|
Posted by Kris Krieger on July 25, 2007, 4:51 pm
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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*...
> Don't just look at those photos! When I worked for a Wrightian
> Architect in the 70's, we occasionally set up our completed houses for
> photo shoots for publication. I remember one house in RI, where we
> took down a truckload of furniture and houseplants, put all the
> Owner's furniture in one bedroom, had a cleaning crew in, located the
> furniture according to the photog's directions, (look closely, same
> piece in several rooms) and moved plants around as required. We even
> had a model in to sit by the swimming pool. Costly? Yes, but that
> spread got us several more large commissions. If a house looks like a
> place where no one lives, that's because nobody does at the time of
> the photos. EDS
That's an interesting point. Sort of like "staging" a house for sale, I
suppose...
But I also meant some of the interior fixtures and integrated furniture -
some of the furniture looks nifty, but also looks completely
uncomfortable. I'm also not too sure about some of the floorplans - i'm
of course looking at them from a more modern perspective, plus a *very*
strong sense of what does and does not "work" for me in terms of
efficiency and "traffic flow". But some of the layouts, some of the
orientations/positions of certain rooms or areas, seems like ti could eb
a bit difficult *for me personally* (can't speak for anyone else ;) ) to
live comfortably with.
But I still love the look of Falling Water, and the Robie House =:-D
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap