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://wendycitychicago.com/the-story-o ... ott-store/
What I find odd is that Sullivan's ornament---in particular, an example like this one---is not more often compared to l'Art Nouveau . . .
Alofsin's point is that Wright saw architecturally into the patterns of ornament. No longer surface application it becomes a question of 'scale life' and concept or "germ" Like children seeing cities and animals in cloud forms, Wright saw buildings in the patterns of ornament.
Alofsin gets into this most in The Lost Years chapter 5, sub heading : Wright's Theory of Conventionalization.
... and I think, although Alofsin doesn't say, this is one way to distinguish Wright's work and work that follows Wright, from the direction that European modernism took.
"Before the European "influence"...." If you imply what I think you imply, FLW's kreuz doesn't include the haken.
The cube (rarely found as such in nature but not unheard-of) is man's abstraction of the universe, of the ubiquitous language we call mathematics; it is the self-justifying answer to the question "how shall man live, and work, and express himself." And so are the other Platonic solids and the plane figures too; the straight line itself, when manifested, is man's work, his reflection of the laws of physics, his first step toward building. The horizontal plane best suits his needs in a world where the presence of gravity (and the implied vertical axis which is its corollary, its response) holds sway. Mr Wright would have found these things whether Froebel had been born or not; they preceded him. The young Wright would have found them soon enough, in the Engineering Department at the University of Wisconsin, at Silsbee's office, in every building to which he turned his gaze.
There is a 1927 print edition of Sullivans book on the system of ornament in Wright's library.
Pinterest has a few collection of plates from that book.
I'd love to have a copy, but prices seem to range from $400 -$900.
https://www.pinterest.com/gilesphillips ... %2C%201923
Brian Kelly's commentary on the WendyCity piece is interesting . . .
Alofsin shows that Owen Jones, in the 19th century, thought that modern architecture would find renewed foundations in ornament.
Evidently in the Autobiography Wright says he used Jones in his early work.
Here's an interesting article on Jones:
https://www.vam.ac.uk/articles/owen-jon ... 88&slide=0
So---this "integral ornament," essential to a design as asserted elsewhere by the architect, is only essential to the building where it will be noticed ? And why would Samara be so decorated, when most other flat-roofed Usonians of this scale did without---and when the Christians approached Wright hat in hand, with "no money," right at the start ? (Dr Christian had to wait until 1991, twenty-five years after initial construction, to add the fascia.) I will be shocked---shocked !---to learn that such filigree is the work of whimsey on the part of the architect . . .!