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.
Nope. And I have my reasons:
- Every Lautner's building are different while a lot of Wright's are very similar, sometimes is boring to see the same recipe.
- One of the greatest problems of usonians are the lack of functionality when Wright used circles, triangles or diamond grids while Lautner's keep beauty and function.
- Wright was too rigid with his grids and geometry while Lautner had a more free hand. Elrod's kitchen hints an oval but is not literally an oval like Wright would have done ( a perfect circle, triangle or diamond). Other great examples are Arango, Sheats, Elrod, Hope, Silvertop. There you have triangles, curves, circles but not in a literal way but in a more free way.
- Lautner achieved some more interesting ways of the famous relationship interior-exterior with Schaffer, Arango, Sheats, etc..
It's not heresy, are facts...
Not everyone would agree that Wright's grids are limiting. Many designers would unhesitatingly applaud the use of planning grids, which might be likened to the lines on a sheet of writing paper---or the staves on music manuscript paper---and would blanch as the prospect of "going commando": designing on a blank sheet.
I think Roderick had tongue in cheek when chiding you, however. Wright is on a pedestal, here, and we take him very seriously ! And yes, Wright's most successful followers each has his own grammar and vocabulary; Schindler, Lautner and Howe are no more like each other than is any of them like the others (though Howe's work is certainly Wrightian in a way that the others are not).
Finally, Mr Wright drew an ellipse only when portraying a circle in perspective, as on the aerial view of a ground plan. His curves were always circles or arcs . . .
But I'm a formalist too, and we just have to let this architect be "the poet," as he professed to be, and admire the strengths of the work and forgive the weaknesses---as I see it.