If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by Michael Bulatovich on July 22, 2007, 5:44 pm
>
>> eds wrote:
>>
>>>>spatial rhythms.
>>>>
>>>
>>>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
>>
>> 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?
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> 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
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.
|
|
Posted by ++ on July 22, 2007, 6:02 pm
Michael Bulatovich wrote:
> 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.
>
>
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.
|
|
Posted by Michael Bulatovich on July 22, 2007, 8:05 pm
> Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> 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.
<nods in agreement>
|
|
Posted by Kris Krieger on July 23, 2007, 6:40 pm
>
>> eds wrote:
>>
>>>>spatial rhythms.
>>>>
>>>
>>>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
>>
>> 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?
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
> 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
>
>
Do you have any descripotions of your work/expereince published online or
elsewhere...? THat sound slike ti could be interesting to read about.
|
|
Posted by Kris Krieger on July 23, 2007, 6:38 pm
>
>> @k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>> What is your take on Frank Lloyd Wright Architecture?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> 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.
>
> 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
>
>
>
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*...
|
Page 3 of 5 < 1 2 3 > last >>
| Similar Threads | Posted | | alt. architecture FAQ | February 5, 2007, 4:04 pm |
| Re: alt.architecture | March 2, 2007, 12:40 pm |
| Architecture? | July 2, 2007, 1:33 pm |
| About the architecture | April 27, 2006, 4:47 am |
| Architecture Forum | February 9, 2007, 8:01 pm |
| Looking for archimedes architecture | May 25, 2007, 6:09 pm |
| Design, Architecture | June 3, 2007, 4:07 pm |
| The Oldest Architecture? | January 18, 2008, 12:11 pm |
| Re: water in architecture | April 24, 2006, 12:02 pm |
| Re: water in architecture | April 24, 2006, 12:05 pm |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap