Fallingwater text by Paul Rudolph
Fallingwater text by Paul Rudolph
Here is an essay on Fallingwater by architect Paul Rudolph, found in the Global Architecture large-format paperbound "picture book" on the house (photographs by Yukio Futagawa), first published in Japan by A.D.A Edita in 1970
Last edited by SDR on Sun Aug 13, 2006 8:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
To what end ?
I'm sorry, but I've been reposting NT Times articles and opinion pieces (on another design site) for more than a year with no negative feedback. Published literature is posted on the web all the time. I think it is a service to readers to quote relevant published material; until otherwise directed by an authority I will continue to do so, always giving full credit to the author and source.
Perhaps you have an opinion on Mr Rudolph's words ?
SDR
I'm sorry, but I've been reposting NT Times articles and opinion pieces (on another design site) for more than a year with no negative feedback. Published literature is posted on the web all the time. I think it is a service to readers to quote relevant published material; until otherwise directed by an authority I will continue to do so, always giving full credit to the author and source.
Perhaps you have an opinion on Mr Rudolph's words ?
SDR
Please calm yourself. The NY Times doesn't care if readers of their free online edition quote them elsewhere. The publishers of a 36-year-old out-of-print edition don't care if I reprint for public review at no profit to me. The site administrators have (wisely) distanced themselves legally from the content of the chat site.
If you wish to make trouble, no one here can stop you. That's the beauty and the curse of the Internet. . .
In the meantime, more Wright: Rudolph mentions the text of Ed Kaufmann, jr. (as he spelled it) in Bruno Zevi's "La Casa sulla Cascata di F. Ll. Wright" [reprint from issue n. 82 (August 1962) of the monthly review "L'Architettura - cronache e storia" Bruno Zevi editor.
If you wish to make trouble, no one here can stop you. That's the beauty and the curse of the Internet. . .
In the meantime, more Wright: Rudolph mentions the text of Ed Kaufmann, jr. (as he spelled it) in Bruno Zevi's "La Casa sulla Cascata di F. Ll. Wright" [reprint from issue n. 82 (August 1962) of the monthly review "L'Architettura - cronache e storia" Bruno Zevi editor.
Jackless take it easy. In no way ar ethe site administrators liable for the actions of its members. And given that they allow anonymous postings - they're none too smart, nor too interested in the contejnt posted here.
As to the article. I found it essentially unreadable. It's classic academia jargon which means nothing - not even to other academics. Read this sentence:
"The idea of functionalism, even stretched functionalism, is certainly not the motivating urge here, literally or symbolically."
Firstly, what the "layman" (you and I) would think "functionalism" is, is no doubt "Something which is well designed for its function, or designed according to its function" - but it is almost certain that in this sentence, functionalism does NOT mean.
Given that functionalism is not defined (a classic hallmark of snobbish and exclusionary academic language, intende to ebfuscate and confuse, rather than elucidate and educate), how are we to understand "stretched functionalism"?
Also, how can he make a strong assertion that neither "are the motivating urge here"? Noit only do we not know what question is being asked, but we also can not understand how he arrives at his answer.
He then covers both his bases, in an attempt to sound non-jargonised, by saying "literally or symbolically". This though, is another example of obfuscation: how can we decide if anything is literal or symbolic when the first part of the sentence really has no meaning at all - or even worse - any meaning you care to attach to it.
This article I'm afraid, is simply unintelligible. It looks like English, but it requires translating before all but the most eductade and esoteric of minds can possibly come to agreement about what the author has said.
It's more than possible to give detailed analysis of a complex subject without having to resort to psychobable. The onyl question you need to ask yourself is: "Have I learned anything which has helped to improve my understanding of the home, its design principles, or how FLW came to the arranegment he did."
I suggest that reading some history, and some plain-English articles about Fallingwater is a far better use of time.
As to the article. I found it essentially unreadable. It's classic academia jargon which means nothing - not even to other academics. Read this sentence:
"The idea of functionalism, even stretched functionalism, is certainly not the motivating urge here, literally or symbolically."
Firstly, what the "layman" (you and I) would think "functionalism" is, is no doubt "Something which is well designed for its function, or designed according to its function" - but it is almost certain that in this sentence, functionalism does NOT mean.
Given that functionalism is not defined (a classic hallmark of snobbish and exclusionary academic language, intende to ebfuscate and confuse, rather than elucidate and educate), how are we to understand "stretched functionalism"?
Also, how can he make a strong assertion that neither "are the motivating urge here"? Noit only do we not know what question is being asked, but we also can not understand how he arrives at his answer.
He then covers both his bases, in an attempt to sound non-jargonised, by saying "literally or symbolically". This though, is another example of obfuscation: how can we decide if anything is literal or symbolic when the first part of the sentence really has no meaning at all - or even worse - any meaning you care to attach to it.
This article I'm afraid, is simply unintelligible. It looks like English, but it requires translating before all but the most eductade and esoteric of minds can possibly come to agreement about what the author has said.
It's more than possible to give detailed analysis of a complex subject without having to resort to psychobable. The onyl question you need to ask yourself is: "Have I learned anything which has helped to improve my understanding of the home, its design principles, or how FLW came to the arranegment he did."
I suggest that reading some history, and some plain-English articles about Fallingwater is a far better use of time.
How many escape pods are there? "NONE, SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"
*Plotting to take over the world since 1965
*Plotting to take over the world since 1965
Thanks SDR.
As is typical, no good deed or good intention goes unpunished.
As for copyright, haven't you ever heard of "fair use?" There is no financial gain here, the text quoted has been cited, the usage is in the context of an educational organization and the passage quoted is not the entire text of the book, so one could argue that there is no real infringement.
As for content, hey, if you don't like it, don't read it.
As is typical, no good deed or good intention goes unpunished.
As for copyright, haven't you ever heard of "fair use?" There is no financial gain here, the text quoted has been cited, the usage is in the context of an educational organization and the passage quoted is not the entire text of the book, so one could argue that there is no real infringement.
As for content, hey, if you don't like it, don't read it.
ch
Thanks, Craig. Actually, Mobius finds the weak point in Rudolph's inspired ode to Fallingwater; I too thought the ball was dropped, there. Otherwise, it seems to me an artist's perceptive assessment of another artist's accomplishment -- which, like other masterworks, may even have surpassed its maker's expectations.
SDR
SDR
Jackless,
We get your point. I have two points myself to make:
1. If I violate some sort of copyright, feel free to sue me. Being an intellectual property attorney, I can assure you that these are not the situations in which those that hold copyrights are most concerned with.
2. As you have made your point, please dial down your self righteousness and take it somewhere else. Are you a kindergarten teacher or something?
We get your point. I have two points myself to make:
1. If I violate some sort of copyright, feel free to sue me. Being an intellectual property attorney, I can assure you that these are not the situations in which those that hold copyrights are most concerned with.
2. As you have made your point, please dial down your self righteousness and take it somewhere else. Are you a kindergarten teacher or something?
"It all goes to show the danger of entrusting anything spiritual to the clergy" - FLLW, on the Chicago Theological Seminary's plans to tear down the Robie House in 1957
Please do continue Stephen, I for one, appreciate your great collection of 50+ years old out of print editions you share with us, giving full credit to writers, publishers & photographers who have probably in any case passed. Your full credits will always make for great researching & documenting.
It is with people like you that memory is kept alive...
Otherwise we end up like NASA
Deke, this might help:
The American Institute of Architects - Understanding Intellectual Property Laws
The U.S. Copyright Act affords protection for
The American Institute of Architects - Understanding Intellectual Property Laws
The U.S. Copyright Act affords protection for
Last edited by MD on Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:15 am, edited 5 times in total.
Found this on the same copyright site:
"Eligible Works
Architectural works created on or after December 1, 1990, and any architectural works that were unconstructed and embodied in unpublished plans or drawings on that date are eligible for protection.
Works Excluded
The designs of buildings where the plans or drawings of the building were published before December 1, 1990, or the buildings were constructed or otherwise published before December 1, 1990."
Seems to me this includes just about all of FLW's work.
"Eligible Works
Architectural works created on or after December 1, 1990, and any architectural works that were unconstructed and embodied in unpublished plans or drawings on that date are eligible for protection.
Works Excluded
The designs of buildings where the plans or drawings of the building were published before December 1, 1990, or the buildings were constructed or otherwise published before December 1, 1990."
Seems to me this includes just about all of FLW's work.
You are right, these buildings cannot be registered: Copyright Claims in Architectural Works - Eligible Works
Does this mean they are not protected?
Does this mean they are not protected?
Last edited by MD on Thu Aug 17, 2006 8:19 am, edited 2 times in total.
So. . .I could build my own copy of a Wright house with no problem ? Olgivanna isn't going to rise from the soil and tell me I'm rude and inconsiderate ?
Excellent !
Excellent !
Last edited by SDR on Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'd ask a lawyer first SDR 
Wright has heirs (alive)...
This is also interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#Expiration
Wright has heirs (alive)...
This is also interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain#Expiration