Wright Chat

Has there been, or are there plans to publish an updated version of William Allin Storrer's Frank Lloyd Wright Companion with the latest developments and research?

Storrer has his own Web site at www.franklloydwrightinfo.com. He includes updated research and also lists his e-mail. He might be able to let you know.

Although the book is complete and a great reference, some of the errors are unnerving. Hearsay has no place in such an important book.

owner wrote:Although the book is complete and a great reference, some of the errors are unnerving. Hearsay has no place in such an important book.

No one is perfect, and I for one admire Storrers research-which few have attempted so comprehensively. I'd be interested to know which errors you find the most "unnerving" ?

Of course, I own several of Storrer's books and refer to them regularly. But, I do think that there are areas where Mr. Storrer is not consistent. Why, for example, is Amberg NOT a Wright house simply because it was completed by apprentices after FLlW left the country, but several of the later houses that were clearly completed by apprentices still considered Wright houses? For that matter, why is the Ennis house considered "a Wright classic" when Mrs. Ennis made so many changes to Wright's design and completed the house basically without his input?

Paula's points are valid, but considering the murky waters surrounding various phases of Wright's career, you have to assume Storrer used some sort of criteria for his assessments. It would be interesting to see a volume consisting purely of the data he has accumulated.



With anyone it is inevitable that the line is crossed into opinion and/or subjective assumptions. Storrer "demanding" that one believe such and such a building is (or is not) by Wright "no matter who says so!", is not exactly a scholarly approach.



Still, who else has taken the time to document to the degree he has? In general his research, whether or not it contains factual, unintended, or uncertain errors, does not quite reach the level where it unnerves me.



That cannot be said of Taliesin, which has compounded things by continuing Wright's inclination for confusing facts (for who knows what reasons). Even 59 years after his death, they are unconcerned with independent or rational thought.



Regarding Ennis, you have to remember that the house was basically completed with Lloyd Wright's supervision. The atrocities were committed during the final detailing (wrought iron, marble, etc.).



The later houses, in my opinion, are easier to pass judgement on. The ones Wright fawned over are obvious as are the ones where he left wide latitude to an apprentice or on site supervisor (Wright saw very few of these designs during or after construction). More than a few were assembly line designs. Some broke when they fell out of his sleeve, and an apprentice had to try and pick up the pieces.



His personal supervision of much of the earlier work is evident in their success as timeless architecture. Some of the later work to me looks not quite "Wright", possibly due to the lack of architect supervision.

Minor point: "apprentices" would not be the term for von Holst and Mahony, who presumably did the Amberg house after Wright left for Europe. "Apprentices" in this connection means members of the Taliesin Fellowship, which didn't start up until the 30s. Before that, "staffers" or "employees" would be the word.



I agree that Storrer is inconsistent. If Wright was the architect of record for a building, as he was for both Ennis and Amberg, then it ought to count as his, regardless of who did what in the office or at the site.



Peter

Storrer is inconsistent on this issue in my opinion. I have been in both Ennis and Amberg. I do not see how you can count one and not the other. When Wright was the Architect of Record that is good enough for me. No architect is intimately involved with every project to the same degree. That is evident in the work of FLW in the last decade of his career.

If any designs are to be questioned, the work of the 50s is on thinner ice than Ennis or Amberg (or the Muellers). While the alterations to Ennis were made by Mabel -- even worse than the wrought iron and marble are the reconstructed roofs -- the finishing touches, and at times entire designs, of many late buildings were done by apprentices. One of the least of FLW's constructed designs is that bank in Montana, done almost entirely by the late Tom Casey. Tom was a fine architect in his own right, but as "a pencil in his Master's hand" he left something to be desired.

As a tour guide at the 1940 Pope-Leighey House in Alexandria, VA, I can point out several specific errors that Storer makes in his description of our house. The house had to be moved to a Natonal Trust-owned property twice, once in 1964 to save it from destruction by Interstate 66, and a second time in 1995 on the same site because it had been rebuilt on unstable soil. The fact that it was moved rather than torn down seems to have caused Storer to become personally offended. Never mind that the autocratic Mrs. Wright was still living at the time of the first move, and that she was most generous in opening the archives to the architects and historians involved in the project, indicating her approval of the move.



I don't have the book in front of me, but Storer got several dates wrong in the house's history. He claims that architectural details were omitted in the first reconstruction in 1964, a charge denied by the original owner of the house, who is still living as of December 2005. He argues that the house is not oriented according to Mr. Wright's original design. Well, guess what? In its original location, it had to be rotated 130 degrees from Mr. Wright's design because he had been given a faulty topographic map to work from. Storer also claims that even after the second move, problems with the concrete slab persist (they do not.) The final insult is his portrayal of the house using a black-and-white picuture, which we are led to believe indicates that he thinks the house is inauthentic.



In addition, in Storer's description of the Euchtmann house in Baltimore, he gives an address on "Cross Country Road". On the facing page showing a house in the Midwest, he gives exactly the same street address, just in a different city. I supposed it's possible that both houses could have the same street address hundreds of miles apart, but it seems unlikely. This is probably only a copy-editing error, but combined with the mistakes he makes on the Pope-Leighey house, it makes me question the accuracy of all of his listings.

Sorry, I misspelled "Storrer" in my previous post...