James Welling photographs of architecture

[Palli]

James Welling has a series of Johnson's Glass House photos that inteprete the House rather than document the House
an 2011 interview here: http://www.artbook.com/blog-excerpt-wel ... house.html

[SDR]

I don't know who Sylvia Lavin is. I'm perhaps a bit disappointed to find that she echos the conventional wisdom, that the Glass House is an (inferior) descendant of the Farnsworth residence -- despite the fact that the Farnsworth was designed only four years (at the earliest) before Johnson built his little opus, and was not completed until two years after the Glass House. (We acknowledge that Mr Johnson was strongly influenced by the Mies, but his own work is hardly a copy of anyone's. At least Johnson knew enough to site his box above the high-water line !)

The language used by the art academic is instantly recognizable, isn't it; obscurity (rather than clarity) is the unintended result of a vocabulary with which the layman is unlikely to be unfamiliar. One hopes that, by way of compensation, the raw facts at least will be accurately reported . . .

SDR

[peterm]

"SL: The Farnsworth House entered the cultural imaginary as a perfect object, so perfect that it could not withstand human habitation. Edith Farnsworth, the woman who commissioned Mies to design it for her, was never comfortable in the house. She found herself to be a kind of smudge on its perfection. The Glass House, on the other hand, has until recently been thought of as somehow lacking. But I wonder if this very imperfection is what invites you to intervene."

This is the equivalent of the cliches and myths we so often encounter when discussing Wright houses (low ceilings, leaky roofs, unlivable due to his dictatorial nature, the supposed insensitivity to client's wishes, etc.). Edith Farnsworth did have her differences with Mies, especially regarding the construction cost overruns. But to conclude that she was never comfortable in the house (which she visited often for 21 years) is a blatant oversimplification. She had a huge problem with her lack of privacy, but this was due more to the fact that the house became an instant icon and destination for architecture students and fanatics from around the world. What was intended to be a weekend getaway became a fishbowl. The later bridge relocation further diminished the quietude of the location.

What the artist/photographer sees in the Glass House that perhaps both Johnson and Mies did not intend in their houses, is the quality of the glass itself. The architects aspired to a type of immateriality, while the photographer recognizes the reality of the building: that glass is a material with distinct properties which can be investigated. The photographs seem to capture the reflective nature of Johnson's creation.

I don't think that James Welling's primary concern was the supposed postmodern dilemma of "original" vs. "copy".

[Unbrook]

The current iconic furniture arrangement which makes the house seem to be the definitive Mies interior is not what was originally intended. It reflects Lord Peter Palumbo's use of the building. Mies had suggested another sleeping area adjacent to the kitchen. Why else would there have been two full bathrooms?
There is also a drawing in the Museum of Modern Art archives which shows drapery track dividing the space-creating rooms.

I believe Mies had intentions for the interior which would have created a new "look"-different from that of Tugendhat or Barcelona. The dispute with Dr. Farnsworth ended any further developement. Too bad. What might have been!

[Unbrook]

I don't think Farnsworth or the Johnson Glass House should be interpreted as full time residences, but rather as prototypes for contemporary versions of Thoreau's cabin or Marie Antoinette's Petite Trianon. They both were retreats-
true pavilions.

Therefore, Dr. Farnsworth got what she asked for-but realised too late that she wanted something else.
-

[Deke]

I put the glass house in the category of architectural oddity. It is a sort of extreme experiment that has little practical application or broad affection. That's why we don't see people falling in love with the concept and building millions of glass houses across the land.

[SDR]

No doubt. And I suspect that a broad spectrum of potential home-buyers place some or all of Wright's work in that category as well -- more's the pity . . .


SDR

[Unbrook]

Except--I believe that Wright's buildings all have an attitude of liveabilty.
The sense of shelter you feel in one of the Usonians (comparable to Farnsworth or Glass House) is remarkable. Dr. Farnsworth evidently didn't get what Mies was all about at Farnsworth. She felt on display. Johnson had the Guest House for the private activities of life.

We cannot and should not write Wright off as being in the same category.

[Roderick Grant]

A glass house is, for the most part, a cloth house: To moderate heat gain/loss and ensure privacy, the curtains must be drawn most of the time, or, like Johnson, the house must be located in the middle of such extensive, protected property as can keep intruders at bay. They also do not handle clutter well. A lamp cord snaking across the floor is enough to disrupt the entire composition. Even dust or fingerprints on the glass is distracting. So are people.

[SDR]

I agree with all of that -- except for the people. I believe the whole point of such exceptional buildings -- those made of "real material" like brick, steel, wood and glass -- is that the occupants (like the natural vegetation outside ?) provide the essential and expected contrast to the built environment. I don't think of the Glass House as so pristine that even humans seem out of place within. Perhaps that could be said of some of Mies's work . . .

I haven't experienced the Farnsworth opus first-hand. If the scale isn't sufficiently intimate, I imagine the house might be a bit forbidding.

SDR

[Wrightgeek]

I have been to the Farnsworth House, and it is spectacular IMHO. The simplicity, the quality of the materials, and the level of detailing is very impressive, even seductive.

That said, to me it is the antithesis of organic architecture. The idea of being in a glass house that allows views of nature at nearly every turn from within seems very enticing, and it is. But once you are actually inside the house, you begin to feel a sense of being able to observe the outside world surrounding you, but not being able to easily access it or interact with it, which is due to the paucity of operable windows and doors. The house does not engage its surroundings, but has a feeling of being somewhat "hermetically sealed".

The best analogy I can come up with is that the Farnsworth House feels to me like a terrarium for people, but it is still magnificent.

I have not yet been to see the Glass House, but hope to do so in the not too distant future.

[peterm]

I haven't experienced the Farnsworth opus first-hand. If the scale isn't sufficiently intimate, I imagine the house might be a bit forbidding.

SDR

It is a small and perfectly scaled house. At 1500 square feet, it felt just right to me. It's comparable to most small Usonians in size.

There are aspects of Mies which can easily be criticized, but when it comes to proportion, he was a master architect. Here in Chicago, the size of our rooms in relationship to the height feels perfect.

[Roderick Grant]

People in glass houses can look fine, as long as they are properly dressed and groomed, and behave well.

A Barcelona chair is hardly comfortable for watching television in a tank top with a beer and nochos on a hot, sultry day as the Fox River rushes underneath. And heaven forbid you scratch yourself.

[SDR]

Heh-heh. The assumption being that someone -- anyone -- is going to come along to peer into your picture window ?

I don't argue that these houses are anything but showcases for their owners and/or their architects . . .

My high-school art teacher, memorialized here as Mabel D'Amico (Victor was Director of Education, MoMA), told me that the entrance to the Johnson estate was nicely designed to make it impossible to enter for a peek without making one's presence known. Mr Wright thought nothing of arriving early and catching the occupant(s) in bed -- but most of humanity might be more considerate ?

Being peered at by squirrels and deer is presumably not a problem.

What is the approach to the Farnsworth property ?

SDR

[Unbrook]

Mies's original approach to the Farnsworth House was never fulfilled. Dr. Farnsworth used the construction driveway as the approach to the house. Lord Peter Palumbo (the second owner) consulted the landscape architect Lawrence Roper to develope the current approach to the house. Your vehicle does not come up to the building itself.

Dr. Farnsworth rejected Mies' design for the interior. Instead, she brought her family furniture to furnish the house. Oddly enough,even though it was not the pure pristine arrangement now featured, it had an odd charm that complemented the architecture.