As a legion of ugly high-modernist structures fails to rise from the wreckage of Ground Zero, Art Deco fan Todd Seavey says So long, Frank Lloyd Wright.
New at Reason
Comments to "New at Reason":
James Anderson Merritt | September 11, 2006, 1:35pm | #
Don't underestimate the propaganda value of that hole in Manhattan. Can't you see we're at war?Russ 2000 | September 11, 2006, 1:37pm | #
Did Wright actually design any skycrapers?Of course, Prairie School would seem out of place in Manhattan.
kohlrabi | September 11, 2006, 1:47pm | #
So long F.L.W.? Not so much. Wright is certainly NOT a good example of modernism in the way that Van der Rohe or Le Corbusier were. Wright, a student of Sullivan, would embrace detail and ornament in a way that no modernist would tolerate. The label applied to him was more a function of 'when' he was an architect, and in no way 'how'. Wright, in fact, hated the Modernists and it is a cruel joke of history that he is called one.I happen to like all the above architects for different reasons and think the author was a bit hard on Corbu.
Anyway, I digress. Great article and I'm pleased to read it on Reason! We could stand to have more articles on aesthetics, no?
kohlrabi | September 11, 2006, 1:49pm | #
So long F.L.W.? Not so much. Wright is certainly NOT a good example of modernism in the way that Van der Rohe or Le Corbusier were. Wright, a student of Sullivan, would embrace detail and ornament in a way that no modernist would tolerate. The label applied to him was more a function of 'when' he was an architect, and in no way 'how'. Wright, in fact, hated the Modernists and it is a cruel joke of history that he is called one.I happen to like all the above architects for different reasons and think the author was a bit hard on Corbu.
Anyway, I digress. Great article and I'm pleased to read it on Reason! We could stand to have more articles on aesthetics, no?
Architechts may come and architechts may go and never change your point of view. When I run dry, I stop awhile and think of you.
Actually, Wright did design an unbuilt Mile-high skyscraper which, at even half the height, would do exactly what Seavey seeks. Of course, someone would need to design the atomic powered elevators he envisioned to make the thing work.
Neu Mejican | September 11, 2006, 2:03pm | #
Rem Koolhaas:"New York will be marked by a massive representation of hurt that projects only the overbearing self-pity of the powerful. Instead of the confident beginning of the next chapter, it captures the stumped fundamentalism of the superpower."
Crusader Rabbit | September 11, 2006, 2:24pm | #
Interesting insight on Wright's life in perspective (courtesy of Ken Burns): He was born the year after Appomattox and died the year before Sputnik.Larry Edelstein | September 11, 2006, 2:31pm | #
Wright wrought modern architecture but it's hard to see much commonality between the WTC and, say, Robie House. There's plenty of ornamentation in his work.And I don't think Deco would be naive! I think it's a great idea. New York and Art Deco make beautiful music together.
Warren | September 11, 2006, 2:32pm | #
Todd Seavey; You are a fucking idiot.Nick,
Why is this idiot's words hosted on Reason's website?
joe | September 11, 2006, 3:35pm | #
A great essay, with exactly the right answer."Wright, a student of Sullivan, would embrace detail and ornament in a way that no modernist would tolerate. The label applied to him was more a function of 'when' he was an architect, and in no way 'how'."
Actually, I think it was a function of "what." Wright mostly designed houses, small mercantile buildings, and churches - homey, small towny projects. Of course he worked with more detail, human-scale, and oramentation than Le Corbusier, who dreamed up superscrapers.
But taking into account the context Wright was working in, his projects very much involved stripping out the ornamentation and coziness from his houses. They are certainly more homey and cozy than the WTC, but that's not a fair comparison. A fair comparison would be the single family homes built between 1890 and 1940 in this country, and by that measure, Mr. Straight Lines, Plate Glass, Where's-the-Door is very much a modernist figure.
Googling Le Corbusier, I have to say, all of his stuff looks like it came out of an alternate-reality version of the movie Metropolis if it had been directed by Ridley Scott.
kohlrabi | September 11, 2006, 3:59pm | #
Joe,Those are good points, however I'm still not quite convinced. Wright bit a lot from traditional Japanese architecture, the long overhangs, the straight lines etc. And stole quite a bit of detail from Pre-Columbian South American architecture.
It wasn't so much a rejection of traditional form, as a modernist, as it was an appropriation of disparate traditional forms.
You are right that a comparison to Corbu is unfair given the scale of projects, but even Wright's larger projects contain quite a bit of hominess, especially in choice of materials.
Even the 'where's-the-door?' concept was specifically designed to enhance the 'hominess' of his homes and the seperation of the living space from the street. (The 'prospect/outlook'-'refuge/shelter' concepts explored in Hildebrand's book)
I think Wright was acutely aware of just what details and proportions signal a sense of shelter and he played up on them quite a bit. I think he has as much in common with the Modernists as he did the Arts and Crafts(men). Which is to say, he is neither but incorporated elements of both.
So I respectfully have to disagree. What he shared with the Modernists was merely 1)era 2)form vocabulary. Where he departed was 1)use of ornament, 2)proportion/scale 3)use of materials and 4)relationship with environment. I think the latter set are functions of his philosophy of design where as the former are somewhat coincidental.
The Johnson Wax building is a very pleasant FLW tower, if not skyscraper tall. If all that rounded glass block isn't modernist, well, I don't know what exactly to call it.
highnumber | September 11, 2006, 5:17pm | #
Price Tower in Oklahoma was designed by FLW. It is the only skyscraper of his to be built. Pretty little thing at 19 stories, but not nearly as cool as the ambitious Mile High Skyscraper.Jarod | September 11, 2006, 8:30pm | #
kohlrabi, excellent post.Personally I find Wright's interiors very liveable, except for some of the harsher angles on his furniture designs :) His designs are not what we traditionally think of as "warm and homey" but he was acutely aware that these were spaces to be inhabited and tried to make them expressions of those who would live in them as much as expressions of his own aesthetic. There's just way too much playful inventiveness and organic harmony to be found throughout his works to think of him as modernist.
george | September 11, 2006, 10:30pm | #
The Johnson Wax building has one characteristic of the "modernist" school. It has a flat roof that leaks.And if you lived in FLW's houses, you were supposed to use his furniture and right where he put it, too.
kevrob | September 12, 2006, 3:43am | #
When dissing Krypton, please be specific. I'm with you if you don't care for the Office Blocks Made Of Styrene/Ice from the 1978 Superman film. Some of the stuff Wayne Boring drew in the comics was gorgeous!Kevin
Isaac Bartram | September 12, 2006, 10:16am | #
The Johnson Wax building has one characteristic of the "modernist" school. It has a flat roof that leaks.And Fallingwater has significant structural engineering problems, and they would probably have been worse except that the contractor added rebar against Wright's wishes. Interesting in view of the fact that Wright considered himself a superb structural engineer.
It also has mold problems, although with modern concrete waterproofing methods it would probably not be a problem.
For all that, I believe I would consider selling my soul to the devil for a chance to live in the place.
rhywun | September 12, 2006, 10:56am | #
For all that, I believe I would consider selling my soul to the devil for a chance to live in the place.I've been to one of his Buffalo houses--fantastic.
His planning ideas, however, were very modern for his time--that is to say, pure suburbia. In another universe I would hesitate to put him on a project like the WTC for fear of it turning out just as auto-centered and isolated as so many other mega-projects of that time period. I'd love him to do the buildings but knowing him, he'd want full control...
Isaac Bartram | September 12, 2006, 3:01pm | #
I'd love him to do the buildings but knowing him, he'd want full control...Indeed. Most stories take note of his supersized ego.
It's easy to believe that Rand based Roark on him even though she denies it.
Neu Mejican | September 12, 2006, 3:05pm | #
how about this design,http://tinyrevolution.com/mt-static/images/wtc.jpg