Wright goes to Arkansas
Good one. At :36 sec. can be seen the placement of a perforated panel with glass; I guess this is a case where the glass is sandwiched between inner and outer perfs -- the only way to really get the desired appearance inside and out.
The basic planar composition of the structure shows nicely at :12 >:15.
SDR
The basic planar composition of the structure shows nicely at :12 >:15.
SDR
He's standing in the dining room, Master Bedroom overhead, what will be a window wall to the right. Very intriguing look at the framing here.
http://media.arkansasonline.com/img/pho ... 950bdf1585
http://media.arkansasonline.com/img/pho ... 950bdf1585
"Throughout this process, how many times have you heard someone say, 'You all are nuts, just build a house that looks like the original'?" asked Nair.
"We've had the conversation - 'How much easier would it have been just to take the plans and build it from scratch?'" said Eccleston. "But every board that goes in, every nail, it's as if Frank Lloyd Wright was sitting in a chair at his drawing table telling you, 'This is why I did this.' And that's how we built this house."
Sorry, but that's not a cogent answer to the question that was posed. In truth, the answer has a lot more to do with sentiment -- with the all-too-human need to hang on, not to let go -- than with anything like documentation or historic correctness. Perhaps that's what "history" is, to many -- sentimental attachment ?
Why do people the world over feel the need to have the physical corpus of a loved one, returned to them from war or from the bottom of the ocean ? Same answer, I suspect. We're irrational at heart -- and proud of it . . . !
It should tell us something, that the authors of architectural works are the last to insist on such sentimental attachment to material, and the first to counsel replacement and rebirth -- shouldn't it ?
SDR
"We've had the conversation - 'How much easier would it have been just to take the plans and build it from scratch?'" said Eccleston. "But every board that goes in, every nail, it's as if Frank Lloyd Wright was sitting in a chair at his drawing table telling you, 'This is why I did this.' And that's how we built this house."
Sorry, but that's not a cogent answer to the question that was posed. In truth, the answer has a lot more to do with sentiment -- with the all-too-human need to hang on, not to let go -- than with anything like documentation or historic correctness. Perhaps that's what "history" is, to many -- sentimental attachment ?
Why do people the world over feel the need to have the physical corpus of a loved one, returned to them from war or from the bottom of the ocean ? Same answer, I suspect. We're irrational at heart -- and proud of it . . . !
It should tell us something, that the authors of architectural works are the last to insist on such sentimental attachment to material, and the first to counsel replacement and rebirth -- shouldn't it ?
SDR
-
Roderick Grant
- Posts: 11815
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am
FLW, himself, would deride the salvaging of the house. Instead of restoring, FLW would say, "Let me give you something new and better."
I can see why they took the original perfs ... why not? But unless the concrete blocks used in the original are no longer available, why bother? Close scrutiny of the building and comparison with the final plans would make the construction of the house in its original state easy; it's not a complicated thing, like D. D. Martin.
I can see why they took the original perfs ... why not? But unless the concrete blocks used in the original are no longer available, why bother? Close scrutiny of the building and comparison with the final plans would make the construction of the house in its original state easy; it's not a complicated thing, like D. D. Martin.
It would be interesting to compare two possible outcomes following a decision to (a) sell and move this house, or to (b) leave the existing house in place -- as a garden folly ?-- while a replica is built at Crystal Bridges. How much would the replica cost, taking into account the use of mahogany, a presumed savings in labor, the financial gains and losses to the respective parties, etc etc.
Would the public be less interested in a replica than in the reassembled original ? Would the Foundation exact a price to the maker of the replica ? Who would end up with the original property, and what would be its fate ?
SDR
Would the public be less interested in a replica than in the reassembled original ? Would the Foundation exact a price to the maker of the replica ? Who would end up with the original property, and what would be its fate ?
SDR
-
Paul Ringstrom
- Posts: 4777
- Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:53 pm
- Location: Mason City, IA
-
Roderick Grant
- Posts: 11815
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am
-
Paul Ringstrom
- Posts: 4777
- Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:53 pm
- Location: Mason City, IA
Karen Bergenthal's Tours d'Art (www.toursdart.com) is conducting an E.Fay Jones/Crystal Bridges tour in early November 2015.
For more details: [email protected]
For more details: [email protected]
Former owner of the G. Curtis Yelland House (1910), by Wm. Drummond
-
Paul Ringstrom
- Posts: 4777
- Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 4:53 pm
- Location: Mason City, IA
"The clerestory has wood carvings that were crafted by Wright." The builder also believes that Mr Wright invented the casement window. Let's hope he's not writing the visitor guide . . . !
Can't wait to see it complete. Interesting to learn that the CMUs were custom made. Note stain being applied in situ to exterior boards.
SDR
Can't wait to see it complete. Interesting to learn that the CMUs were custom made. Note stain being applied in situ to exterior boards.
SDR