Wright Chat

Has anyone read this one?

https://www.amazon.com/Art-Vision-Symme ... 129&sr=1-3

It would appear to undertake geometrical analysis of Wright's work.

I have the book, and am glad to be prompted to return to it, to continue where I left off.

A typical paragraph: "He [Wright] carefully chose the scale of the grid unit most suitable to the scale and character of the project. But the discipline of a grid by itself did not guarantee good design; of itself it could not have prevented bland, diffuse, and inert results (as the efforts of others have too often proved). The controlling influence of a square grid did not begin to explain that characteristically Wrightian combination of vitality and serenity that I found in the plan and in my daily experience in the Haynes House . . ."

Mr Shoaff, an architect trained at Yale under (amongst others) Vincent Scully, produces multiple geometric analyses of the Haynes house plan overlaid with squares and double-squares of varying sizes, then does likewise with Robie and Goetsch-Winckler---followed eventually with the the plans of Keys, Jacobs I, Rosenbaum, Walter, Affleck, Sundt, Lautrent, Jester, the Usonian Exhibition house, Boomer, and Fallingwater. He is mainly concerned with the facts of perception as applied to our understanding and enjoyment of architecture, Wright's in particular in this case.

S

Thanks for that.
It may be worth the dive.

I’ve found geometric analysis of buildings to be uneven at best. Some are insightful to describing what pleases the eye, others are a bit far fetched. I do wonder if some of the architects presented in such analyses consciously or actively laid out their plans or constructed their elevations with those ordering lines or principles that the analysis diagrams depict.

I recall a classmate drawing an analytical elevation over a photo which “proved” a Sears Roebuck metal tool shed was based on the Golden Section.

My go-to example of questionable geometrical analysis of architectural form is The Old Way of Seeing (1994) by Jonathan Hale, an architect no less. I have mentioned this before, but here are the most egregious examples from his book:





Is this a joke ? Regulating lines going to an adjacent roof (above right) or chimney (left)---or a vehicle wheel (lower right) ?



This is not Hale's work; I find the result persuasive, but somehow I don't believe Wright would have designed the house and its windows using this sort of device:

I’m in awe of the architect or builder who had the foresight to know a Toyota van would one day complete his work…or should I compliment the expert valet Parker for his skill in “dressing the house”.

I saw the Robie regulating lines once and laughed. I doubt Wright designed using regulating lines, but I believe they were a natural result of his ordered and regular planning units.

I have found that regulating lines applied to an old masonry or wood framed building can often identify an addition as the bay spacing was often different from iteration to iteration.
Look at window spacing on Mount Vernon.

Mount Vernon:






The facade was regularized by this artist:




Dan, I am puzzled by your first sentence. What did I miss ?

S

Mount Vernon was not planned to be what it became. In 1734, a 1-story house of modest size was built, evolving through remodeling and expansion into the current estate, an accidental Palladian mansion. Monticello is a better example of a descendant of Andrea.