Anonymous wrote:EJ wrote:
Jon,
To answer your questions:
1. Wright's faulty executions. Wright's career is rife with leaky roofs, heating systems that don't heat, and cantilevers that sag. Frankly, there are too many to list here.
Sure, but how much of that can be attributed to construction vs. design? For example, La Miniatura was one of the homes famously plagued with a leaky roof and upon further investigation, it was revealed that the contractor had not built it to Wright's spec, skimping on materials specified since he had underbid the job.
I suppose what I'm saying is: Wright executed designs, contractors (with various degrees of supervision) executed buildings.
I will absolutely concede that some of Wright's designs had practical shortcomings in the areas you mention (I believe the Johnson Wax building had some design related leaks, for example), but I also think that it's overblown and not Wright's fault in every instance.
Contractors had incredible problems adjusting to Wright's new ideas. Read the Hanna's book on the Honeycomb House for an idea of how easily the contractors (nearly) screwed up even the house's grid itself.
But his furniture, while beautiful, is nothing you'd want sprawl out on to watch football on Sunday. Wright himself admitted he had bruises from sitting on his furniture.
I'll also concede this point, with the one qualifier that I, personally, haven't found myself
too uncomfortable in most of his furniture that I've experienced. However, for lounging and sprawling, most of it wouldn't work too well. Some of the built-ins actually excel at this function (the couch by the living room fireplace at Taliesin is plenty soft and springy for sprawling on, I think) but they are the exceptions.
Kitchens were small even by the standards of the day
I think this is a generalization and up to personal interpretation.
For example, take a look at the Ablin house that is currently posted for sale here at the "Wright on the Market" section of this site. This kitchen is
huge and even has a breakfast bar (or whatever you'd prefer to call it).
I've lived with plenty of small kitchens in my life and for me (even though I do cook) I could see no impediment to my lifestyle imposed by most of the Usonians I've had the pleasure to see.
The first rule of good architecture is design the way you live or (if you are an architect) how the client lives.
Another thing to remember, if we expand the discussion for a moment beyond just Usonians (which ended up taking so many forms anyway, as is the wont of an Organic architecture), is that Mr. Wright
was designing for people's lifestyles. It's sometimes hard to remember that when he first began designing homes, there weren't automobiles or electric lights and his designs spanned from those times almost to the Space Age. Thusly, his designs ran the gamut. Lifestyles changed quite a bit and, to be honest, Mr. Wright actually played a very important role in the way americans live in their homes today, in general.
There were times when he was designing kitchens for servants to use, times when he was designing them to be roomy working kitchens and times when they were designed for an economy of space for budget or philosophical reasons.
I suppose one of the things I'm getting at is that Mr. Wright
always considered his client's lifestyle when he designed a home, but rather than passively adapting to that lifestyle with his design, he mixed the client's existing lifestyle needs with his own artistic, social and political intentions. Thus, he
expected his designs to impose certain lifestyle changes on his clients. I believe that a great deal of his clients understood this and sought after him expressly because of this. I think the ones who didn't understand this are the people who deemed his homes unlivable and moved out in a few years.
One of my favorite examples of this (I think I may have mentioned this on this board before) were the tables in the Larkin building cafeteria. They were designed in such a way that the heads of each table were obstructed so that no one could sit at them in a position of implied superiority. This was not only a socio-political statment on equality at the time, but an actual active imposition of this ideal on the people who would be using this building on a daily basis. Very subtle, but very powerful, in my opinion.
Whether this approach is something you agree or disagree with, there is simply no doubt that Wright buildings wouldn't be half of what they are without it.
We rented the Penfield House for a weekend and, while we enjoyed it very much, my wife and I would find it very hard to live there.
I think this is where the communication or understanding keeps breaking down between us.
This is exactly what I've been talking about when I discuss Organic architecture and an Organic approach to design.
Of course you would find it hard to live there: It wasn't designed for you!
It was designed
specifically for the Penfields! That's Organic architecture and what's more it bears silent witness to the fact that Mr. Wright absolutely designed purposefully for each individual client.
From what I gather of the Penfield House's story, Mr. Penfield was very tall (at least by Wright's standards) and Wright adjusted his scale of compression and expansion into a more vertical orientation for the home, as opposed to the largely horizontal orientation of most other Usonians. Consequently, many of the aspects of the house became 'squeezed' and tall instead of low and expansive.
Again, while I love FLLW houses, I am intellectually honest enough to myself to recognize that his shortcomings are substantial in many ways.
There would naturally be shortcomings for you in any Wright home, because (at least to my knowledge) there has never been (and most assuredly) will never in the future be a Wright home designed with you in mind.
When I speak of Organic architecture this is what I'm speaking of. It really is unfair and illogical to view something purpose-built for one function (or person) and say that it has shortcomings because it doesn't excel at a different function (or for a different person's needs) that it was never intended for.
For example: "This spoon has substantial shortcomings: it doesn't work well as a fork for stabbing food or a knife for cutting it."
2. Whether the Organic Architecture philosophy spawned the principles I cite or not is really irrelevent. Be it Organic, Modern or Post Modernism, architectural styles are composed of things that define it's genre. It's just that simple.
I completely understand why you'd like to make it that simple, as it serves your argument, but it truly isn't.
If Organic Architecture was composed of things that define it's genre then the Erectheum in Greece and Wright's Taliesin would look largely similar and share common elements. Both are representative of Organic principles and both are very different. In fact if they were the same, they wouldn't be Organic. According to these principles a building should be appropriate to it's location,
it's time and to it's use. Which, of course, dictates that a temple in Greece from thousands of years ago shouldn't be the same as a home in Wisconsin. Likewise a home today shouldn't be the same as a home that was designed 50-100 years ago by Mr. Wright and never could be anyway.
The thing is that Organic Architecture isn't a style, it's a philosophy of guiding principles that can spawn an inifinite variety of buildings. Each in
the style of their creator, not a slavish imitation of genre-defining features. The other 'genres' you refer to are, in fact, as you say, styles.
Organic Architecture is not a style and does not begin and end with Mr. Wright. He was merely(!) an incredible champion and practitioner of it.
If one comes into my house, for example and says to
me, "it's very usonian in feeling" they are not wrong.
You're absolutely right. 100%.
I will say however, that if I write a song in imitation of the Beatles, maybe incorporate some of their licks, use similar words and subject matter then record the song using similar instruments and production techniques and play it for someone, they might say something like: "Wow. It has real Beatles feeling..." And they'd be absolutely right.
The fact remains, however, that it is an imitation of them and not a unique creation of my own. I have merely imitated what makes the Beatles special instead of developing or creating something that shows what makes me special. I have not emulated their process I have imitated the results of their process.
You hear commercials all day long with sound-alike songs that are designed to make you think of a real song that you love (it's cheaper than licensing the real thing), but you'd never in your life put on a CD of these pale, imitation, sound-alikes and connect with them. Why? because they are not genuine. They are not original. They are designed to imitate and evoke the thing they are imitating, not something new that is valuable on it's own. It is only vaguely valuable as a reference to something else.
I do agree that it enhances one's enjoyment of art to know where the inspiration for it comes from. That's why I say my house is Wright inspired. But a lot of things in Wright buildings are not directly linked to nature. Perhaps you can tell me how varying ceiling heights, corner windows, and built in couches are Organic Architecture?
Perhaps this is an area of confusion that's not been clearly defined in our conversation. I'm glad you called attention to it.
Organic Architecture does not refer to organic life, vegetable matter or anything of the sort. Organic Architecture refers to how one thing interconnects with another, as (analogously, not literally) in an organism.
i.e. As I said in my previous post, the idea is that each part of the house is completely interdependent compositionally with every other part of the house and if one piece is removed or placed out of context, it doesn't make sense and the whole composition collapses.
As an analogy (since I mentioned organisms and that seems a simple way to explain it) the human body is a beautiful, organic (in both senses in this case, but let's only focus on the sense that applies to this analogy) composition made up of many parts that (again) add up to more than their sum.
The unadorned human form is a thing of perfect beauty. However, if we remove one piece that makes up the whole of this composition, the whole thing collpases (in this case, quite literally!). Take away the heart and the thing is useless and dead.
Admire the beauty of the skin, but if you remove it and look at it out of context, with no body within, it ceases to be beautiful (in fact, becomes quite grotesque).
To abstract any one element from the whole is to miss the beauty of the thing itself altogether. Every part is interconnected and is there for a specific reason and purpose.
To address the other part of your question, about connection to Nature, it would probably help to define Nature.
Nature can mean many different things depending on context. Wright used the word in just about every sense of it.
For example, Nature can mean the physical universe in which we all exist and everything it contains. When Wright spoke of being in harmony with Nature, this is the sense in which he meant it. The physical aspects of Nature itself are obviously a big part of Organic Architecture, in particular (other architectural approaches see Nature as something to be plowed under or conquered instead of sympathetically harmonized with). The site, the circumstances of Nature in which a building is to be built, in Organic Architecture, will dictate the layout and orientation of that buidling to an incredible degree; Another factor that ensures that each building is unique and purpose-built.
Mr. Wright was very inspired by nature. For example he
emulated the form of trees for many of his later skyscraper designs. Again, here is the difference: he didn't want to
imitate a tree. That would entail not only copying it's structure, but somehow giving it bark, branches leaves, etc.
Instead, he
emulated the taproot structure of certain trees in the design he used for the buildings' foundations. He emulated the structure of the trunk's supportive power in the design by making the building's structural support the center of the building, while the floors were cantilevered outwards on supports that emulated the structure of branches.
Wright was very clear that he often emulated the time-tested and naturally-selected designs of nature, but that to imitate these things would be dishonest. His intention was to create something that was clearly man-made that enhanced the beauty of Nature which it was designed and resides within.
Incidentally, corner windows were a social, political and artistic statement for Wright.
Returning to the point, the other major sense in which the word Nature is used (and has also been used in this discussion) is in reference to origin or inherent truth of a given thing. For example, what's inferred (depending on their agenda) when someone speaks of Human Nature. This is what is meant when we speak of looking
into a thing instead of
at a thing. It's not really a hoity-toity or lofty concept. It simply speaks of seeing beyond the surface.
A practical example: when someone speaks to you sarcastically face-to-face, you know it don't you? You aren't looking at the surface of what's being said and taking it at face value. If you did, the sarcasm would be lost on you. Clearly, you are seeing past the surface of the thing and seeing the inherent Nature (or truth) of what is being said. Make sense?
Does that help? I'm trying to be as clear and succint as possible. It's sometimes hard to communicate these types of ideas in this fashion.
3. I do understand the spirituality of Organic Architecture, but I don't agree you need to be a believer to really understand Wright and his work. There are some real hard core believers out there (you seem to be one) who get really taken aback when one speaks cross of their guru.
Honestly, when spirituality is mentioned, I don't think it's a mystical thing at all, as I tried to make clear in my last post. I deplore mysticism and I am an atheist. What
does make sense to me is the physical world in which we live. Although Wright was no atheist, his (for lack of a better word) spiritual connection to Nature is something that makes sense to me on a logical, empirical and intuitive level.
I do think it's necessary to understand (not necessarily agree with) Wright's view of these things to understand his reasoning, process and approach to architecture. The two are interminably intertwined.
As I said, it truly affected the 'why' of what was done. What I've been trying to get across is that if you cut and paste elements of Wright design without understanding
why it went one place instead of somewhere else, then you're making a collage instead of a painting.
Honestly, you can speak cross about Wright all day, I'd almost prefer it. What's far worse is praising someone and claiming their inspiration while misunderstanding and undermining everything that person was about. I know it's hard to tell in this mode of communication, but I'm not saying this in anger. I truly believe that if you care about this architecture (which you clearly seem to) there is so much more for you within it.
I would have made a very poor Fellowship apprentice, indeed.
Hard to say. It's clear that over the years the fellowship has attracted many people who were only interested only in imitating the aesthetics of Wright's style instead of emulating his Organic approach.
Edgar Tafel's book is excellent and he speaks very frankly about this phenomenon and Mr. Wright's reactions to this type of complacency within the school. Apparently Mr. Wright would regularly gloss over derivitave designs, coldly, without comment or become flat out angry, encouraging his apprentices to adhere to his principles and not his style.
I've been fortunate to have become friends with some of the FLLWSA's recent and current apprentices and even to have stayed at Taliesin a few times with them and I can say that there are many thoughtful and brilliant people among them, so who knows what the future may hold! I, for one, am optimistic.
I simply don't believe there is a need to spritually connect with Nature to enjoy these buildings. If you do, great, there's certaintly nothing wrong with that.
Again, we're in complete agreement. But what we were discussing goes far beyond simple enjoyment of these buildings. We were discussing copying elements willy-nilly from them.
This business of looking "into" instead of "at" it is rhetorical nonsense.
Not at all, you do it all the time in your daily life, guaranteed. see above.
I, for one, believe it is you (and the Frank Lloyd Wright Elite) who is missing out on the complete FLLW picture by glossing over his many shortcomings as a builder, businessman, father, and husband. To consider FLLW without looking at these things is not being honest to yourself or your subject.
Okay, let's back up for a second so I can see if I have this straight...
Yuou said within this very message that "Whether [Wright's] Organic Architecture philosophy spawned the principles [you] cite or not is really irrelevent." but somehow his shortcomings as a businessman, father and husband are implicitly relevant to the discussion of his architectural accomplishments and philosophies!?!? Are you serious!?!? Really!?
I can only assume that this a cheap shot (I concede that I may be misunderstanding your point).
I have made myself intimately familiar with the man's personal life. I have read and listened to his words and his autobiography; I have spoken to people who knew him personally; I have read the personal accounts of apprentices, clients and even his own son. Perhaps you should do the same and learn to have some empathy for another human being who had shortcomings like everyone else in this world, but also happened to give more to this world than most people (and was repaid by endless and cruel scrutiny that continues even a half century after his death).
Mr. Wright's personal life only serves to enrich my love of who this man was. A flawed person who endured personal tragedies the like of which might kill lesser men. A man who made hard and bold decisions that he had to live with for his whole life and would never (as is evident by this duscussion alone) live down. I only hope you don't have to endure having your mistakes and regrets in life bandied about and paraded in front of your face and in public forums for the whole of your life.
I honestly didn't think that had anything to do with discussion. How familiar are you with his life that you see fit to pass judgement on his personal "shortcomings"? I don't know what you do in your professional or artistic life, but how would you like your professional performance to be measured by the conduct of your private life, past or present!? One has nothing to do with the other.
As far your continuing reference to what you call "the Frank Lloyd Wright Elite," I would take your consideration of my being "elite" as a compliment, if I didn't think that what you really mean to say is: 'elitist'.
As I said before, lumping people into a group, discounting them and calling them funny names sounds incredibly elitist to me. Sounds eerily similar to a description of biggotry doesn't it? Perhaps you fail to see the hypocrisy.
I would like to submit that I have not rejoined in namecalling you or anyone else in the thread and I find it petty and small on your part. I honestly don't believe you're as shallow or small as you paint yourself by resorting to such childishness, so perhaps we can dispense with it from here on out and proceed with our discussions as adults.
One thing Wright had in spades was a love for the principles of democracy that this country was founded on. This is another thing in which we share. This country was founded on the idea that the
individual is the most important thing. I propose that we treat each other as such and take each other on our individual merits instead of lumping people together into condescending categories.
Take care,
Jon