Frank Lloyd Wright's Doghouse
-
Roderick Grant
- Posts: 11815
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am
The dog house was on the south wall of the shop with the door facing toward the entrance, according to Storrer's drawing. There is evidence that the opening was to have been on the opposite side, away from the carport and entrance. The posted photo shows the entrance as Storrer shows it, facing the entrance, as SDR says.
-
flwromanza
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 2:41 pm
This photo is the one taken by Eric Berger ca. 1964, showing the first version of Eddie's house, as built by father Robert Berger, along with help from from brother Steve. Wright had in fact positioned the opening to face away from the approach to the house (once again hiding the front door), but Bob Berger decided that an opening facing towards the garbage cans instead of the front of the house would defeat the idea of Eddie serving as a watchdog, and he simply reversed the plans so that the design would be more functional. When Jim and Eric re-built the house, we decided to follow that idea.
-
flwromanza
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 2:41 pm
Eddie's house is on tour!
First stop is the Dana-Thomas house where it will be on display through the Summer months. For those of you who have not seen Dana-Thomas, I urge you to visit this remarkable Wright site. Fully restored, the greatest collection of Wright designed art glass and artifacts ever. And a true bargain for only a 10.00 donation.
http://designedbyfranklloydwright.com/i ... ese2-1.jpg
Photo is of Michael Miner with Dana-Thomas foundation executive director Regina Albanese in front of Eddie's house
First stop is the Dana-Thomas house where it will be on display through the Summer months. For those of you who have not seen Dana-Thomas, I urge you to visit this remarkable Wright site. Fully restored, the greatest collection of Wright designed art glass and artifacts ever. And a true bargain for only a 10.00 donation.
http://designedbyfranklloydwright.com/i ... ese2-1.jpg
Photo is of Michael Miner with Dana-Thomas foundation executive director Regina Albanese in front of Eddie's house
-
flwromanza
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 2:41 pm
A band in Southern England has written a song about Eddie's house. It will be on their upcoming second album.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld_i18axo3U
I will post the lyrics when I have them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ld_i18axo3U
I will post the lyrics when I have them.
-
flwromanza
- Posts: 96
- Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 2:41 pm
Honestly -- and with all due deference to those who labored over this project, and have persevered over a period of years -- I can't think of an object more likely to leave the public asking, "That's Frank Lloyd Wright ?? What's all the fuss about ? . . ."
The dog house, surely a throw-away design for the architect, is so bland in form and detail as to have virtually nothing to do with Wright's work -- other than its equilateral-triangle plan. It's mostly shingled roof, with boarded sides and a single uncoordinated opening. And, the scale is odd: it's neither the expected doll-house, nor a real building, in size.
The sole interesting feature of the affair, of course, is the story: how a client's son writes to the architect, requesting a design for a house for the family dog, and is gratified with a response and a drawing. One wonders if a half-scale model of the design wouldn't have done the job as PR for related projects, at one-tenth the cost and effort. Or maybe a 1:12 scale model of the whole house, dog shelter and all ?
I'm pleased that the project was carried out -- my own private showing of the Berger house stands as a major event in my experience of Wright's work -- and that a success has been recorded. And I mean no disrespect to those involved. The Romanza movie, for those who have a seen it, will have gone a long way toward explaining what Wright really accomplished. I only wish the Berger dog house was capable of adding to that understanding . . .
I wonder if, after all their travels, the doghouse and its custodians have come to anything like the same conclusion ?
SDR
The dog house, surely a throw-away design for the architect, is so bland in form and detail as to have virtually nothing to do with Wright's work -- other than its equilateral-triangle plan. It's mostly shingled roof, with boarded sides and a single uncoordinated opening. And, the scale is odd: it's neither the expected doll-house, nor a real building, in size.
The sole interesting feature of the affair, of course, is the story: how a client's son writes to the architect, requesting a design for a house for the family dog, and is gratified with a response and a drawing. One wonders if a half-scale model of the design wouldn't have done the job as PR for related projects, at one-tenth the cost and effort. Or maybe a 1:12 scale model of the whole house, dog shelter and all ?
I'm pleased that the project was carried out -- my own private showing of the Berger house stands as a major event in my experience of Wright's work -- and that a success has been recorded. And I mean no disrespect to those involved. The Romanza movie, for those who have a seen it, will have gone a long way toward explaining what Wright really accomplished. I only wish the Berger dog house was capable of adding to that understanding . . .
I wonder if, after all their travels, the doghouse and its custodians have come to anything like the same conclusion ?
SDR
I'm glad you clarified no disrespect was intended.
For me, it may be a footnote to history, but most of us are at the stage where footnotes are interesting and important. We could spend all our lives discussing only Fallingwater or Robie - but we don't. We seek minutiae. Who cares if a door had a piano hinge, a border had denticles, or the precise angle of a roofline? We do.
The story may be the biggest aspect, but the replica brings the story to life. No one goes to a museum or a mall to just read a story.
For me, it may be a footnote to history, but most of us are at the stage where footnotes are interesting and important. We could spend all our lives discussing only Fallingwater or Robie - but we don't. We seek minutiae. Who cares if a door had a piano hinge, a border had denticles, or the precise angle of a roofline? We do.
The story may be the biggest aspect, but the replica brings the story to life. No one goes to a museum or a mall to just read a story.
Thank you. My point was that the public are being shown this object as (among other things) a representation of Wright's work; as such I find it lacking. If we want to interest the layman in Wright, could we do better ?
I'm sure it seemed like a great idea. I wonder if it has fulfilled its promise. Only those who have followed its course across the American landscape, in the last year or more, could say. I assume it has been helpful in publicizing the film, which of course is a plus.
SDR
I'm sure it seemed like a great idea. I wonder if it has fulfilled its promise. Only those who have followed its course across the American landscape, in the last year or more, could say. I assume it has been helpful in publicizing the film, which of course is a plus.
SDR
Sadly, the doghouse recreation is not a faithful replica of the original -- as easily seen in these readily-available images:
http://www.ifweweredogs.com/en/2014/05/ ... yd-wright/
I notice now, with this better look at the early elevational photo, that the roof fascia is too wide; we had already noticed the difference in cladding board width, and the altered doorsill detail. The stain job is a nice touch.
If we simply applaud everything done in the name of Frank Lloyd Wright -- even when those things be done by our friends -- we can't claim necessarily to be furthering the cause. American audiences are said by others to be prone to polite but indiscriminate hand-clapping. A look at a typical game show, or Presidential State-of-the-Union event, will affirm that impression. I'm sorry not to be willing to join the throng, on every occasion . . .
SDR
http://www.ifweweredogs.com/en/2014/05/ ... yd-wright/
I notice now, with this better look at the early elevational photo, that the roof fascia is too wide; we had already noticed the difference in cladding board width, and the altered doorsill detail. The stain job is a nice touch.
If we simply applaud everything done in the name of Frank Lloyd Wright -- even when those things be done by our friends -- we can't claim necessarily to be furthering the cause. American audiences are said by others to be prone to polite but indiscriminate hand-clapping. A look at a typical game show, or Presidential State-of-the-Union event, will affirm that impression. I'm sorry not to be willing to join the throng, on every occasion . . .
SDR
I'm new to this thread, and apologize if this has been mentioned previously. Is there a link to Wright's original drawings here, or only Storrer's version?
The subject which hasn't been addressed to my satisfaction is this: If Eddy and other dogs were not fond of the house, has anyone speculated as to why this might be so? Should there have been better ventilation? Was the siting possibly incorrect, making it too hot in the summer? Would it have been more comfortable for Eddy had the floor been made from concrete as specified?
Visually and aesthetically, I have no huge problems with either of the versions, and they seem to be reasonable microcosms of the larger structure, but if the client (Eddy) was dissatisfied, shouldn't that be of concern when judging the merits of the architecture? Doesn't the comfort of a fellow sentient being need to be studied and researched as thoroughly as that of the human animal? Maybe dogs enjoy a pleasant view of nature as much as we do. I remember how our German Sheperd would sit by the floor to ceiling window for hours, peering out into the natural world.
The subject which hasn't been addressed to my satisfaction is this: If Eddy and other dogs were not fond of the house, has anyone speculated as to why this might be so? Should there have been better ventilation? Was the siting possibly incorrect, making it too hot in the summer? Would it have been more comfortable for Eddy had the floor been made from concrete as specified?
Visually and aesthetically, I have no huge problems with either of the versions, and they seem to be reasonable microcosms of the larger structure, but if the client (Eddy) was dissatisfied, shouldn't that be of concern when judging the merits of the architecture? Doesn't the comfort of a fellow sentient being need to be studied and researched as thoroughly as that of the human animal? Maybe dogs enjoy a pleasant view of nature as much as we do. I remember how our German Sheperd would sit by the floor to ceiling window for hours, peering out into the natural world.
Last edited by peterm on Sun Oct 11, 2015 12:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
The only drawing I've seen is the Storrer one, which I take to be a reasonable copy of a Taliesin sheet.
I see that my objections have already been hashed over, by me and others, near the front of the thread -- so my comments above (at least) appear to be redundant.
We are left to ponder which version of the built doghouse is "right." It appears that question cannot be definitively answered. I happen to prefer the first built doghouse -- yet the Berger boys can point to evidence that they followed Wright's drawings more closely than did their father. Sigh . . .
Was Eddie the dog gone before his house was built ? Do we know that any dog refused to use the doghouse ? The question of habitability is a good one. The doghouse design I worked on was more of an open-air pavilion, with perhaps a sheltered corner somewhere inside. I wish I could claim that the doghouse was designed for a Californian locale, but I was still living in Massachusetts at the time. Perhaps I had California already in mind . . .
http://savewright.org/wright_chat/viewt ... variations
SDR
I see that my objections have already been hashed over, by me and others, near the front of the thread -- so my comments above (at least) appear to be redundant.
We are left to ponder which version of the built doghouse is "right." It appears that question cannot be definitively answered. I happen to prefer the first built doghouse -- yet the Berger boys can point to evidence that they followed Wright's drawings more closely than did their father. Sigh . . .
Was Eddie the dog gone before his house was built ? Do we know that any dog refused to use the doghouse ? The question of habitability is a good one. The doghouse design I worked on was more of an open-air pavilion, with perhaps a sheltered corner somewhere inside. I wish I could claim that the doghouse was designed for a Californian locale, but I was still living in Massachusetts at the time. Perhaps I had California already in mind . . .
http://savewright.org/wright_chat/viewt ... variations
SDR