Wright's Process

Michael Shuck · Post by **Michael Shuck** » Sun May 18, 2008 3:31 pm

There has been discussion here in the past about little material known about any specific process or processes Wright used in developing his architecture. I'm reading John Wright's "My Father Who Is On Earth" and found a very brief, but interesting, statement about Wright's process. Certainly it is nowhere inclusive of all processes, but it is an interesting insight, though brief. I've attached it below:

SDR · Post by **SDR** » Sun May 18, 2008 8:33 pm

Thanks for this, Mike.

One of the bits of film we've seen this year shows Wright and company at a county fair, with the Old Man hefting a pumpkin (?) and otherwise
jauntily inspecting the fare. I put that together with photos we've seen of him at work sites, and John's image above, to see an image of the man
in his element. . .

Off the topic:

The brief last chapter in John's book is of interest to those pursuing the "notorious" Wright. Here it is, in full color and (nearly) full size. (The two
photos of Wright in the book are candidates for "least typical Wright images," to my mind.)

Michael Shuck · Post by **Michael Shuck** » Mon May 19, 2008 3:03 pm

John Wright was a good writer. I think he allows the reader to see his father in terms of no less greatness than I think of him as being. It is good to read about his process and about him from the viewpoint of those the very closest to him. Thanks, SDR, for posting this.

SDR · Post by **SDR** » Mon May 19, 2008 3:25 pm

Thank you, and I hope you and others will find more among the scattered writings to add to our meager store of knowledge about Wright's working process.

We can't let the man's own reluctance to reveal himself stand in the way of our curiosity to know "how he did it" . . .!

SDR

Roderick Grant · Post by **Roderick Grant** » Mon May 19, 2008 5:30 pm

"When Dad builds, he sees things out of the corner of his eye. He never looks straight at them."

That may be the most telling comment on FLW's approach to design ever published. One might say FLW designed peripherally. It explains why he never lined up his furniture to take full advantage of a "picture window," no matter how wonderful the view may have been. It is one of the things that separated him in his early days from the Beaux Arts movement, and one of the things so many copiers get wrong.

Paul Ringstrom · Post by **Paul Ringstrom** » Mon May 19, 2008 6:25 pm

Wright made a lot of bad decisions in his life but, in my opinion, one of his best decisions was his declining the offer to attend the Ã‰cole Nationale SupÃ©rieure des Beaux-Arts in Paris at Daniel Burnham's expense. To this we should all be eternally thankful. He could not have been the same architect that we admire after that experience.

SDR · Post by **SDR** » Mon May 19, 2008 6:28 pm

In later years (at least) he called this offset, or sidestep, the "reflex" (if I have it right). It was apparently what he found appealing about the 60-degree modules -- triangle, hexagon and parallelogram -- and the physical and visual movement that they permitted or required. The odd and intriguing sense of dislocation and revelation that the visitor to these houses experiences was pleasurable to him, I think.

It would certainly be interesting to know what kind of work Wright would have done after a Beaux-Arts education. I can't imagine that his work would have been mistaken for that of the other graduates in his class ! It would have been an early exposure to the delights of European architecture, which he eventually came to enjoy in Italy. . .

SDR

Paul Ringstrom · Post by **Paul Ringstrom** » Mon May 19, 2008 11:13 pm

Exactly whose architecture did he enjoy the most in Europe?

peterm · Post by **peterm** » Tue May 20, 2008 10:27 am

wright responded to alvar aalto's finnish pavilion by describing it as a work of "genius". i have only heard sarcastic references to the "bauhaus boys", though i am certain he felt enormous envy at their acceptance by philip johnson and company. i would think that he must have appreciated the work of macintosh and william morris. but for wright to refer to aalto as genius seems to be unprecedented. it makes complete sense, however, and i know that aalto's original drawings for the villa mairea, his residential masterwork, strongly resembled fallingwater. both architects show deep sensitivity to nature and the honest expression of materials. aalto's mature work differs from wright's in the sense that even when he employs some sort of module, he never seems to be bound by it, or necessarily interested in exposing it. if one looks closely at the finnish pavilion, it is possible to see that wright's later works, (think guggenheim) were strongly influenced by aalto.
aalto's love of the scandinavian birch forest must have also resonated with wright.

SDR · Post by **SDR** » Tue May 20, 2008 11:14 am

See "Autobiography," p 161 ("Kuno Francke") and p 164 ("In exile"). He specifically exempts Paris. In discussing La Miniatura (p 246), Wright mentions Palladio, Bramante and Sansovino without disparaging them. . .

The offer of study in France is covered on pp 125-128.

SDR

DavidC · Post by **DavidC** » Tue May 20, 2008 12:23 pm

Amateur video walk-through [10:04] of Villa Mairea.

Wikipedia page on Villa Mairea.

Wikipedia page for Alvar Aalto (includes the following ... "his (Aalto's) design for the Finnish Pavilion at the 1939 New York World's Fair, described by Frank Lloyd Wright as a "work of genius".).

A page with a picture, model and drawing of the Finnish Pavilion.

Commentaries and details about the Finnish Pavilion from 1937 and from 1939.

David

peterm · Post by **peterm** » Tue May 20, 2008 2:07 pm

also, though normally considered a student of wright, and technically not a european, the viennese rm schindler's influence on wright can not be overlooked. wright gave schindler little credit, but schindler's house of 1922 clearly anticipates the first usonian jacobs house of 1936. schindler utilizes the exposed concrete slab floor, sprawling plan, low slung horizontal flat roof planes, indoor-outdoor connections, thin screens defining space. though in many ways the execution and details are crude, the usonian elements are all there (minus the carport and radiant floor heating). schindler's use of sliding doors and canvas screens is more avant-garde than the french doors of the usonians. i find that the dialogue between the two architects continues beyond these examples, with schindler always watching wright, but less noticed is wright's awareness of schindler's greatness. why he never referred to schindler as a genius is startling, but the letters between the two, both reveal their mutual respect, and the stubborn rants of two huge egos.

MHOLUBAR · Post by **MHOLUBAR** » Tue May 20, 2008 2:51 pm

This has been a very rich week for Wright Chat and it has been interesting to catch up. Wright's first Prairie School Studio in Oak Park produced many fine architects, interior architects, and draught-persons and when he was forced to leave Oak Park (through some fault of his own) the Prairie School continued on without him, and he was without the clients he needed to rebuild his career. From the biographies I have been catching up on lately it is obvious that he refused to make the same mistake with the Fellowship. The open collaborative workshop approach was pretty much gone especially where the press was concerned.
Schindler, Neutra and other fine young architects came to study with him and could acquire green cards through the Fellowship. Mira Nakashima said that her father (George) worked for a short time on the concrete block houses in California but did not think the work met his own high standards. Those that would pursue a career of their own were encouraged to leave if their work attracted notice.

DRN · Post by **DRN** » Wed May 21, 2008 8:41 am

The mention of and seeing the links to Alvar Aalto's work fired me up. Please let me apologize in advance for this short rant....

Every month I get Architectural Record Magazine in the mail. I page through it, read some articles, check the news, and peruse some ads. Most of all, I come away with the sense that what is touted as new and cutting edge design, is not so new and cutting edge.

Aalto's 70 year old Finnish pavilion looks like one of the currently fashionable designs in one of the "arch fashion rags" as I call them. Look at the undulating wall of thin wood slats set in a masonry datum. Just about every house in this year's Record Houses was slatted and scrimmed within an inch of its life. How about the grilles and sun shades sprouting on every available surface on the new buildings? Old news..that stuff was from the '40's and '50's, much of it available from catalogs. Twenty years ago, the manufacturers couldn't give those things away.
Look at the geometric and Arabesque patterns in the fabrics the interior designers are pushing...its the second coming of Edward Durell Stone; not that there is anything wrong with that.

The revolution in architecture that occurred in the 20th century was just that, a revolution. The new stuff is not.

Wright, Schindler, Aalto, et al really changed the world and were still getting a grip on it.

DavidC · Post by **DavidC** » Wed May 21, 2008 9:15 am

Wikipedia page on the Schindler/Kings Road House.

Model of the home.

A "Tribute to Preserving Schindler's Paradise".

A page on the Schindler House.

Flickr set of photos of the Schindler House.

Book on the Schindler House.

David