Wright Chat

I second that. Even the photographs don't do justice. Don't know what it is..............you just have to be there in person.

It's knowing you are in the rare presence of genius, and experiencing first hand his incredible ability to manipulate space and form.... and doing it with style for so many years.

Don't the Taliesin Architects offer a service where they have a form you fill out with what you're looking for and they will go through the FLW files and find a couple of designs that fit you and your property? Don't they charge a percentage of the total building fee for this? Just a thought.

Anonymous wrote:Don't the Taliesin Architects offer a service where they have a form you fill out with what you're looking for and they will go through the FLW files and find a couple of designs that fit you and your property? Don't they charge a percentage of the total building fee for this? Just a thought.

Yes, they called it the Legacy program, and I hope this practice has ceased.

Why would you want to see a viable source of income be removed from what is obiliously a organization in crisis? The Foundation, the school and the pratice are all interconnected. They cannot pay the bills now. If you start placing unreasonable restrictions on potential sources of income, you will certainly help in the failure of what is left.

Greg Coatsworth wrote:Why would you want to see a viable source of income be removed from what is obiliously a organization in crisis? The Foundation, the school and the pratice are all interconnected. They cannot pay the bills now. If you start placing unreasonable restrictions on potential sources of income, you will certainly help in the failure of what is left.

Why is it bad? Because it is architectural prostitution. I believe that they have higher standards.

The legacy program was set up with narrow parameters of adherence for each level of partipation. As long as the parameters at the top tier are met, I believe it is proper to call it a FLLW design. These unbuilt designs are assets and should be utilized to the full extent as long as the proper definition of the finished product is stated. I am only accepting of the FLLW design designation for the top tier. The other levels do not make the cut. I think calling the legacy program architectural prostitution is wrong and people who hold that view could suffer from a case of architectural prejudice.

I forgot to log in. The above rebuttal was mine.

FLW's legacy and American Architecture are not well served by legacy building projects such as Monona Terrace, which is mediocre.

I agree, Paul. Monona should be listed as the work of Tony Putnam exclusively. It is conceivable that a true FLW plan could be built, even with the sort of alterations that would bring it up to code and come closer to meeting today's standards and technologies. From what I have seen of it, the built version of the Slater Project for Rhode Island was done quite well. This was one of the designs Wright seemingly wanted built -- like Sundt and Jester -- since he offered versions of the plan repeatedly to various clients. On the other hand, the adobe house he sketched for Burlingame has been transformed into a bloated mess, and should not be linked to Wright at all. Generally speaking, the unbuilt projects should remain unbuilt.

"The true snob never rests; there is always a higher goal to attain, and there are, by the same token, always more and more people to look down upon" --J. Russell Lynes



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I see nothing wrong with wanting to build upon the legacy of Frank Lloyd Wright's designs. I think he would be a proponent of the chance at bringing one of his "unbuilts" to fruition...granted if it was overseen and guided, like I believe the Legacy Program is. Seems very elitist not to give another a chance to enjoy living in a Wright design, especially if that person already has the privledge to live in one themselves.

It isn't elitist at all. No one is suggesting that architects cannot copy Frank Lloyd Wright; they do it all the time with more or less success. The problem is the confusion of attribution. If you really want the product that comes out of Taliesin, go for it. But it should be made clear that it is not the work of Frank Lloyd Wright. That goes for Monona, too. It is a pale copy of the original ... or at least one of the many. The built version of the Slater House should be considered Wright, at least as far as I can determine (never having seen the house in person), but that fat pile of mud in New Mexico is NOT Burlingame. And Mr. Wright should not be blamed for, or even associated with it.

Lucky wrote:"Seems very elitist not to give another a chance to enjoy living in a Wright design, especially if that person already has the privledge to live in one themselves".

A chance to live in a "Wright design" is in itself commendable. At its essence the critical issue of any "legacy design" is one of attribution. Wright had a long and prolific career that included many extraodinary buildings. The legacy of FLW is an important part of architectural history and well worth preserving. A FLW design completed by another architect this far in time from Wright's passing inevitably involves alterations and design changes in order to accomodate the client, the site, and the current regulatory requirements. The end result when built is a building that is in the "manner" of Frank Lloyd Wright. The resulting building must be attributed to the architect who had control over those alterations. To call the resulting building a Frank Lloyd Wright Building is a lie and an attempt to alter history.



Other attribution issues or should they be called whoppers?



It is wrong for the owner of a FLW House or an Oak Park Preservation Commision to rename a FLW house. For example: Hills DeCaro in Oak Park. W. Storrer dignifies this rewriting of history by using that name for the title of the house in his book. The FLW Home and Studio also participates in the rewriting of history of this house.



The Charnley House Restoration in Chicago is incorrectly attributed to another architect in W. Storrer's book. In my previous career I worked at Skidmore Owings and Merrill (SOM) so I am familiar with this. The client was the Skidmore Owings and Merrill Foundation. The Restoration Architect was Skidmore Owings and Merrill. If an architect works on the project as an employee of SOM and later provides some contract work or consulting to SOM that does not make the employee the Restoration Architect for the Charnley House.



The integrity of Frank Lloyd Wright's Legacy and architectural history are critical. The issue is one of preservation. We all recognize that it is important to preserve FLW built work and not muddle them all up with an individuals interpretation or improvements on Frank Lloyd Wright. This same care and concern about integrity and fidelity needs to extend to attribution.

I agree with the name muddling issue, and add happily that it is no longer the "Ennis-Brown House." The newly reconstituted organization running the house and (hopefully) restoring it has deleted Brown. But if Nesbitt had followed through with his extensive FLW-designed alterations, Ennis-Nesbitt would have been acceptable, just as Adler-Sondern is. The DeCaros restored the exterior design after a fire exposed information previously unknown, and that was a good thing, but that alone should not result in appending their name to the work.

I wonder if the Legacy program at Taliesin is all that bad. There are hundreds of unbuilt designs reviewed and initialed by FLLW. Many consist of detailed and complete plans, even furnishings. Sure, they need to be brought up to current codes, and built with currently available materials, but so do most restoration projects. They may not be built on original sites, but many original FLLW buildings are on sites where the surroundings have changed dramatically. It was not unusual for FLLW designs to be completed without supervision of FLLW even in his own time. Some were built upon receipt of plans without Taliesin knowing construction was ongoing.



Trouble is, projects such as Burlingham were not developed beyond a concept, and left to different architects and clients, who produced different designs. A much more successful Legacy project would be one where no further interpretation by a current architect or client is available.



Perhaps we should look at the Legacy program in terms of possibilities, rather than errors of the past. Would an unbuilt FLLW prairie house constructed among its contemporaries in Oak Park or Mason City be unfit? There are many revitalized older neighborhoods that could benefit from such an endeavor, and make a new owner very happy.