Larkin Administration Building visuals

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.
Roderick Grant
Posts: 10042
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

I have often wondered what the interiors of pre-Columbian architecture looks like, or, being windowless, if anything can be seen.

SDR
Posts: 19116
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

To quote Mr Wright: (about the Pantheon, was it -- or St Peter's): "Is it hollow ?"

When confronted with the A D German Warehouse one assumes that it's hollow -- though what could be going on inside is anybody's guess.

SDR

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10042
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

I can believe FLW saying such a thing about St. Pete's, but I highly doubt he could be anything but impressed by the Pantheon, the standard against which all ecclesiastical buildings should be measured.

The interior of German is inconsequential, since it was meant predominantly to be a warehouse. The non-warehouse spaces at street level and in the annex all have plenty of windows.

All those pre-Columbian buildings were symbols of power. I suppose they had altars inside where they could excise hearts of peasants?

SDR
Posts: 19116
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Looking for interiors of pre-Columbian temples I come across this:

https://pufflesandhoneyadventures.files ... k2-3-0.jpg


And there's a gorgeous object shown on this page, but it's not identified or placed . . .

https://gohighbrow.com/pre-columbian-architecture/

SDR

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10042
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

Are you referring to the sculptural object in the fourth image? Teotihuacan is the Aztec pyramid in Mexico City.

SDR
Posts: 19116
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Okay. I was wondering if the object is/was located inside one of the temple structures . . .

SDR

Rood
Posts: 1139
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 12:19 pm
Location: Goodyear, AZ 85338

Post by Rood »

Roderick Grant wrote:Are you referring to the sculptural object in the fourth image? Teotihuacan is the Aztec pyramid in Mexico City.
No, no, no. Teotihuacan predates the Aztec Empire. It's an entire city located about 25 miles NE from Mexico City ...

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teotihuacan

SDR
Posts: 19116
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Vincent Scully would be very excited by the "twin horns" of the distant mountains, and by the echo of the nearer peak in the pyramid (?) . . .

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... A41434.JPG

SDR

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10042
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

True, Rood, Teotihuacán did not start out Aztec, but by the time Cortez arrived, the Aztecs had been there for a long time. Who built it originally, whether one of the documented tribes like Maya or Olmec, is unknown. As Wikipedia states, there are things about its history that are matters of speculation.

Rood
Posts: 1139
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2010 12:19 pm
Location: Goodyear, AZ 85338

Post by Rood »

Don't intend to get too far afield, here, but the city and civilization centered on Teotihuacan was said to have collapsed about the year 500 AD. Meanwhile, the Aztecs began to settle in the Valley of Mexico beginning about 1248 AD. If that's true, roughly 750 years separate the two centers.

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10042
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

... and that's why the place was somewhat the worse for wear by the time the Aztecs got there.

David
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2016 4:01 pm
Location: Madrid, Spain
Contact:

Post by David »

Image

in this, probably the most famous photograph of the Larkin building, why did the photographer choose such a skew point of view? Did he want to emphasize the strong vertical lines of Wright's design?

While I was modeling the Larkin, I realized that there is also a much more mundane reason: This is the only point of view from which the electricity cables are not visible!

Image

DRN
Posts: 3932
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:02 am
Location: Cherry Hill, NJ

Post by DRN »

I suppose you are right that the "iconic" photo of Larkin simply deletes the electrical wires without alterations to the image. But, when one carefully studies it, the photo seems to be very carefully composed...notice the careful alignment of the ornamental fence with respect to features of the building; the interplay of the rhythms of the building and the fence; the diagonal balance of the entrance through the gate at the lower left with the darkness of the pier at the upper right.
It is a beautifully composed image.

David
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2016 4:01 pm
Location: Madrid, Spain
Contact:

Post by David »

I agree, it is a very good and very complicated photo to execute, there is no doubt, but I always thought that it had a very clear intention and now I wonder if it was born from the need to avoid the electricity cables, many works of art were born of humble needs, what makes it great is the virtuosity of the photographer.

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10042
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

That isn't an unusual vantage point. When I did architectural rendering, that was the preferred image. It makes the building very muscular and dramatic, compared to the more sedate view.

Post Reply