Story, Photos & Models Of Lost Fuller Residence

Wrightgeek · Post by **Wrightgeek** » Tue Aug 21, 2012 8:08 am

The first link below is attached to a blog post with a construction era photo of the Welbie Fuller Residence of Pass Christian, MS.

The next link is to a SIM model of the house. The slideshow there also includes another historical photo of the house as well. Enjoy.

http://misspreservation.com/2012/08/17/ ... ler-house/

http://www.thesimsresource.com/members/ ... d/1076790/

DavidC · Post by **DavidC** » Tue Aug 21, 2012 8:56 am

Great stuff! Thanks for posting this, WG.

Fuller looks in external appearance to have had much in common with Calrson.

David

DRN · Post by **DRN** » Tue Aug 21, 2012 9:39 am

Interesting to see the site, I had not known it was a waterfront lot...I wouldn't rebuild the Fuller house on that piece of ground on a bet. If one is to enjoy that site it would best be done with something portable: a tent, a travel trailer, or a boat docked at the pier. An Airstream would be my first choice.

Storm resistant design is intriguing to me and I believe it to be the answer for some sites where is extreme weather is possible but statistically very localized such as with tornadoes. In this case, with the chance of hurricanes, I would suggest some sites really should not be built upon.

SDR · Post by **SDR** » Tue Aug 21, 2012 12:22 pm

Ah, the amateur "modelers" . . . simultaneously creating and destroying architecture, one pixel at a time . . .

SDR

Jeff Myers · Post by **Jeff Myers** » Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:13 pm

SDR: Hopefully that doesn't apply to me. When I first did Fuller I was an amateur and inexperienced 19 year old but I have matured in my designs. Wright's genius of design is a treasure to study and learn.

Reidy · Post by **Reidy** » Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:22 pm

Were the stilts for flood protection?

SDR · Post by **SDR** » Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:23 pm

Well, Jeff -- since you ask -- when I pointed out (too late) that your version of the unbuilt G/W perf didn't represent the sole bit of Taliesin evidence we have, your response was something on the order of "it's good enough -- I like it this way -- it took a lot of work."

But, no, you're usually more accurate in your depictions of Wright's work. It's just a reminder that one's reputation is always on the line . . .

My quibble with the Fuller SIM model is that the chimneys have somehow become smokestacks, and the fenestration of the stair tower is a fresh invention rather than a faithful recording. At which point is the result no longer "the Fuller residence as designed by Frank Lloyd Wright" ? And how many of those new to Wright will believe that this version is the correct one ?

Those working with history have a clear duty to their subject. Interpretive artists are invited to clearly indicate that their work is "inspired by." Why not just do it Wright ?

SDR

Jeff Myers · Post by **Jeff Myers** » Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:40 pm

I kindly forgot the issue with the G-W Perf design. As with the model of the Price Tower, the Perfs, the Newsstand, and fabrics, as well as some built ins are in keeping with Wright but are my designs. I stay true to Wright's intentions but I fail in some cases to really stay true because there are no photos, or the design wasn't followed through.

SDR · Post by **SDR** » Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:55 pm

There a major difference between "there are no photos" and "the design wasn't followed through" -- if we're trying to be faithful to the architect. In the former case, invention is perhaps invited (though many interpreters would render only a plain undecorated surface in that case, rather than presume to "decorate" a Wright structure), while in the second case a known Wright solution is available, even if never realized. In that case, the faithful historian has no happier choice -- for himself and for his audience -- than to recreate the Wright design in its correct form -- thus improving upon the built record rather than degrading it ?

You, Jeff, are an accomplished original artist of architecture, as well as a very respectable delineator of Wright's work. The issue is one of separating the two disciplines, so that your audience knows when they are looking at original Myers work and when they are viewing (unadulterated) Wright. It is up to you to make that distinction clear to the audience -- in my opinion.

By the way, I'm sure Wright Chat readers would be interested in seeing some of the original work that you accomplished a couple of years back. Houses and churches are among the delightful examples that I recall. A gallery of stills of some of those projects -- perhaps a couple of views of each project -- will make a very impressive, and interesting, resumÃ©. Overall form, design detail, and color/texture are all memorable in these projects, I believe.

SDR

Roderick Grant · Post by **Roderick Grant** » Wed Aug 22, 2012 11:52 am

A pixelated version of a FLW design need not be turnkey. If one were to take a shot at Burlingham, for instance, the computer could build that airborne chimney without having to invent structure to support it. That would show what FLW designed, leaving the glaring gap to the imagination of the viewer. Such additions as furniture, furnishings, occupants and missing structure might be a secondary application that could be included or deleted as desired. But accuracy in such things is of the most importance.