second Life affords participants the chance to collaborate in real time on design projects using three dimensional objects. That is a feature that is not typically available from many other three-dimensional rendering tools.

I would like to hear your input on what direction the Virtual Museum could take now that the doors are wide open to virtually any theme for future exhibits.

SDR
Posts: 19318
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

At the end are a number of images of rooms in the museum, and building objects related to Wright structures, more or less . . .

Issues raised by this program, and the thread subject in general, might include the anonymity provided by the online medium versus the stated desire for validity and authenticity -- as exemplified by the very evidently fictional aspect of the participants' various avatars ?

Perhaps, as it is clearly impossible to present with any kind of meaningful fidelity the world's great artworks (of all kinds) in this primitive medium, alternate-universe players might restrict themselves to original works rather than attempting to recreate the work of others ? A revealing question might be: What if everything could be presented with photographic perfection rather than in cartoon-like textures, colors, and lighting effects -- would the participants still wish to erect their alternate world ? Or is part of the pleasure found in the craft of recreating these objects and scenes from the available toolkit -- for better or for worse ? Is it the objects (the goal) or the craft (the trip) that SLers find most appealing ?

What sort of self-censoring mechanism is in place when a "museum" of this kind is established ? Does a Craftsman bungalow (no matter how nicely drawn), or an invention in-the-spirit-of-Wright, belong in a FLLW museum ?

I do think that there would always be issues with the FLLW Foundation in regards both to authenticity and to the commercial licensing issue. Too bad this latter wasn't identified and eliminated as an issue during the initial negotiation. Perhaps it's not too late to start again with them, on a slightly different basis -- educational as opposed to commercial -- as was suggested during the discussion ?

S D R

Ethos Erlanger
Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 6:51 pm

Post by Ethos Erlanger »

SDR wrote:At the end are a number of images of rooms in the museum, and building objects related to Wright structures, more or less . . .

Issues raised by this program, and the thread subject in general, might include the anonymity provided by the online medium versus the stated desire for validity and authenticity -- as exemplified by the very evidently fictional aspect of the participants' various avatars ? When grownups wish to play with trains and dolls, what's to keep them from dispensing with reality altogether ? (And, doing so, must they take themselves so very seriously ?)

Perhaps, as it is clearly impossible to present with any kind of meaningful fidelity the world's great artworks (of all kinds) in this primitive medium, alternate-universe players might restrict themselves to original works rather than attempting to recreate the work of others ? A revealing question might be: What if everything could be presented with photographic perfection rather than in cartoon-like textures, colors, and lighting effects -- would the participants still wish to erect their alternate world ? Or is part of the pleasure found in the craft of recreating these objects and scenes from the available toolkit -- for better or for worse ? Is it the objects (the goal) or the craft (the trip) that SLers find most appealing ?

S D R
I was not sure what part to quote, so I left it all in....

This medium is decidedly in its infancy. The residents of Second Life (SL) get their enjoyment from many aspects of the medium in varying degrees, all according to the individual. I for one find enjoyment as you say: ...in recreating these objects and scenes from the available toolkit -- for better or for worse. I want to be a part of this new medium as it grow and matures. It is the only medium that I can examine 3D spaces and share the experience with others from anywhere in the world in real time.

I have similar tools on my computer but it is actually lonely working alone on a local machine. Being with, and working with others who share my interests is one, but not the only pleasure I get from this tool.

There is much study going on about how we react to the virtual environment when it gets too "real". I am not a scholar in that realm, but it is believed that too real is not enjoyable. Almost scary. I want to push the limits until it does get that close to reality.

A few museum staff and members including myself and my wife joined others recently on a visit to Fallingwater in PA. After building the virtual Fallingwater and then stepping across the threshold in real Life for the first time, I was totally familiar with it. I was comfortable with every room except the basement which I did not build because I have no good source information. It is a tool for teaching, and we are in the vanguard of its development.

Most of us on the museum staff are way beyond anonymity. We are real friends and collaborators. And as such we take it seriously. But with humor. We can have fun and even play virtual pranks on each other. We understand the reality of virtuality.

Many others in Second Life do restrict themselves to working strictly in the new medium rather than trying as I do to replicate the real world. Their creative work is "not possible in real Life." And some of it is truly amazing!

I cannot address every aspect of your questions and comments. I am after all just a participant. But many of us that are using it as a tool for learning and teaching are finding it successful in some areas, and not in every area. If we could make perfect copies of buildings, we would. At least, I would. We would do it as a gift to those who will never be able to visit more than two or three of Wright's homes in their life. We inspired people from around the world with the museum. Some had never before heard of Wright. They left with a feeling they learned something. If nothing more, they learned that our museum was committed to providing the best possible experience with the tool that we have. Not always better than books or drawings or movies. But it is a new frontier.

Lastly, for me it was an education in Wright's use of space. After working with flat plans and turning them into three dimensional buildings that I could walk through, I now understand his spaces as never before. As a builder in Real Life (RL) I know how very hard it is for most lay people to visualize space from looking down at a 2D blueprint. I was able to take our visitors one step closer to the real thing, and they appreciated it.

What sort of self-censoring mechanism is in place when a "museum" of this kind is established ? Does a Craftsman bungalow (no matter how nicely drawn), or an invention in-the-spirit-of-Wright, belong in a FLLW museum?
The license did afford the Foundation the opportunity to review all exhibits. It really would be vital to them given the fact that it had FLW's name on it. We did not have the opportunity to work through all of these issues. We had a Craftsman Bungalow for a period of time as one of the winning works from a build-off competition. All museums in RL sponsor design competitions and they display objects "related to" the Museum's theme. We would have found a balance eventually. All of this would have gone more smoothly if we had more interaction with the foundation over the past year.
I do think that there would always be issues with the FLLW Foundation in regards both to authenticity and to the commercial licensing issue. Too bad this latter wasn't identified and eliminated as an issue during the initial negotiation. Perhaps it's not too late to start again with them, on a slightly different basis -- educational as opposed to commercial -- as was suggested during the discussion ?
Some on the museum board at the time of negotiation advised the same as you mention above. It just didn't work out that way. I was not the one involved with the negotiation, so I do not know if it was one party or the other who steered things to the mostly commercial type of license.

Authenticity is a complex question. It is hard to achieve without research and collaboration. It would also rest on the members of the Foundation team gaining an understanding of the medium we are working in.

SDR
Posts: 19318
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Thank you for that, Mr Erlanger. There can be no doubt that each of us, in any group to which we belong, have our own reasons for being there, and our own responses to the medium and the subject in view. How we all get along at all is sometimes a mystery to me !

Well, it will be interesting to see how this new "medium" plays out. Time will tell. Given the existence of the Internet, and of the new modeling media developed for the architecture industry, it was no doubt inevitable that some would seek to employ the tools to create a "new kind of model railroad," if you will. (Railfans take their miniature worlds very seriously too, I can assure you !)

I can certainly sympathize with your frustration at the incomplete record of the work of the architect, and the compromised relationship with the powers that be at "Wright Central." Scholars of all kinds have been struggling there for decades, and even the valiant efforts of Bruce Brooks Pfeiffer were for a long time inhibited by various factors -- if I understand the matter correctly. I am sorry that a Second Life virtual museum had to undergo the same sort of difficulty.

S D R

DavidC
Posts: 7719
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:22 pm
Location: Oak Ridge, TN

Post by DavidC »

Yes, you can't build a model of Fallingwater in the virtual world without the imminent threat of lawyerly attack because it may slightly deviate from the original.

But you can safely while away the hours without fear of any form of retribution with this truly 'spot on' version.


David


SDR
Posts: 19318
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

No Lego model of a building can ever be a perfect rendering of that design -- by the nature of the material. It would be like asking a mason to build an exact copy of a Ferris wheel or a carousel, using only (unpainted) concrete block.

As for the Foundation's objection to copies of Fallingwater: Do we believe the problem would be the lack of fidelity to the original -- or simply the fact of an unauthorized replication that is a recognizable version of Wright's design ?

S D R

DRN
Posts: 3944
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:02 am
Location: Cherry Hill, NJ

Post by DRN »

I was surprised the FLLW Foundation licensed the LEGO kits; the rendering of Fallingwater was not very good (most of us could do better with a large enough standard set with the right color blocks and a boatload of the '70's era LEGO red frame windows) and the Guggenheim was laughable. They proclaim they want FLLW's name on only faithful reproductions of good quality and then they approve this stuff.

SDR
Posts: 19318
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Lego is a large corporation with good profits, presumably -- and the Foundation needs money. Ergo . . . ?


S

Palli Davis Holubar
Posts: 1036
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 8:14 am
Location: Wakeman, Ohio

Post by Palli Davis Holubar »

I wish the Foundation or Fallingwater would make people write the name correctly - FALLINGWATER- one lovely word!

SDR
Posts: 19318
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Is the Lego set marketed as Falling Water ? Aghh . . .


S

Palli Davis Holubar
Posts: 1036
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2006 8:14 am
Location: Wakeman, Ohio

Post by Palli Davis Holubar »

No, the Lego set is correct and they use the name with it's trademarK circle R; but the vide on youtube uses "Falling Water House"

SDR
Posts: 19318
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Yeah -- it's happening all over. Here's the top of one of the pages of our local Sunday paper "pink section" from two days ago :


Image

Post Reply