Should there be a new social media closed group for Wright?

[SDR]

I think that is a nuanced and valid description of the case, Mark, and I am happy to see it voiced here.

I would only add that the repetition of the phrase "Frank Lloyd Wright" whenever the man is discussed becomes cumbersome to the ear, which might explain the use of the shorter "Mr Wright." I'm not a Fellow; I wasn't there---but my impression from hearing former apprentices and others recall their time at the Taliesins is that "Mr Wright" was the most commonly used address. To my mind it isn't equivalent to "The Master," which I agree is excessive and tiresome. "Genius" is surely an overused term as well, no matter to whom it might be applied.

S

[Mark Hertzberg]

Indeed, using Wright's full name is cumbersome. I understand the (other) Taliesin fellows and affiliated people using "Mr." Wright because that was the norm for them, but the rest of us?

[SDR]

Yes. So, simply "Wright," following an initial utterance of "Frank Lloyd Wright" in any given chapter, section, paragraph or conversation ?

Otherwise ? I don't feel embarrassed to use "Mr Wright"---but then I've always been a bit presumptuous . . .

S

[Roderick Grant]

Carrying on about how to address FLW, or Frank Lloyd Wright, or Franky, is to me a waste of time. Do what you will as far as I'm concerned. What annoys me are all the inaccuracies about his life and the tiresome attempts to find out exactly whom he copied. It is no longer popular to credit Sir Francis Bacon for writing Shakespeare's plays and poetry.

As for genius, somewhere I read a comment from him: "Once people have labeled you a genius, they are through with you."

[jay]

FYI

Y'all are having an argument with a bot.

https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/definition/bot-robot

The "Check This Out" link that was posted is probably just spam, but potentially something prompting a download with malware.

[Mark Hertzberg]

Thank you, Jay, for head's up. Just ran a scan to make sure my computer is clean. SDR...yes...that is journalism style. Full name on first reference, just last name on subsequent references. That is the style I used professionally and still use.

[SDR]

Heh. Well, Jay, whatever the cause, a useful conversation (from my point of view, if not of others) ensued. "Carrying on" is what we do here, isn't it ?

Journalism's standards are okay by me, too. Incidentally, the state of editing in published journalism is indicated, on one front at least, by what one finds in the estimable weekly The New Yorker---whose style and standards were above reproach. Now, one finds occasional typos or other editing glitches. Further, it has become the regrettable norm for a name to be mentioned early in a long essay, only to be repeated without reintroduction pages later, forcing the reader of average intelligence to backtrack to find the name and refresh one's memory. Tsk tsk.

S

[Roderick Grant]

There is also the occasional problem of an article about two or more persons with the same surname - such as Frank, Lloyd and Eric - that can be confusing.

As a former proofreader, I tend to edit stories as I read them. The state of grammar, syntax, definition and punctuation is not good. A current error common among Brits - when speaking at least - is confusing swath and swathe. "Begs the question" is a phrase almost always misused. On the other hand, it does not bother me that people now use prepositions to end their sentences with.

[SDR]

Right. Some rules are becoming obsolete as their failings become clearer over time; your last example exemplifies a form that (or is it which) could have been dispensed with several centuries ago ? And now we have need of a neutral gender, it appears. Which languages are already prepared in that matter for the Twenty-first Century ? German ?

My own usage is far from perfect; my grasp of the rules of the road and the parts of speech is as hole-y as Swiss cheese (I might have been distracted in English class by the the new '57 models going by in a car carrier on the Post Road ?). I can't correctly name the parts of speech, and thus I have depended on imitation to make my way through the morass that is the English language as spoken and written.

Unintended word substitution is one class of error frequently encountered: Shutter for shudder, prostrate for prostate, etc etc. "Can't be underestimated" when "Can't be overestimated" is meant . . .

S

[Roderick Grant]

Sometimes "...cannot be underestimated" is used facetiously, as in "The aesthetic taste of the public ...."

[JamesW]

I think starting a new closed group for people who love Wright could be a great idea, especially if you're looking for a different vibe than the last group you were in.
If you decide to go ahead with it, you could try using GetLikes to help get more people interested. It might make it easier to build a strong community of people who really appreciate Wright's work.

[163onmynec]

I totally get where you're coming from about the need for a fresh social media group for Wright enthusiasts. It's great to see different perspectives being shared here.

And you bring up such an interesting point about the repetitive use of ""Frank Lloyd Wright."" I agree, it can indeed feel a bit clunky at times. ""Mr. Wright"" does have a more natural flow and could reflect the way people commonly addressed him. It's like finding that sweet spot between being respectful and making conversation smoother.

Oh, speaking of online trends, have you ever noticed those ads offering the Cheapest Followers, Likes & Views? It's amusing how the digital world keeps throwing surprises our way.

[SDR]

Wright Chat (and now Tumblr, for another of my interests) is the only "social media" site I attend. At one time there were three other architecture-and-design fora for my pleasure, but they evaporated over the last fifteen years. I guess I'd need to be instructed about what a "private Wright group" would do for me, or you, or others, that Wright Chat doesn't.

I'd say that all the regulars here are serious about Wright. But what would keep any person who found the site from joining, serious Wrightian or not ? What is the attraction of a "secret" or private site ? After seven pages of discussion (with digressions, of course), have we come any closer to resolution of this issue ? Or did we let it languish as largely irrelevant ?

Thanks for reviving it, 163 (if I may move right to the informal); what are your opinions on the questions I have raised ? (Or are you an incipient spammer, or an AI bot ? We ignore those such as the previous poster.) I stand to learn something, being usually the last to catch on to fresh ideas . . .

S