Sure, we can call anything "Frank Lloyd Wright"

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.
SDR
Posts: 20771
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Re: Sure, we can call anything "Frank Lloyd Wright"

Post by SDR »

Here's an example of something whose design integrity and originality are worthy of the term "Wrightian." Among other delights is the master suite in the "attic" space, feeling like what it is and also providing surveillance of much of what lies below, including the approach to the house.

The bold stonework, however, demonstrates by its absence what it is that makes Wright's characteristic masonry so masterful. The mason (and/or the architect) here has missed or ignored the fact that to be successful---to avoid looking like just a pile of rocks---there needs to be established a recognizable ground plane, from which the "lookout" stones protrude in one or two repeated increments of projection.

S

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10888
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Re: Sure, we can call anything "Frank Lloyd Wright"

Post by Roderick Grant »

I agree, the stonework is not FLW-like ... nor EF Jones-like. But that would not be my complaint; it's just that designer's specific choice. What I find distracting is the busyness of detailing. FLW's details evolved from the design of the house: they were one. Gilmore's is more like applique, tossing trim all over the place for no distinct reason. It is still an impressive opus, and could be edited with care, but as is, it might seem like living in an Escher fantasy world. (OK, that's an exaggeration, but you know what I mean.)

SDR
Posts: 20771
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Re: Sure, we can call anything "Frank Lloyd Wright"

Post by SDR »

Sure---a bit over-the-top, and overscaled to boot. I do like the concept of the kitchen and dining table overhead lighting, a sort of orthogonal spiderweb growing from the fabric of the house, a rebuke to the typical dangling-from-the-ceiling light fixture ?

Any decoration, even Wright's, can be said to contain or to consist of arbitrary choices; it's all a matter of degree, I think. Are Goetsch-Winckler or some other Usonians incomplete without the perfs or the articulated copper trim that were drawn for them ? An interesting question. My answer would be no: those elements are Wright's delightful and unique icing on his tasty cakes . . .

(Is there really something about a particular house design that calls for a patterned roof fascia, when a similar design for a different client does not ? Are not the perf designs mostly interchangeable, as opposed to being specific to the house they were drawn for ?

Could anyone deny that the architect's approach to each commission would quite naturally be based in part, and from beginning to end, on his perception of the client's purse ?)

The Fay reference is apt here, for me; the design of this house could be said to be a horizontal answer to Fay's chronic (but not pathological !) verticality . . .

S


DavidC
Posts: 8323
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:22 pm
Location: Oak Ridge, TN

Re: Sure, we can call anything "Frank Lloyd Wright"

Post by DavidC »


DavidC
Posts: 8323
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:22 pm
Location: Oak Ridge, TN

Re: Sure, we can call anything "Frank Lloyd Wright"

Post by DavidC »



Roderick Grant
Posts: 10888
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Re: Sure, we can call anything "Frank Lloyd Wright"

Post by Roderick Grant »

The Healdsburg site is indeed serene. The house? Not so much.

Reidy
Posts: 1636
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:30 pm
Location: Fremont CA

Re: Sure, we can call anything "Frank Lloyd Wright"

Post by Reidy »

This would be a dangerous place to raise children, Once their heads got stuck in that woodwork you wouldn't be able to pry them out for days.

Paul Ringstrom
Posts: 4499
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:53 pm
Location: Mason City, IA

Re: Sure, we can call anything "Frank Lloyd Wright"

Post by Paul Ringstrom »

The architect of this house claimed to have been inspired the FLW's Usonian homes.

https://fadlbadreddine.maxbroock.com/MI ... 51313-MIRC

My question is: "Does a plexiglass grand piano sound the same as a wood one?"
Owner of the G. Curtis Yelland House (1910), by Wm. Drummond

DavidC
Posts: 8323
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:22 pm
Location: Oak Ridge, TN

Re: Sure, we can call anything "Frank Lloyd Wright"

Post by DavidC »



DavidC
Posts: 8323
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:22 pm
Location: Oak Ridge, TN

Re: Sure, we can call anything "Frank Lloyd Wright"

Post by DavidC »

Who knew but, FLW "is regarded by some as the American founder of the Art Deco Movement":

Art Deco cat door stop black cast iron ~ Frank Lloyd Wright ~ new Hubley statue


David

Roderick Grant
Posts: 10888
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Re: Sure, we can call anything "Frank Lloyd Wright"

Post by Roderick Grant »

The Conestoga House has some very interesting interiors. Not bad at all.

The "Offer to purchase" house is sort of Frank Lloyd Wright meets 21st Century upper middle-class Suburbia. Not bad, but not good, either.

The Art Deco Cat Doorstop makes me wonder ... not what FLW had to do with Art Deco, but what his attitude toward cats was. He loved farm animals, celebrated the Cow in his autobiography, but I cannot recall seeing him with an indoor pet of any kind. Olga had her dogs but that was after FLW was gone, wasn't it?

Reidy
Posts: 1636
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 3:30 pm
Location: Fremont CA

Re: Sure, we can call anything "Frank Lloyd Wright"

Post by Reidy »

Somewhere I read that Olgivanna hated cats after one of them caused the accident that killed her daughter and grandson.

Post Reply