Are you a Wright Purist?

Paul Ringstrom · Post by **Paul Ringstrom** » Fri May 09, 2014 6:34 pm

There was a comment on the discussion of the Hardy House gates that implied that everyone on the Wright Chat board was a "purist."

Let's do a survey to find out once and for all the proportion of purist v. pragmatists.

SDR · Post by **SDR** » Fri May 09, 2014 7:58 pm

Paul -- with all due respect, who would be willing to commit 100% to either position ? Would you ?

SDR

jmcnally · Post by **jmcnally** » Sat May 10, 2014 9:32 am

Not that they are equivalent, but this is like asking "are you an unreasonable person?" It's based on personal labeling of your own beliefs.

Without the Hardy House debate as a backdrop, I would have said "yes" to the purist question. A pure FLW design is a work of art, and it should live on perpetually. I believe, however, that people can decide how to spend their own money - and that means a homeowner can modernize or make changes. Clearly I would be in the "no" category.

pharding · Post by **pharding** » Sat May 10, 2014 10:45 am

In order to make a point, some resort to name calling and labels. That is extremely rare here. However labeling someone who has posted something that you disagree with as a "purist" doesn't really work. It is much like a personal attack.

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Sat May 10, 2014 11:01 am

I think we need a specific definition for this poll as to what a Wright purist means. We could do other polls with other definitions of a Wright Purist, but I think it would help to state clearly for this particular poll what is meant by a "Wright Purist" Then I'll vote. Should be fun.

Roderick Grant · Post by **Roderick Grant** » Sat May 10, 2014 2:15 pm

Nothing is pure, not even snow. As Tallulah said, "I'm as pure as the driven slush." Perhaps the Hadron Collider achieves purity of a sort, but not art.

Paul Ringstrom · Post by **Paul Ringstrom** » Sun May 11, 2014 6:52 pm

Tom wrote:I think we need a specific definition for this poll as to what a Wright purist means. .

I think it would be useful to see how many people "self-identify" as "purist" or not. If they don't know what they are, how would we?

SDR · Post by **SDR** » Sun May 11, 2014 8:24 pm

As I have said in other venues, the ideal (i.e., perfection) consists, it seems to me, in the simple absence of defect -- or, if you like, visible defect, when we speak of aesthetic matters.

So, to define "defect": A majority of architects posting to the Hardy house thread have made it clear that they believe perfection (if you will) of historic recreation or restoration exists when the original design, and to the greatest extent possible, the original fabric, remain(s) when the work is done. (Paul Harding helpfully mentioned "physical evidence," to include photographic evidence, in determining what was original to the structure and to the design. He, and presumably many restoration architects, clearly prefer "what was built" to "what might have been built" by the original designer.)

A defect, then, would be a straying from what is known to have constituted the original design, in all its particulars. In this context, a "purist" would be someone who prefers his restoration "without defect" ?

The amusing but perhaps cynical comment that the owner of a house by William Drummond (and presumably any other Prairie School architect besides Wright) finds himself relatively free of the strictures placed upon Wright owners seems unfortunate, to me, as it presents an all-too-perfect example of the infamous "slippery slope," at the bottom of which we find all manner of sloppy and ill-informed restoration efforts, of work by architects both great and near-great. One need only look at a recently-built garage to see how this attitude plays out on the ground; it was apparently more important to save a few hundred dollars in material rather than to see that the rhythm of the horizontal battens on the historic house was faithfully echoed in those of the new outbuilding -- not, granted, a Drummond design, but one designed to complement (and compliment) the original designer's choice.

Owners will do as they will, with no legal impediment, when there is nothing besides their own learning and discernment to guide them. Sites like this one are sources of influence, perhaps -- to the extent that they are perceived as legitimate. Published work illustrating and emphasizing examples of admirable restoration are another source.

SDR

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Mon May 12, 2014 6:11 am

Historical purism. I think I am one of those although the addition to the Guggenheim never really bothered me. I'd vote yes if I could figure out how?

Mark Hertzberg · Post by **Mark Hertzberg** » Mon May 12, 2014 3:12 pm

I voted no because this comes up in the context of "Gates-gate." I likely may have voted yes without that context in my mind.

Mark Hertzberg

outside in · Post by **outside in** » Mon May 12, 2014 3:49 pm

as one ages, I imagine "depends" takes on multiple meanings...

Tom · Post by **Tom** » Mon May 12, 2014 5:03 pm

Very clever. I'm not there yet so I'll laugh. ha ha.

Paul Ringstrom · Post by **Paul Ringstrom** » Mon May 12, 2014 5:08 pm

SDR wrote: The amusing but perhaps cynical comment that the owner of a house by William Drummond (and presumably any other Prairie School architect besides Wright) finds himself relatively free of the strictures placed upon Wright owners seems unfortunate, to me, as it presents an all-too-perfect example of the infamous "slippery slope," at the bottom of which we find all manner of sloppy and ill-informed restoration efforts, of work by architects both great and near-great. One need only look at a recently-built garage to see how this attitude plays out on the ground; it was apparently more important to save a few hundred dollars in material rather than to see that the rhythm of the horizontal battens on the historic house was faithfully echoed in those of the new outbuilding -- not, granted, a Drummond design, but one designed to complement (and compliment) the original designer's choice.
SDR

This is very unfortunate comment as I have always respected SDR's previous comments and opinions. This time he offers an opinion on a topic close to my heart of which he has no direct knowledge.

My supposedly cynical comment about most people not caring if it was not a FLW house was based on the fact that when the house was devastated by a fire in 2008 (before we purchased it) several of the neighbors petitioned the city to tear the house down instead of restoring it. Fortunately there were two people with sufficient clout at City Hall to prevent this from happening.

Q: Do I think homeowners who purchase "historic homes" should take into consideration that their inevitable modifications/upgrades are sympathetic to the time period of the home?
A: Yes, in fact if they are not of this mind-set they would be better off purchasing a vernacular home and remodeling to their heart's content. No slippery slope imminent IF care is taken to keep these homes in the hands of sympathetic buyers.

Q: Do I believe that owners who cherish their historic homes should place an exterior easement on them?
A: Yes, this is the only legal way to protect them into the future.

Q: Without legal restrictions in place do you believe in private property rights?
A: Yes

Now on to SDR's error of opinion based on no direct observational knowledge: our new garage addition.

The battens on our garage are dimensioned and beveled (10 degrees) to replicate the original on the house. They were also spaced identically on the garage to imitate the spacing and rhythm on the house. I also made them from a much more expensive PVC material (AZEK) to prevent them from rotting in the future. So let's put that falsehood to rest once and for all. I even looked long and hard to find a flush-style wood garage door (instead of the usual textured steel) so that I could extend the battens onto the door too. No slippery slope here.

We also replaced all of the 100 year-old concrete walkways and placed them in the identical locations. No slippery slope here.

As the landscaping was in need or restoration, I contacted an architect who appears on this Chat Board who arranged for a landscape architect he works with to design an historic type of landscape for the house. No slippery slope here either.

If my wife and I do not qualify as sympathetic owners then none exist.

I would like to invite any and all of the Chatters to visit our home when it is open on the WBG house walk May 30 & 31: http://www.wbgriffinsociety.org

Paul Ringstrom · Post by **Paul Ringstrom** » Mon May 12, 2014 5:09 pm

outside in wrote:as one ages, I imagine "depends" takes on multiple meanings...

your humor is very much appreciated.

SDR · Post by **SDR** » Mon May 12, 2014 6:10 pm

I can only reply to Paul's message by quoting from our correspondence:

On Mar 22, 2013, at 2:36 PM, Stephen Ritchings <[email protected]> wrote:

Paul

I'm happy to see an effort to echo the house in the new garage. I wish more Wright owners would consider doing the same. I assume the
carpenters were given a drawing to work from; if not, I wish they'd looked closely enough at the house to see that the double-strip pattern is made
with uniform spacing throughout. In any event, I applaud your choice.

Steve

From: Paul Ringstrom
Subject: Re: your posted illustrations...
To: "Stephen Ritchings" <[email protected]>
Date: Friday, March 22, 2013, 12:52 PM

(T)he interesting thing is that if you measure the spacing on the house it is not uniform, close but no cigar.

I drew the garage wall to scale with the windows, etc. We also had to take into consideration where the 12'x4' plywood panels would "break" so that
the battens would cover the joint.

Paul

Photo of Yelland residence:

http://flwarchitecture.blogspot.com/201 ... rical.html

Paul's photo of Yelland garage:

Regretfully, Stephen