Thought there may be those who would like a walk thru

80' from where? From the garage/car-park, or from the road? I'm not
clear on that point. Also, I'd though it was suppsoed to be a vacation
house, not a primary residence. Then too, given the choice between
walking 10' to the dreary little door of a dreary little tract house, and
Falling Water, it's not much of a contest.

It's obviously not your cup of proverbial tea, but your dislike doesn't
change what I like about various aspects.

>>>

>>> I've heard that the place leaked from the very beginning and has had

>>> a constant moisture problem as well from the beginning.

>> That was part of the "cons" I referenced and specifically chose to

>> not address, my own comment being about the look of it - I like the

>> massing, the visual rhythms; I find it almost fractal in feel, which

>> in turn makes it feel, IMO at least, more in-tune with the rocks and

>> otehr natural elements, given that natural structures are fractal.

>>>

>>> Beautiful, for sure but behind the exterior beauty is a LOAD of bad

>>> design.

>>>

>> What I'd like to see is someone who could do better. Criticism is

>> easy, but evidence very strongly suggests that *doing*, and

>> specifically, *doing BETTER*, is immensely difficult.

> OKAY, hero worshipper. I could have done better on the interior in my

> first year. The vast majority of the other students there could have

> done so as well. I bet you could do better at student level as well.

Oh good grief, it's not "hero worship" to like certain aspects of a
specific item in someone's boy of work. I also like COltraine's "A Love
Supreme", is that also "hero worship"? I like Vivaldi's "Four Seasons",
but am less fond of some of his other works - is that "hero worship"? I
like a lot of Calatreva's work (which I got to see pics of thanks to
links priovided by otehr folks in this NG), but am less fond of other
examples - is that being a "hero worshipper", merely liking some various
examples of someones work, or even specific aspects thereof? Answer:
nope. Your use of the phrase "hero worshippers" was entirely incorrect.

As for others doing better, I'd honestly be interested in links to some
examples, so I could take a look.

Posted by Kris Krieger on May 15, 2008, 2:28 pm

>>>

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>> http://vodpod.com/watch/3249-falling-water-hl2?pod=architecture

>>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Very cool ;)

>>>>>

>>>>> ((I've hard all the pros and cons but I still think it's

>>>>> beautiful, albeit a bit darker inside than I typically prefer ;)

>>>>> ))

>>>>

>>>> The exterior is grand and inspiring. The interior, unfortunately,

>>>> shows Wright's tendency to allow the interior to suffer for the

>>>> sake of the exterior. I don't like that approach in architecture

>>>> or in life on any level.

>>>

>>> Actually, he paid quite a lot of attention to the interiors. It's

>>> jsut that interiors are even more a mater of taste than are

>>> exteriors and structrual elements. Fpr example, his dining room

>>> chairs do go with the houses overall, but also tend to be very

>>> straight-backed, which is something i find to be gawdawful

>>> uncomfortable.

>> In the sense of making geometry "artistic" shapes he did spend a lot

>> of time (i.e. designing awkard built-in counchs with bizarre back

>> cushions) where he had no business making them, he did not spend the

>> amount of time (imho) that he should have to make the interior

>> functional and human friendly. This piece, which is his signature

>> residence, is an almost complete disaster as much as interior

>> functioning is concerned. LOOK AT THE PLAN, man! ;0

>>>

>>>>

>>>> Also, have you ever notice that about 30% of the compound is hardly

>>>> ever shown. It is the "rear" (side opposite the water) and I

>>>> suppose it's the garage and other spaces.

>>>

>>> Prob. becasue the vast majority of poeple have Zero interest in

>>> seeing utility areas. Personally, I like to see them because IMO,

>>> if one i spayin gfor a custom house, there is no reason whatsoever

>>> why a "utility area" can't fit in with th erest of the

>>> structure/aesthetic. Esp. given how often one 2will end up using

>>> (IOW< being in) those areas - IMO, ti's goofy to ignore them. But

>>> again, the vast majority of people don't give these areas any

>>> thought, so I'd venture to guess that is why they're never shown.

>> I guessed the same. However, the overall success of any complex

>> depends on the interrelationship of all of it's parts. Basically,

>> the exterior design IS "falling water" and nothing else lives up to

>> the exterior.

>>>

>>>> The walk from this building is

>>>> unbelievably long.

>>>

>>> It's called "dramatic build-up". Also, the setting is very

>>> park-like, so I figure that one is also supposed to enjoy the

>>> surroundings while approaching the house.

>> Well, one can call it that but it's just a long tedious walk coming

>> in from work everyday. It's GOT to be around 80 feet long walk (if

>> not more). Have you seen it?

>>>

>>>>

>>>> I've heard that the place leaked from the very beginning and has

>>>> had a constant moisture problem as well from the beginning.

>>>

>>> That was part of the "cons" I referenced and specifically chose to

>>> not address, my own comment being about the look of it - I like the

>>> massing, the visual rhythms; I find it almost fractal in feel, which

>>> in turn makes it feel, IMO at least, more in-tune with the rocks and

>>> otehr natural elements, given that natural structures are fractal.

>>>

>>>>

>>>> Beautiful, for sure but behind the exterior beauty is a LOAD of bad

>>>> design.

>>>>

>>>

>>> What I'd like to see is someone who could do better. Criticism is

>>> easy, but evidence very strongly suggests that *doing*, and

>>> specifically, *doing BETTER*, is immensely difficult.

>> OKAY, hero worshipper. I could have done better on the interior in

>> my first year. The vast majority of the other students there could

>> have done so as well. I bet you could do better at student level as

>> well.

> Then?

> We're talking the 1950's, right?

> You have to take it in context man.

> Lifestyles have changed and materials and practices have changed too.

> Essentially, we do stuff different today.

> Did the designers of the parthenon consider things like *traffic

> patterns* or *furniture placement*?

> Don't think so, and even today 99% of the stuff I see out doesn't

> either. A home may look stunning on paper and in reality, but when it

> comes time to actually *live* in it it must function effectively,

> otherwise its a failure. All the square footage and all the curb

> appeal will not a home make. Notice I said *home* and not *house*.

> There IS a difference.

> The first one is meant to be lived in and the 2nd one is meant to be

> drooled over in the glossy ragz.....

The other this is that different things "work" for different people.
THere are a few things I'm personally adamant about that other poeple
feel work just fine for them.

I'm also fed up with the following sort fo response:
Me: "I like the way the shapes and atterns interact visually."
Critic: "That's absurd, it leaks."

The "reply" has nothing whatsoever to do with the statement about the
visual aesthetic. But IMO, it's just plain stupid to belittle one
person's likeing, because it isn't to one's own liking. Personally, I
dislike nearly all Victorian and derivatives thereof, becasue the
business drives me to distraction and i don't like the spatial
arrangements - BUT, there are a great many people who have a different
aesthetic, and who renovate Victorian places in a way that actually works
with the building and interior, and associated aesthetics - so, my own
non-desire to live in one is *a separate issue* from whether the
structure has, so to speak, integrity, internal consistency. Aesthetic
appreciation is IMO not merely a matter of personal taste, of what one
would personally want to live in or with, but rather, an ability to
listen and learn about a wide variety of things, and realize that
"veriety is the spice of life".

Buildings are like people in that each has a personality, and none is
"perfect", if only because every individual person has a unique spin on
what is or isn't considered "perfect" - and even that spin often changes
as one goes through life.

So I just find it annoying and, really, kind of goofy, when someone
replies to a purely aesthetic statement with some utterly pedestrian
statement such as "it leaks". To claim that ANY aesthetic appreciation
of said "leaky" structure is nothing more than "hero worship" (the
implication being: mindless, stupid, ignorant) is IMO mere petty
snideness. Contrary to many folks' obvious belief, being snide does not
equate to being clever.

WHen I see pics of Falling Water, yeah, I like the visual interaction of
the shapes, the cantilevers, the elements,the materials, and so on. I
like some parts of the interior, but not everything. Maybe it does leak;
maybe it did require extensive retrofitting - but those are engineering
facts, not aesthetic perceptions. Apples and oranges. I like both, but
each for itself, without any pretense that they're identical.

Posted by Jude Alexander on May 15, 2008, 3:36 pm

>>>

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>> http://vodpod.com/watch/3249-falling-water-hl2?pod=architecture

>>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> Very cool ;)

>>>>>

>>>>> ((I've hard all the pros and cons but I still think it's beautiful,

>>>>> albeit a bit darker inside than I typically prefer ;) ))

>>>>

>>>> The exterior is grand and inspiring. The interior, unfortunately,

>>>> shows Wright's tendency to allow the interior to suffer for the sake

>>>> of the exterior. I don't like that approach in architecture or in

>>>> life on any level.

>>>

>>> Actually, he paid quite a lot of attention to the interiors. It's jsut

>>> that interiors are even more a mater of taste than are exteriors and

>>> structrual elements. Fpr example, his dining room chairs do go with the

>>> houses overall, but also tend to be very straight-backed, which is

>>> something i find to be gawdawful uncomfortable.

>> In the sense of making geometry "artistic" shapes he did spend a lot of

>> time (i.e. designing awkard built-in counchs with bizarre back cushions)

>> where he had no business making them, he did not spend the amount of time

>> (imho) that he should have to make the interior functional and human

>> friendly. This piece, which is his signature residence, is an almost

>> complete disaster as much as interior functioning is concerned. LOOK AT

>> THE PLAN, man! ;0

>>>

>>>>

>>>> Also, have you ever notice that about 30% of the compound is hardly

>>>> ever shown. It is the "rear" (side opposite the water) and I suppose

>>>> it's the garage and other spaces.

>>>

>>> Prob. becasue the vast majority of poeple have Zero interest in seeing

>>> utility areas. Personally, I like to see them because IMO, if one i

>>> spayin gfor a custom house, there is no reason whatsoever why a "utility

>>> area" can't fit in with th erest of the structure/aesthetic. Esp. given

>>> how often one 2will end up using (IOW< being in) those areas - IMO, ti's

>>> goofy to ignore them. But again, the vast majority of people don't give

>>> these areas any thought, so I'd venture to guess that is why they're

>>> never shown.

>> I guessed the same. However, the overall success of any complex depends

>> on the interrelationship of all of it's parts. Basically, the exterior

>> design IS "falling water" and nothing else lives up to the exterior.

>>>

>>>> The walk from this building is

>>>> unbelievably long.

>>>

>>> It's called "dramatic build-up". Also, the setting is very park-like,

>>> so

>>> I figure that one is also supposed to enjoy the surroundings while

>>> approaching the house.

>> Well, one can call it that but it's just a long tedious walk coming in

>> from work everyday. It's GOT to be around 80 feet long walk (if not

>> more). Have you seen it?

>>>

>>>>

>>>> I've heard that the place leaked from the very beginning and has had a

>>>> constant moisture problem as well from the beginning.

>>>

>>> That was part of the "cons" I referenced and specifically chose to not

>>> address, my own comment being about the look of it - I like the massing,

>>> the visual rhythms; I find it almost fractal in feel, which in turn

>>> makes

>>> it feel, IMO at least, more in-tune with the rocks and otehr natural

>>> elements, given that natural structures are fractal.

>>>

>>>>

>>>> Beautiful, for sure but behind the exterior beauty is a LOAD of bad

>>>> design.

>>>>

>>>

>>> What I'd like to see is someone who could do better. Criticism is easy,

>>> but evidence very strongly suggests that *doing*, and specifically,

>>> *doing BETTER*, is immensely difficult.

>> OKAY, hero worshipper. I could have done better on the interior in my

>> first year. The vast majority of the other students there could have

>> done so as well. I bet you could do better at student level as well.

> Then?

> We're talking the 1950's, right?

> You have to take it in context man.

> Lifestyles have changed and materials and practices have changed too.

> Essentially, we do stuff different today.

> Did the designers of the parthenon consider things like *traffic patterns*

> or *furniture placement*?

No, but they achieved their design goal. They were not designed for human
comfort but to instill a sense of reverence or awe.

> Don't think so, and even today 99% of the stuff I see out doesn't either.

> A home may look stunning on paper and in reality, but when it comes time

> to actually *live* in it it must function effectively, otherwise its a

> failure.

> All the square footage and all the curb appeal will not a home make.

> Notice I said *home* and not *house*.

> There IS a difference.

> The first one is meant to be lived in and the 2nd one is meant to be

> drooled over in the glossy ragz.....

Functionality and human friendly hasn't changed. Have you ever really
looked hard at his plans, not elevations?

Posted by Jude Alexander on May 16, 2008, 12:59 pm

>>>

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> http://vodpod.com/watch/3249-falling-water-hl2?pod=architecture

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Very cool ;)

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> ((I've hard all the pros and cons but I still think it's beautiful,

>>>>>>> albeit a bit darker inside than I typically prefer ;) ))

>>>>>>

>>>>>> The exterior is grand and inspiring. The interior, unfortunately,

>>>>>> shows Wright's tendency to allow the interior to suffer for the sake

>>>>>> of the exterior. I don't like that approach in architecture or in

>>>>>> life on any level.

>>>>>

>>>>> Actually, he paid quite a lot of attention to the interiors. It's

>>>>> jsut

>>>>> that interiors are even more a mater of taste than are exteriors and

>>>>> structrual elements. Fpr example, his dining room chairs do go with

>>>>> the

>>>>> houses overall, but also tend to be very straight-backed, which is

>>>>> something i find to be gawdawful uncomfortable.

>>>>

>>>> In the sense of making geometry "artistic" shapes he did spend a lot

>>>> of time (i.e. designing awkard built-in counchs with bizarre back

>>>> cushions) where he had no business making them, he did not spend the

>>>> amount of time (imho) that he should have to make the interior

>>>> functional and human friendly. This piece, which is his signature

>>>> residence, is an almost complete disaster as much as interior

>>>> functioning is concerned. LOOK AT THE PLAN, man! ;0

>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Also, have you ever notice that about 30% of the compound is hardly

>>>>>> ever shown. It is the "rear" (side opposite the water) and I suppose

>>>>>> it's the garage and other spaces.

>>>>>

>>>>> Prob. becasue the vast majority of poeple have Zero interest in seeing

>>>>> utility areas. Personally, I like to see them because IMO, if one i

>>>>> spayin gfor a custom house, there is no reason whatsoever why a

>>>>> "utility

>>>>> area" can't fit in with th erest of the structure/aesthetic. Esp.

>>>>> given

>>>>> how often one 2will end up using (IOW< being in) those areas - IMO,

>>>>> ti's

>>>>> goofy to ignore them. But again, the vast majority of people don't

>>>>> give

>>>>> these areas any thought, so I'd venture to guess that is why they're

>>>>> never shown.

>>>>

>>>> I guessed the same. However, the overall success of any complex

>>>> depends on the interrelationship of all of it's parts. Basically, the

>>>> exterior design IS "falling water" and nothing else lives up to the

>>>> exterior.

>>>>>

>>>>>> The walk from this building is

>>>>>> unbelievably long.

>>>>>

>>>>> It's called "dramatic build-up". Also, the setting is very park-like,

>>>>> so

>>>>> I figure that one is also supposed to enjoy the surroundings while

>>>>> approaching the house.

>>>>

>>>> Well, one can call it that but it's just a long tedious walk coming in

>>>> from work everyday. It's GOT to be around 80 feet long walk (if not

>>>> more). Have you seen it?

>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> I've heard that the place leaked from the very beginning and has had

>>>>>> a

>>>>>> constant moisture problem as well from the beginning.

>>>>>

>>>>> That was part of the "cons" I referenced and specifically chose to not

>>>>> address, my own comment being about the look of it - I like the

>>>>> massing,

>>>>> the visual rhythms; I find it almost fractal in feel, which in turn

>>>>> makes

>>>>> it feel, IMO at least, more in-tune with the rocks and otehr natural

>>>>> elements, given that natural structures are fractal.

>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Beautiful, for sure but behind the exterior beauty is a LOAD of bad

>>>>>> design.

>>>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>> What I'd like to see is someone who could do better. Criticism is

>>>>> easy,

>>>>> but evidence very strongly suggests that *doing*, and specifically,

>>>>> *doing BETTER*, is immensely difficult.

>>>>

>>>> OKAY, hero worshipper. I could have done better on the interior in my

>>>> first year. The vast majority of the other students there could have

>>>> done so as well. I bet you could do better at student level as well.

>>>

>>> Then?

>>> We're talking the 1950's, right?

>>> You have to take it in context man.

>>> Lifestyles have changed and materials and practices have changed too.

>>> Essentially, we do stuff different today.

>>> Did the designers of the parthenon consider things like *traffic

>>> patterns* or *furniture placement*?

>> No, but they achieved their design goal. They were not designed for

>> human comfort but to instill a sense of reverence or awe.

>>> Don't think so, and even today 99% of the stuff I see out doesn't

>>> either.

>>> A home may look stunning on paper and in reality, but when it comes time

>>> to actually *live* in it it must function effectively, otherwise its a

>>> failure.

>>> All the square footage and all the curb appeal will not a home make.

>>> Notice I said *home* and not *house*.

>>> There IS a difference.

>>> The first one is meant to be lived in and the 2nd one is meant to be

>>> drooled over in the glossy ragz.....

>> Functionality and human friendly hasn't changed. Have you ever really

>> looked hard at his plans, not elevations?

> Not hard.

> Truthfully, I've never really been turned on by his stuff, it just doesn't

> push my buttons.

Well, imho, he was artistic in his approach to many of his designs as far as
the exterior was concerned (with notable exceptions). However, he was
absolutely poor in planning in most of the works I've seen. He's nobody to
actually look up to as I see many architects do, like he was some god-like
architecttype. :)

Posted by Kris Krieger on May 16, 2008, 5:32 pm

>>>

>>>>

>>>>>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> http://vodpod.com/watch/3249-falling-water-hl2?pod=architectur

>>>>>>>>>> e

>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Very cool ;)

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> ((I've hard all the pros and cons but I still think it's

>>>>>>>>> beautiful, albeit a bit darker inside than I typically prefer

>>>>>>>>> ;) ))

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> The exterior is grand and inspiring. The interior,

>>>>>>>> unfortunately, shows Wright's tendency to allow the interior to

>>>>>>>> suffer for the sake of the exterior. I don't like that

>>>>>>>> approach in architecture or in life on any level.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Actually, he paid quite a lot of attention to the interiors.

>>>>>>> It's jsut

>>>>>>> that interiors are even more a mater of taste than are exteriors

>>>>>>> and structrual elements. Fpr example, his dining room chairs do

>>>>>>> go with the

>>>>>>> houses overall, but also tend to be very straight-backed, which

>>>>>>> is something i find to be gawdawful uncomfortable.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> In the sense of making geometry "artistic" shapes he did spend a

>>>>>> lot of time (i.e. designing awkard built-in counchs with bizarre

>>>>>> back cushions) where he had no business making them, he did not

>>>>>> spend the amount of time (imho) that he should have to make the

>>>>>> interior functional and human friendly. This piece, which is his

>>>>>> signature residence, is an almost complete disaster as much as

>>>>>> interior functioning is concerned. LOOK AT THE PLAN, man! ;0

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Also, have you ever notice that about 30% of the compound is

>>>>>>>> hardly ever shown. It is the "rear" (side opposite the water)

>>>>>>>> and I suppose

>>>>>>>> it's the garage and other spaces.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Prob. becasue the vast majority of poeple have Zero interest in

>>>>>>> seeing

>>>>>>> utility areas. Personally, I like to see them because IMO, if

>>>>>>> one i spayin gfor a custom house, there is no reason whatsoever

>>>>>>> why a "utility

>>>>>>> area" can't fit in with th erest of the structure/aesthetic.

>>>>>>> Esp. given

>>>>>>> how often one 2will end up using (IOW< being in) those areas -

>>>>>>> IMO, ti's

>>>>>>> goofy to ignore them. But again, the vast majority of people

>>>>>>> don't give

>>>>>>> these areas any thought, so I'd venture to guess that is why

>>>>>>> they're never shown.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> I guessed the same. However, the overall success of any complex

>>>>>> depends on the interrelationship of all of it's parts.

>>>>>> Basically, the exterior design IS "falling water" and nothing

>>>>>> else lives up to the exterior.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> The walk from this building is

>>>>>>>> unbelievably long.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> It's called "dramatic build-up". Also, the setting is very

>>>>>>> park-like, so

>>>>>>> I figure that one is also supposed to enjoy the surroundings

>>>>>>> while approaching the house.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Well, one can call it that but it's just a long tedious walk

>>>>>> coming in from work everyday. It's GOT to be around 80 feet long

>>>>>> walk (if not more). Have you seen it?

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> I've heard that the place leaked from the very beginning and

>>>>>>>> has had a

>>>>>>>> constant moisture problem as well from the beginning.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> That was part of the "cons" I referenced and specifically chose

>>>>>>> to not

>>>>>>> address, my own comment being about the look of it - I like the

>>>>>>> massing,

>>>>>>> the visual rhythms; I find it almost fractal in feel, which in

>>>>>>> turn makes

>>>>>>> it feel, IMO at least, more in-tune with the rocks and otehr

>>>>>>> natural elements, given that natural structures are fractal.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Beautiful, for sure but behind the exterior beauty is a LOAD of

>>>>>>>> bad design.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> What I'd like to see is someone who could do better. Criticism

>>>>>>> is easy,

>>>>>>> but evidence very strongly suggests that *doing*, and

>>>>>>> specifically, *doing BETTER*, is immensely difficult.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> OKAY, hero worshipper. I could have done better on the interior

>>>>>> in my first year. The vast majority of the other students there

>>>>>> could have done so as well. I bet you could do better at student

>>>>>> level as well.

>>>>>

>>>>> Then?

>>>>> We're talking the 1950's, right?

>>>>> You have to take it in context man.

>>>>> Lifestyles have changed and materials and practices have changed

>>>>> too. Essentially, we do stuff different today.

>>>>> Did the designers of the parthenon consider things like *traffic

>>>>> patterns* or *furniture placement*?

>>>>

>>>> No, but they achieved their design goal. They were not designed

>>>> for human comfort but to instill a sense of reverence or awe.

>>>>

>>>>> Don't think so, and even today 99% of the stuff I see out doesn't

>>>>> either.

>>>>> A home may look stunning on paper and in reality, but when it

>>>>> comes time to actually *live* in it it must function effectively,

>>>>> otherwise its a failure.

>>>>> All the square footage and all the curb appeal will not a home

>>>>> make. Notice I said *home* and not *house*.

>>>>> There IS a difference.

>>>>> The first one is meant to be lived in and the 2nd one is meant to

>>>>> be drooled over in the glossy ragz.....

>>>>

>>>> Functionality and human friendly hasn't changed. Have you ever

>>>> really looked hard at his plans, not elevations?

>>>

>>> Not hard.

>>> Truthfully, I've never really been turned on by his stuff, it just

>>> doesn't push my buttons.

>> Well, imho, he was artistic in his approach to many of his designs as

>> far as the exterior was concerned (with notable exceptions).

>> However, he was absolutely poor in planning in most of the works I've

>> seen. He's nobody to actually look up to as I see many architects

>> do, like he was some god-like architecttype. :)

> I think it largely became a media craze way back when and for all of

> my life FLW loomed larger than life and in the early days I was drawn

> in. But once I started to realize the reality of the thing it was like

> when Toto pulled the curtain back.

> The designer can do only what he can convince the client to do and for

> me star-clients have been few and far between.

> Rico once said I would be caught up in the details if I was to observe

> Falling Water up close and personal and thats true but the otherside

> of that is that I am just naturally attracted to such things.

> This is more a comment to the times than the work, as thats the way

> things were done then, rather than now.

What I find interesting is that pro-FLW and anti-FLW seems to be very
similarto "iberal" and "conservative" in terms of the polarization of the
"camps" so to speak.

I don't recall an FLW media craze; I came across his work entirely by
accident (sort of how I learned most of what I know <g!>), and from th
eoutset, there were aspects I liked and aspects I did not like (and still
like or dislike).

I don't understand why it has to be an either-or situation. All artists
have their own vision (and, let's face it, ego, since it does take ego to
be able to put your work in front of other poeple), but as in all art,
there is no true "final authority"/"final arbiter" in that the artist's
vision simply is not shared 'in toto' by everyone, everywhere, at all
times. And heck, even artists modify/change/develop their own vision.

SO it baffles me why, if you say, about FLW, "I like this", you're
indilging in slavish hero-worhip, but if you say "I don't like that", you
jet jumped on by the other camp. I like many of FLW's ideas - the fact
that the execution thereof exposed certain flaws/shortcomings does not
completely negate ALL of his ideas and designs.

Or maybe I'm just too accustomed to the philosophy and mentodology of
sceince - knowledge is incermental adn builds upon previous knowledge,
and the disproof of a theory also increases knowledge. The steam-powered
toy (rotating sphere) invented by Heron of Alexandria was interesting,
but nobody took that knowledge and built upon it, so the steam engine
wasn't developed until a couple thousand years later. In a sense, the
fundamental idea was rediscovered/reinvented. I don't see why
architecture should be any different - use/adapt the ideas that have
merit, and *learn from* the aspects that don't work, rather than throwing
the proverbial baby out with the proverbial bath water, which is just as
bad as continuing to adhere to things that don't function well.

That's how I see it, at least.

> IOW, I don't think FLW was unusual but rather ordinary for a topshelf

> designer.

> I saw a show on PBS one time where someone disassembled an old custom

> designed and built home of the early 1900's and restored it on another

> site and it was dramatic, the detailing and craftsmanship of the

> thing.

Reminds me of that old movie with Edgar G. Robinson and Humphrey Bogart,
IIRC teh title is "Key West" - the proagonists huddle in a big ol' house
to ride out a hurricane, and I always find myself wondering whether that
was just artistic license, or what - logically, if comething is as
reinforced as some of those old places seem to have been, with all of the
tight lathing for walls (rather than sheetrock), and so on, it stands to
reason that it'd survive a heck of a lot more wind than some thing made
with 2X4s (that aren't really even 2X4s any more) spaced as widely apart
as possible and skinned with what are basicaly nothing more than
styrofoam panels...

OTOH, again, there was also bad construction back then, so the principle
holds: learn from both the ideas/methods that worked, and the ones that
did not.

Page 3 of 9 < 1 2 3 > last >>

Similar Threads	Posted
Rendering or Walk-through. What is better?	April 2, 2007, 5:47 am
Re: Just when you thought you'd seen everything.....	July 26,