Architecture

What is your take on Frank Lloyd Wright Architecture?

Reply to
jeff Myers
Loading thread data ...

I believe this group's main discussion focus is on the architecture and design of digital processing circuitry.

I always have to LOL however, when I noting the frequency of wayward newcomers to the field of building architecture, who's first inquiry is always about FLW. I LOL again.

On a completely different topic, If Intel keeps the price cutting and AMD follows lock step, we're all going to be out of work!

Reply to
Secretia Green

There are a lot of books on it. Do you have an opinion on it or are you just taking a poll?

Reply to
++

jeff Myers wrote in news:1184961944.358574.170670 @k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

Innovative at the time, inspires a lot of ideas (to me at least), beautiful materials, visually rhythmic and often pleasantly (to me) asymmetrical, yet balanced; in execution, would not meet todays; standards for engineering or energy-efficiency.

I was in Wingspread for a conference once, an dit was definitely "way cool" ;) , and 've already gone at some length, in the past, about my experience visiting the Guggenheim; I have several books on FLW's works and often look at them. I don't personally take it "lock, stock, and barrel" so to speak, IOW it is not "my perfect style", but lots of great visual and spatial rhythms.

Reply to
Kris Krieger

I was in Falling Water about 20 years ago. I really liked it, but I'm tall and the door heads were about 6'-2" and constantly brushed my hair. Mr. Kaufman was 6'-4" and must have had permanent bruises on his forehead. EDS

Reply to
eds

So your hair was nice... That would be handy for when you were in a rush and didn't really have the time. You could curve the door heads just so for around the ears, that is unless you prefer a flat-top.

Or a hunched back.

Reply to
Señor Popcorn

hmm, how tall was Frank L? Someone in the thread mentioned that some FLW edifaces would not meet code today but wasn't Falling Water overengineered for its time?

Reply to
++

You obviously haven't read the group's FAQ...

Reply to
Michael Bulatovich

His cantilevers are notorious.

Reply to
Michael Bulatovich

Thanks. I am a proud black c*ck.

Reply to
Mandingo's Dingo

Who?

Reply to
Pierre Levesque

One of the brothers that built and flew the first plane.

My take is that I like the plane because it actually flew.

Reply to
Señor Popcorn

He was about 5'-7". Falling Water was not well engineered, more by seat-of-the-pants than calculations and recently had several million dollars of done to bring it up to minimal standards. I still think it is about the best house I've ever been in. I was lucky enough to work for a FLLW follower during the 60's and

70's. EDS
Reply to
eds

I actually like his slightly earlier work a bit better. I find it a bit more accessible. I've been in a bunch of his buildings, including Fallingwater, the Chicago stuff and the Goog, and there's no doubt he was a gifted designer. I haven't seen any of the late stuff in person. On paper it strikes be as wacky, but then I used to like Bruce Goff's stuff when I was a kid in the '70's...now not so much.

Reply to
Michael Bulatovich

I like his earlier work (even his unbuilt) better, too, because he actually thought in terms of how people used his spaces and what delight they might encounter with this or that space or detail, from the areas he set up in his own home for his children to act out plays to the beauty and utility of individual window, lamp, masonry, and other designs. In that respect, he doesn't differ in some of the detail work one sees in , say, classic Brown and Root (before they became defense contractors - talk about defaming your own heritage) and rivals Tiffany in decorative potential and color use. He was supposed to be quite the taskmaster on details in his studio but the almost family orientation of his earlier studio provided a kind of focus that is often lost today on two percent jobs with little margin for design out of the pedestrian.

Reply to
++

Reply to
Michael Bulatovich

"eds" wrote in news:6PudnU8Dt4LH6zzbnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:

Ouch!

Yes, one problem (IMO) with FLW is that he did often ignore practicality. Archetecture can definitely be art, but it first and formost IMO has to be practical. WHen you enter Wingspread, for example, you enter through a low concrete tunnel-like structure. NOw, it *is* tru that, when you emerge into the space, it is absolutely breathtaking, because of the scale and the shape of the space and the light and so on. But the doorway is *so* low, taht, yes, no small number of the attendees had to stoop. IMO, that's not practical, and I didn't think ti was necessary to make the visual point.

THe thing with a house is that ti is precisely that - a house, a place where people live. The trick, as I see it, is to design a beautiful space (which, IMO, includes the exterior spaces, the structure, *and* the interior spaces) - while at the same time keeping it *liveable*.

SO, yeah, it's very, very mundane to think about getting, say, energy efficient windows and then also planning the installation so as to *keep* them energy efficient. But that is just the nature of archrtecture. Is is

*not* pure sculpture; a house is more than a prettily-facetted crystal.

It seems to me that the mundanities are actually the most difficult things for architects to deal with. A house *will*, at some point, have newspapers piled up, tricyles left out, toys scattered in the living room, dishes in th esink, laundry ne the bed, and so on. So one fonction of a house is to not just be beautifulm, but also begracious in both tolerating life's little messes, and in assisting with their organization.

IMO, the problem with many of FLW's houses, as well as the houses of others!!, is that they sometimes don't seem to be places where people

*live*...
Reply to
Kris Krieger

"eds" wrote in news:GIKdnUHQbd-nKT_bnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@comcast.com:

Do you have any descripotions of your work/expereince published online or elsewhere...? THat sound slike ti could be interesting to read about.

Reply to
Kris Krieger

RicodJour wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

THat's a good question.... Isn't one man's "outdated" another man's "piece of history", or "classic design"...?

I hear that on those HDTV shows, "outdated" - soemtimes the stuff was ugly even back when tio was done, other times it is obviously of a given stylistic period but remains valid in terms of aesthetics/design.

Horizontals are currently "outdated", but that doesn't mean that nobody should or deos use tham any more.

IOW, to what extent does "outdated" *merely* mean "not currently fashionable"...?

Also, why is FLW "outdated", bot not farmhouse style, or French Provincial, or Victorian, or any number of other styles...?

Nto trying to be snotty - I'm merely curious.

Inspiring and thought-provoking. WHich is what makes them art.

A concrete box can work fine as a warehouse, esp. with climate control, and other engineering/technological advances to mak eit sturdy and adaptable and so on. IOW< even a concrete box can be a really "nifty- keen" ;) bit of engineering. But it isn&#39;t art.

I think that so many of FLW&#39;s works endure because they have a strong artistic element.

Like &#39;em or hate &#39;em, they did introduce new ideas, now ways to think about things, into the architecture of the times.

Add me to that list........ ;)

Reply to
Kris Krieger

RicodJour wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:

[ ... ]

I used to pass that one fairly frequently, back when I lived near Milwaukee. I shoudl have goen in, dunno why I didn&#39;t. But it was quite nice from the outside.

What I liked was that it carroied over so much of what onethinks of as being Greek in terms of colors and materials, and also echoes teh Orthodox style.

In oneof the tv specials I&#39;d seen, people said they loved working there, in spiteof the leakes, because ti was so bright, and such a visually- beautiful place.

THat&#39;s where I went to an Anti-Terrorism conference back around &#39;89 or so. From the direction of the attendees&#39; approach, you didn&#39;t really see the roof like that - it barely looked like one was actually approaching a big buuilding; what we saw was very low to the ground, almost bunmker- like. We ent tthrough alow tunnel-like entryway. I was thinking something like, "What the vbloody hell...?!?!?!"....

...and then you BURST into this huge, golden space rich with woods and textures...

Oh my...

I also loved the Guggenheim - it wa slike entering a column or wave of light. I had little interest in most of the art - I&#39;m not "into" Modernism, for the most part. I just kept looking at the space. I was only, jeezz, maybe 13 or 14... It was one of the pivotal expereinces in my life, for several reasons.

Exactly! THere are many people who tend to latch onto things or people, and then allow their adoration to blind them to any and all faults. Groupies, followers.

But then there are some people who like something because they see merit in it, and/or because this or that work resonates with them.

Reply to
Kris Krieger

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.