In 1966, Prentice-Hall, Inc published Professor Smith's "Frank Lloyd Wright: A Study in Architectural Content"; the revised edition was published by The American Life Foundation in 1979. I recently found a copy and have nearly finished my first reading.
Has anyone here read this book ? What can be said about it ?
SDR
Norris Kelly Smith
Oh yes, one more thing....in the photo of Wright on the cover of the '70's-'80's edition paperback, Wright is wearing a necktie with a geometric pattern that is stunning. If the Foundation wants to produce and sell neckties, that is the one to sell. It may not be Wright's design, but it sure looked good to me and I assume, to him as well.
I hear that. Unfortunately, my paperbound copy (8 1/2" x 11") doesn't have the photo you describe, though there is an early photo of Wright inside.
The verso of the title page reads as follows:
____________________________________________________________
Published by The American Life Foundation in
The Institute for the Study of Universal History Through Arts and Artifacts series
Modern History in the Arts
The first edition of "Frank Lloyd Wright: A Study in Architectural Content" was published by Prentice
The verso of the title page reads as follows:
____________________________________________________________
Published by The American Life Foundation in
The Institute for the Study of Universal History Through Arts and Artifacts series
Modern History in the Arts
The first edition of "Frank Lloyd Wright: A Study in Architectural Content" was published by Prentice
I'll admit it's heavy going -- or maybe just lacking in excitement ? And the title seems a little misleading; there really isn't much in the way of *architectural* content -- though there is a right-on description of the Richard Lloyd-Jones house (1929): ". . .strangely dry and mechanistic. . .perhaps the least attractive house -- the least *domestic* -- that Wright ever built."
SDR
SDR
-
Roderick Grant
- Posts: 11815
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am
It has been a long time since I read Smith's book, but as I recall, it was dry as sawdust and not illuminating unless set fire to.
SDR, if you think the Lloyd-Jones House is dry, mechanistic and unliveable, one can only assume you have never been inside it. It is magical. The photographs are not very revealing, but once you experience the place first-hand, you will never forget it. It may be the very best of the concrete block houses. Some unfortunate things have been done to it, like wall-to-wall carpetting and a thick layer of paint on all the concrete surfaces throughout, but the architecture shines through. I used to have the same dismissive attitude about both Price Houses until I visited them; the Bartlesville house is exquisite and the Phoenix house with all its 50s furniture and colors intact is fantastic. Never judge FLW by photographs alone.
SDR, if you think the Lloyd-Jones House is dry, mechanistic and unliveable, one can only assume you have never been inside it. It is magical. The photographs are not very revealing, but once you experience the place first-hand, you will never forget it. It may be the very best of the concrete block houses. Some unfortunate things have been done to it, like wall-to-wall carpetting and a thick layer of paint on all the concrete surfaces throughout, but the architecture shines through. I used to have the same dismissive attitude about both Price Houses until I visited them; the Bartlesville house is exquisite and the Phoenix house with all its 50s furniture and colors intact is fantastic. Never judge FLW by photographs alone.
I found my copy of the book on the shelf. It is a later printing of the 1966 Prentice-Hall edition in paperback (red and black w/ white lettering and a b&w photo of Wright on the cover) it appears I bought it as a used book in the 80's.
Skimming through I recalled why I found the book so dry...it is written as several sections consisting of two types: a very edited overview of Wright's life and work from the 1880's to 1936-7, and an analysis of Wright's place in art and architectural history. The biographical portions are largely based on Wright's An Autobiography and are essentially a lesser re-telling. The analysis portion seemed to me to be a very academic series of comparison and contrast a'la every double screen slide show we've encountered in art history classes. Some of the connections Smith attempts to make are thought provoking, but in my view, a bit of a stretch as to Wright's actual cognizance of those influences as he worked.
That is not to say Wright worked in a vacuum;he did not. He was influenced by his environment and by what he read and saw, but he was much better than most at seeing the essence of an idea an assimilating it to his own personal language.
Skimming through I recalled why I found the book so dry...it is written as several sections consisting of two types: a very edited overview of Wright's life and work from the 1880's to 1936-7, and an analysis of Wright's place in art and architectural history. The biographical portions are largely based on Wright's An Autobiography and are essentially a lesser re-telling. The analysis portion seemed to me to be a very academic series of comparison and contrast a'la every double screen slide show we've encountered in art history classes. Some of the connections Smith attempts to make are thought provoking, but in my view, a bit of a stretch as to Wright's actual cognizance of those influences as he worked.
That is not to say Wright worked in a vacuum;he did not. He was influenced by his environment and by what he read and saw, but he was much better than most at seeing the essence of an idea an assimilating it to his own personal language.
Perhaps Smith's most original contribution comes in his chapter on Romanticism. He attempts a new "descriptive characterization" of the term. He eventually quotes one Giuseppe Gabetti, from Enciclopedia Italiana [sic] XXX, 63, as follows:
" 'Romanticism appears now as a revolutionary movement, now as a movement of restoration; now as a faith in the "bonte' naturelle" of man in a state of nature and now as a mystical exaltation of cultural values; now as individualism and now as a religious sentiment concerning the unity of social life; now as subjectivism and now as the conscience of people, ... now as an affirmation of the irrational forces of life and now as the triumph of the liberty of the spirit; now as dissatisfaction with reality and now as a poetic transfiguration of that same reality; now as the poetry of melancholy, of sorrow, and of death and now as the discovery of a new and more intimate richness of existence; now as the victory of fantasy and of sentiment over reason and now as the conquest of a higher plane of rational life; now as a sentiment of "life as becoming "-- in opposition to that sentiment of "life as being" which is so important to classicism -- and now as an ecstatic religiosity in which all becoming flows again without distinction into the unity of "divine being"; now as an historicistic orientation and now as mystico-aesthetic idealism; now as a return to the Middle Ages and now as the foundation of modernity ...' "
Then the author says:
"How many of these antitheses are exemplified in Wright's thought! He prided himseIf upon being a revolutionary trail hlazer, responsible for the principal innovations that have determined the charactcr of all modern architecture, but at the same time he regarded himsclf as the defender of a universal organic ideal whose nature has been misunderstood by virtually all modern architects. He had unbounded faith in the natural goodness of man, yet he was scornful of virtually all the products of human endeavor he saw in the world around him. He had only contempt for the institutions of Western civilization, but he had great confidence in the cultural promise of the United States of America -- in spite of the fact that he repeatedly spoke of it as a cheap, commercialized, and harbarous mobocracy. He would have liked for there to be "as many kinds of houses as there are kinds of people," but he was deeply concerned lest social disunity should frustrate the cause of the new architecture, which was to be the architecture of a "whole people." He frequently hypostatized "Life" as an ultimate vitalistic value and spoke of architecture as a "Great Spirit," while at the same time he avowed his confidence in reason, common sense, and a "hard-as-nails" approach to social and architectural problems. He was greatly excited by the concept of Growth and welcomed the diversity that growth and change must bring, yet he looked forward to the day when "in this modern era Art, Science, and Religion -- these three will unite and be one, unity achieved with organic architecture as center." He espoused the cause of what he understood to be progressive modernity in architecture (new materials, new uses of the machine, and so on) , but the only social and architectural tradition for which he had unqualified admiration was that of feudal Japan. He was the champion of democracy and freedom, yet he was capable of being the most autocratic of men. He ceaselessly praised the virtues of loyalty, integrity, and simplicity, even while he was himself acting in ways that could only be described as disloyal, irresponsible, and extravagantly ostentatious. He dreamed of a day when every man would be "absolutely self-sufficient," yet at the same time he declared, both in his writings and in his buildings, that we are embraced by and involved within a pattern of rclationships that is immeasurably larger than ourselves. In short, he was a thoroughgoing Romantic, oscillating between opposite positions with respect to all those matters with which he was most deeply concerned."
There are surely some exaggerations there, but the view is persuasive -- I think.
SDR
" 'Romanticism appears now as a revolutionary movement, now as a movement of restoration; now as a faith in the "bonte' naturelle" of man in a state of nature and now as a mystical exaltation of cultural values; now as individualism and now as a religious sentiment concerning the unity of social life; now as subjectivism and now as the conscience of people, ... now as an affirmation of the irrational forces of life and now as the triumph of the liberty of the spirit; now as dissatisfaction with reality and now as a poetic transfiguration of that same reality; now as the poetry of melancholy, of sorrow, and of death and now as the discovery of a new and more intimate richness of existence; now as the victory of fantasy and of sentiment over reason and now as the conquest of a higher plane of rational life; now as a sentiment of "life as becoming "-- in opposition to that sentiment of "life as being" which is so important to classicism -- and now as an ecstatic religiosity in which all becoming flows again without distinction into the unity of "divine being"; now as an historicistic orientation and now as mystico-aesthetic idealism; now as a return to the Middle Ages and now as the foundation of modernity ...' "
Then the author says:
"How many of these antitheses are exemplified in Wright's thought! He prided himseIf upon being a revolutionary trail hlazer, responsible for the principal innovations that have determined the charactcr of all modern architecture, but at the same time he regarded himsclf as the defender of a universal organic ideal whose nature has been misunderstood by virtually all modern architects. He had unbounded faith in the natural goodness of man, yet he was scornful of virtually all the products of human endeavor he saw in the world around him. He had only contempt for the institutions of Western civilization, but he had great confidence in the cultural promise of the United States of America -- in spite of the fact that he repeatedly spoke of it as a cheap, commercialized, and harbarous mobocracy. He would have liked for there to be "as many kinds of houses as there are kinds of people," but he was deeply concerned lest social disunity should frustrate the cause of the new architecture, which was to be the architecture of a "whole people." He frequently hypostatized "Life" as an ultimate vitalistic value and spoke of architecture as a "Great Spirit," while at the same time he avowed his confidence in reason, common sense, and a "hard-as-nails" approach to social and architectural problems. He was greatly excited by the concept of Growth and welcomed the diversity that growth and change must bring, yet he looked forward to the day when "in this modern era Art, Science, and Religion -- these three will unite and be one, unity achieved with organic architecture as center." He espoused the cause of what he understood to be progressive modernity in architecture (new materials, new uses of the machine, and so on) , but the only social and architectural tradition for which he had unqualified admiration was that of feudal Japan. He was the champion of democracy and freedom, yet he was capable of being the most autocratic of men. He ceaselessly praised the virtues of loyalty, integrity, and simplicity, even while he was himself acting in ways that could only be described as disloyal, irresponsible, and extravagantly ostentatious. He dreamed of a day when every man would be "absolutely self-sufficient," yet at the same time he declared, both in his writings and in his buildings, that we are embraced by and involved within a pattern of rclationships that is immeasurably larger than ourselves. In short, he was a thoroughgoing Romantic, oscillating between opposite positions with respect to all those matters with which he was most deeply concerned."
There are surely some exaggerations there, but the view is persuasive -- I think.
SDR
I would agree Wright was a Romantic in his life and work.
It is interesting that his work, on so many levels, is based on a device so rational as a grid, but still transcends that rigidity. The grid gave Wright's plans the rhythm and structure required of a building, but his romanticism shaped the edges of the structure: the erosion of the corners and the extremities of the roof. The cantilever was Wright's expression of the romantic in structural form.
It is interesting that his work, on so many levels, is based on a device so rational as a grid, but still transcends that rigidity. The grid gave Wright's plans the rhythm and structure required of a building, but his romanticism shaped the edges of the structure: the erosion of the corners and the extremities of the roof. The cantilever was Wright's expression of the romantic in structural form.
I found NK Smith's book on Wright gripping and profound. I couldn't put it down. The best interpretation on Wright to have been written. By now possibly a little dated. The scholarship of Thorlief Borman and his distinction between Greek and Hebraic thought I found provocative and in tune with Wright's architecture. I've read that Borman's work has been questioned.
An update on this line of Wright interpretation should look at the new work being done on the romantic symbol and Goethe's influence on Wright in particular.
An update on this line of Wright interpretation should look at the new work being done on the romantic symbol and Goethe's influence on Wright in particular.
-
Paul Ringstrom
- Posts: 4777
- Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:53 pm
- Location: Mason City, IA
DRN wrote:Oh yes, one more thing....in the photo of Wright on the cover of the '70's-'80's edition paperback, Wright is wearing a necktie with a geometric pattern that is stunning. If the Foundation wants to produce and sell neckties, that is the one to sell. It may not be Wright's design, but it sure looked good to me and I assume, to him as well.
producing this in five or six different colorways would be very nice.
That's the edition I read as well. Then I loaned it to somebody and have not seen it since. I'm in the market if you are a seller. I have since found another edition 1979, 81/2x11 published by the American Life Foundation which I own, but I'd also like the smaller edition as well. ...so name your price if you are so inclined.
Here's a slightly larger photo -- still hard to see that tie.
Anybody have a close-up ?
Bill Stout lists a copy at $20. Not hard to find . . .
http://www.stoutbooks.com/cgi-bin/stoutbooks.cgi/74585
SDR
Anybody have a close-up ?
Bill Stout lists a copy at $20. Not hard to find . . .
http://www.stoutbooks.com/cgi-bin/stoutbooks.cgi/74585
SDR