Wright Chat

The 12 volume monograph that I recently purchased was owned by Lynn Anderson an architect and former Taliesen Apprentice. She annotated in pencil what she understood to be factual errors in the text. The most glaring errors were on Taliesin 1, pages 138 to 143, Volume 3. The photographs according to Lynn are of both Taliesin 1 and Taliesin 2. The drawings attributed to Taliesin 1, are actually of Taliesin 1, 2, and 3. I assume this reflects the human nature of Bruce Brooks Pfeiffer.



If one were to pick one book(s) on FLW to own, this would be it. This 12 volume monograph is amazing. The technical drawings reproduced in the book are absolutely wonderful for understanding FLW's kit of parts. The excellent photographs contribute a lot to an understanding of the architecture. Together with the fine, but not perfect text, by BBP these 12 volumes are gold mine of information on FLW's work. Unfortunately the cost of these out of print books is astronomical. They should be reprinted in hardcover with the factual errors corrected.

I have pretty much come to ignore common errors in Wrightdom. They are everywhere. I constantly see photos printed backwards, even in the Quarterly, which may just be sloppy proofing at the printers. Reprinted editions are not re-edited 100% of the time either. For example, when Twombly reissued his interpretive biography, there were many things he could have corrected. His photo of the Birdwalk is still noted as a terrace off of Wright's bedroom. That may have been true in 1913!



Regarding Taliesin I in the Monograph, the comments about his mother valiantly insisting he take over her summer cottage is priceless. As if she could have afforded to build it and as if he would have dogged Martin to finance it as a summer cottage for his mother! While he may have intended her to live there, it is commonly known Taliesin was always "his". These are things that would not change in any reprint, since the myth is still more important than the facts; an unfortunate indictment of Pheiffers otherwise informative narratives.



The two living room photos are indeed of Taliesin II. Even the wonderful Volume One of Wright Studies seemed uncertain, although there were prints of the first living room available. They came to the conclusion they were of T2 when noting the furnishings appear in photos of visiting Imperial Hotel emmisaries, which occurred after the fire.



Of all the buildings and considering what is available, why more interesting, accurate information was not included about Taliesin I mystifies me. The only accurate representation are the first two photos. The plan is inaccurate and from the 30's, the section and elevations are unbuilt studies for rebuilding in 1914, and the mentioned living rooms are of T2. Bizarre for such an important work, and really strange when other works are detailed so nicely.

The drawings attributed to Taliesin 1, are actually of Taliesin 1, 2, and 3.

Taking a look at it, the drawings are TI & TII, but there are no TIII drawings in v. 3 of the monograph. The Taliesin I drawings are on the first two pages, followed by Taliesin II drawings throughout the rest of the section. But you are both right on the photographs being misattributed. The photos of the living room are both TII, and there is an exterior photograph that's looking from Taliesin's breezeway to the porte cochere, fig. 271, that's also Taliesin II. The photo above it, looking at roofs, is TI, however.



The factual errors seemed to be due to the time at which these monographs were produced, in the 1980s. Much more is known about the evolution of the building now.

Thank you. There should be another forum on this web site where potential inaccuracies could be posted. At least then historians, scholars, architects, and students could be made aware of potential historical inaccuracies so that FLW history could be cleaned up eventually, maybe 20 years from now given their scope. Cleaning up historical inaccuracies does not detract from FLW's Legacy of Greatness but it will just make it easier arrive at the truth.



Another great FLW Book that is riddled with Taliesin inaccracies is Frank Lloyd Wright The Great Wendingen Edition 1965, reprinted by the Comet Press. This is another absolutely superb publication that also has Taliesin errors in it, going back to the 1923 original edition. I purchased this book from the living estate of Lynn Anderson, a former Taliesin apprentice. I enjoy the few annotations that she pencilled in.

There should be another forum on this web site where potential inaccuracies could be posted.

That made me chuckle. But where's the fun in that?



I'd be interested in a reiteration of some of the inaccuracies if you have the time.



Of course, more inaccuracies are being created all the time. A recent piece in the Wall St. Journal stated that only 35 homes by Frank Lloyd Wright are still privately owned. That's less than the AP last year, which stated that only 60 buildings by Wright still survive.

Hollyhock House has been dogged by errors since it was built, most notably that it was constructed of poured concrete and that the skylight in the living room opened so the stars could reflect in the pool around the fireplace. Also that the fireplace would cause the water in the moat to heat up so much, the fish would cook. One of the daughters of Darwin Martin claimed that the lights with the flower bowls below were removed from the dining room table because the light bulbs caused the water in the bowls to boil. Hold a light bulb 8 inches above a bowl of water and see if the water boils before it has time to evaporate. Twombley's original biography states that FLW met Johannes Brahms in 1909; presumably at a seance, since Brahms died in 1895. The serious errors can be troubling, but so many of the minor errors are just entertaining.