Hello All,
A new feature article is up on PrairieMod in which we interview the director of LAMA, the auction house that will be handling the sale of the David Wright House rug. Read it here:
http://www.prairiemod.com/features/2010 ... t-rug.html
David Wright Rug Feature Article
-
PrairieMod
- Posts: 494
- Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 12:40 pm
- Location: www.prairiemod.com
A great article and pics PrairieMod, thanks.
Mr. Loughrey makes some interesting points, but this:
Any future owner of the house, unless they have financial resources on the scale of Joel Silver (not "Jr."), will never be able to afford both the purchase price of the house AND the art gallery price of the original rug. Monetarily, the parts of a Wright house are worth more than the whole. Selling the rug will forever remove it from the house.
I can understand if the new owners do not want a worn, 60 year old priceless rug in their living room, but a more "historically ethical" scenario might be: if the rug is not wanted in the house, to put it on long term loan to a museum where it could be displayed and properly maintained.
But then, possibly, the new owners based their purchase/restoration funding plan on the sale of the rug....
Mr. Loughrey makes some interesting points, but this:
doesn't sit well with me.In my opinion this type of object more often than not will outlast any individual buyer and will again be available in the future, maybe even several times, each time presenting a new opportunity for the current owner of the house to reacquire it.
Any future owner of the house, unless they have financial resources on the scale of Joel Silver (not "Jr."), will never be able to afford both the purchase price of the house AND the art gallery price of the original rug. Monetarily, the parts of a Wright house are worth more than the whole. Selling the rug will forever remove it from the house.
I can understand if the new owners do not want a worn, 60 year old priceless rug in their living room, but a more "historically ethical" scenario might be: if the rug is not wanted in the house, to put it on long term loan to a museum where it could be displayed and properly maintained.
But then, possibly, the new owners based their purchase/restoration funding plan on the sale of the rug....
-
Paul Ringstrom
- Posts: 4777
- Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:53 pm
- Location: Mason City, IA
As stated on a earlier thread, I was able to visit the David Wright house in 2009. I was kind of shocked, because I was always used to seeing those photographs where the carpet and its unique design took center stage. Indeed, it was badly worn and faded. Most importantly, I discovered that when sitting down, the view out of the windows towards Camelback Mountain was the real visual treat, so much so that the carpet became secondary.
I agree with all here, there are many better options to handling this type of artifact, than the one chosen. I have heard comments that the new owners are planning a 5 year total 'back to new' restoration. In view of the matter concerning the carpet, only time will tell.......
I agree with all here, there are many better options to handling this type of artifact, than the one chosen. I have heard comments that the new owners are planning a 5 year total 'back to new' restoration. In view of the matter concerning the carpet, only time will tell.......
Saw this over at PrairieMod:
The results of the auction for the David Wright rug - $16,000. <------- to view the auction page for the rug, under "Featured lots" (on the right side) - click on the picture of the rug (Lot #385)).
David
The results of the auction for the David Wright rug - $16,000. <------- to view the auction page for the rug, under "Featured lots" (on the right side) - click on the picture of the rug (Lot #385)).
David
I was at the auction on Sunday. The response to the rug was surprisingly underwhelming, especially considering that some of the artwork was fetching well over $50,000.00. The winner was a phone bidder, and I didn't notice anyone in the room bidding on it.
I suppose that many potential buyers had the same questions that I had: If one were to purchase this artifact, what wold be done with it?
The whole thing reminded me of the Stephen Wright (standup comedian, unrelated to the architect or David Wright...) quip:
"You can't have everything.... 'cause where would you put it?"
I suppose that many potential buyers had the same questions that I had: If one were to purchase this artifact, what wold be done with it?
The whole thing reminded me of the Stephen Wright (standup comedian, unrelated to the architect or David Wright...) quip:
"You can't have everything.... 'cause where would you put it?"
This is disappointing to read. At one point, Carolyn Price had the fabulous rug to the entrance of Hillside remade and donated the original to the Price Tower Arts Center, where it is on display - worn spots and all! But, stunning to study all the same. The challenge with the Wright house rug is its peculiar shape and dimensions for displaying or reusing. Perhaps we will learn more of its fate and that the new owners of the Wright house will consider replication of the rug. Given the price they reportedly paid for the house, I doubt they were depending on the sale of the rug to help much with renovation costs. Let's just hope they don't piecemeal the house in other ways.
Former Taliesin Apprentice
I think Paul Ringstrom has the right idea. If it was affordable, wouldn't a fresh copy of the rug make more sense for a house in use -- while the original could hang on a wall in a museum, where its design might be properly appreciated and its care ensured ?
Something of the sort has happened at the Robie house, I see, where original dining room furniture has been replicated, while the original remains with its present owners elsewhere in the city -- at a gallery, is it ? If the house were to be lived in and used, this would (even more so) be the perfect solution, it seems to me.
(I will repeat here the idea that replicas of precious original seating pieces should always be present, in houses and in museums, so that the public can freely discover what it feels like to sit in them.)
Stephen
Something of the sort has happened at the Robie house, I see, where original dining room furniture has been replicated, while the original remains with its present owners elsewhere in the city -- at a gallery, is it ? If the house were to be lived in and used, this would (even more so) be the perfect solution, it seems to me.
(I will repeat here the idea that replicas of precious original seating pieces should always be present, in houses and in museums, so that the public can freely discover what it feels like to sit in them.)
Stephen
FTA wrote:
In any case, the rug sold for a reasonable price and no one really profited greatly from it. Hopefully the price will allow the buyer to have funds remaining for proper preservation. I wonder how it will be displayed by its new owner?
I agree wholeheartedly with SDR about reproductions. They can allow the original intent to be truly experienced with no worries.
I'm not disappointed at all. If it was to be sold, at least it sold for a reasonable amount, not a blockbuster amount. It might mean the market may have cooled on Wright trophies and removal of these items may not be so tempting...it could also be that this is a large and oddly shaped artifact to display, much the same as some outsized Victorian furniture pieces that fetch relatively low prices.This is disappointing to read.
In any case, the rug sold for a reasonable price and no one really profited greatly from it. Hopefully the price will allow the buyer to have funds remaining for proper preservation. I wonder how it will be displayed by its new owner?
I agree wholeheartedly with SDR about reproductions. They can allow the original intent to be truly experienced with no worries.
I will expand on that sentiment. It seems to me that too much emphasis is placed upon "original fabric" (i.e., material). The real value for those interested in an artist is in his design -- representing Idea -- rather than in the particular molecules of which the first example of that design was rendered. We venerate the molecules -- a form of idolatry, in my view. We must free the artist from enslavement to one and only one collection of molecules; surely his Idea is bigger than that ?
Of course there is value in being able to say "this is the very piece in which the Idea was first represented -- seen and (presumably) approved by the artist." "This is the cup from which He drank" etc etc. Sentiment -- and perceived value ($) -- accrue automatically and understandably to that one piece of material. But it is Idea which is eternal; material decays, the design does not. Which of these is truly precious ?
SDR
Of course there is value in being able to say "this is the very piece in which the Idea was first represented -- seen and (presumably) approved by the artist." "This is the cup from which He drank" etc etc. Sentiment -- and perceived value ($) -- accrue automatically and understandably to that one piece of material. But it is Idea which is eternal; material decays, the design does not. Which of these is truly precious ?
SDR
If copies of rugs and reproductions of furniture are not only 'good' but in some cases even 'preferred' - and the designs themselves are to be considered "eternal" and "precious" - it would seem to follow that copies and reproductions of the entire designs themselves (i.e. - FLW's houses, buildings, etc) would fall under the same set of rules, "so that the public can freely discover what it feels like to sit in them".
David
David
Yes -- that is exactly my thesis.
It is understandable perhaps that architects and those interested in their work should be subject to the concept that "there is only one true and correct example" of each work of architecture (and its contents ?) -- because, unlike most artifacts made by man, a building is an immovable part of a particular setting, for which it was (presumably) designed in all specifics. Beyond the obvious fact that a single example of the design is produced, its supposed uniqueness as a solution to a unique assignment, makes it doubly outrageous that a second example of the same design should be created.
Those wishing to engage in reproduction are thus called upon to find persuasive arguments supporting their intentions. David's comments above form the basis of one such argument, I believe.
Stephen
It is understandable perhaps that architects and those interested in their work should be subject to the concept that "there is only one true and correct example" of each work of architecture (and its contents ?) -- because, unlike most artifacts made by man, a building is an immovable part of a particular setting, for which it was (presumably) designed in all specifics. Beyond the obvious fact that a single example of the design is produced, its supposed uniqueness as a solution to a unique assignment, makes it doubly outrageous that a second example of the same design should be created.
Those wishing to engage in reproduction are thus called upon to find persuasive arguments supporting their intentions. David's comments above form the basis of one such argument, I believe.
Stephen
-
PrairieMod
- Posts: 494
- Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2006 12:40 pm
- Location: www.prairiemod.com
I think the sticking point comes with what typically happens with copies of anything. It's usually very hard (or impossible) to have anything produced be an exact replica of something. They can be close, but often the copy "loses a generation" of crispness or quality or intent from the original (to borrow a printing phrase). This is usually due to changes in technology, access to materials, knowledge of production or even the subjectiveness of interpreting design or artistic intent.
That's not to say that there are not cases where what can be executed today isn't superior in some fashion (usually quality or cost) to what could have been done in the past. However it doesn't necessarily act as a 1:1 stand-in for the original.
For example: The intricate fret-sawn wooden screens produced for Wright's early commissions (or Louis Sullivan's or Elmslie's for that matter) we're all hand executed by craftspeople off of drawings. As such, they have the inconsistencies of design that were limitations of the person executing it or tools being used. Today, we can execute that same design perfectly over and over and over again using a laser cutter--faster and cheaper. That said, something is lost when you compare the original to the modern copy. Those inconsistencies actually give the original screen character and life--you can see and imagine the hand of the craftsman making that screen. The copy, though truer to the design as drawn, seems a little too perfect.
So, whereas I agree that "design is king," there is also value in how that design is ultimately executed. That, to me, is where value comes into play on the things that originate said design (it's likely the closest thing we have to the artist's original intent).
Copies often purposely or inadvertently bear the extra burden of incorporating the next creator's ideas and fingerprints to them, becoming a child of 2 mothers.
That's not to say that there are not cases where what can be executed today isn't superior in some fashion (usually quality or cost) to what could have been done in the past. However it doesn't necessarily act as a 1:1 stand-in for the original.
For example: The intricate fret-sawn wooden screens produced for Wright's early commissions (or Louis Sullivan's or Elmslie's for that matter) we're all hand executed by craftspeople off of drawings. As such, they have the inconsistencies of design that were limitations of the person executing it or tools being used. Today, we can execute that same design perfectly over and over and over again using a laser cutter--faster and cheaper. That said, something is lost when you compare the original to the modern copy. Those inconsistencies actually give the original screen character and life--you can see and imagine the hand of the craftsman making that screen. The copy, though truer to the design as drawn, seems a little too perfect.
So, whereas I agree that "design is king," there is also value in how that design is ultimately executed. That, to me, is where value comes into play on the things that originate said design (it's likely the closest thing we have to the artist's original intent).
Copies often purposely or inadvertently bear the extra burden of incorporating the next creator's ideas and fingerprints to them, becoming a child of 2 mothers.
PrairieMod
www.prairiemod.com
www.prairiemod.com
Very well said, Prairie Mod...
There is also the other intangible: the patina of real everyday use. Every scratch, dent, nick, aroma and stain records the interaction of the user and the design. These things over time become a sort of aura which surrounds the object. When one considers this, the copy, is relatively soulless and sterile.
To copy in order to preserve the original is a sound idea, but we must never confuse the original with the reproduction (especially in the case of architecture, which is as much about the inhabitant as it is about the design or the designer)
There is also the other intangible: the patina of real everyday use. Every scratch, dent, nick, aroma and stain records the interaction of the user and the design. These things over time become a sort of aura which surrounds the object. When one considers this, the copy, is relatively soulless and sterile.
To copy in order to preserve the original is a sound idea, but we must never confuse the original with the reproduction (especially in the case of architecture, which is as much about the inhabitant as it is about the design or the designer)
-
Roderick Grant
- Posts: 11815
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am
The Elsners did the same as Carolyn Price, reproduced their living room-to-dining room rug and donate the original to a museum. Excellent solution.
Some reproductions are as good as, or better than, the originals. MoMA had a $4800 repro of the spherical urn FLW designed in the '90s that was every bit as well done as the original, although about 100 years-worth of patina behind. Jim Ipekjian's reproduction of the couches in the Hollyhock living room are immeasurably better than the originals; I saw a couple of small table from the originals up for auction some years back, and they looked like the work had been executed with a chain saw.
Repros do present a problem. One of the firms applying to do the Hollyhock repros specialized in boat interiors, and had all sorts of ideas about replacing materials and processes with new and "better" ways. The three of us determining who would get the contract unanimously rejected their approach. The new couches, we decided, would not be finished with polyethylene, polystyrene, polypropylene or polly-want-a-cracker. But that often seems to happen. And with reproducing an entire house, the temptation to turn that extra bedroom into a media room, or quadruple the size of the master bath, and inevitably upgrade not only the technology of the kitchen, but the design as well, is often irresistable. While each instance should be evaluated on its own merits, the general rule about repros should be to proceed cautiously.
Some reproductions are as good as, or better than, the originals. MoMA had a $4800 repro of the spherical urn FLW designed in the '90s that was every bit as well done as the original, although about 100 years-worth of patina behind. Jim Ipekjian's reproduction of the couches in the Hollyhock living room are immeasurably better than the originals; I saw a couple of small table from the originals up for auction some years back, and they looked like the work had been executed with a chain saw.
Repros do present a problem. One of the firms applying to do the Hollyhock repros specialized in boat interiors, and had all sorts of ideas about replacing materials and processes with new and "better" ways. The three of us determining who would get the contract unanimously rejected their approach. The new couches, we decided, would not be finished with polyethylene, polystyrene, polypropylene or polly-want-a-cracker. But that often seems to happen. And with reproducing an entire house, the temptation to turn that extra bedroom into a media room, or quadruple the size of the master bath, and inevitably upgrade not only the technology of the kitchen, but the design as well, is often irresistable. While each instance should be evaluated on its own merits, the general rule about repros should be to proceed cautiously.