tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10923291.post5567923899195770845..comments2024-03-26T09:42:38.709-05:00Comments on ArchitectureChicago PLUS: First Chicago Showing of Louis Sullivan: The Struggle for American Architecture, March 14Lynn Beckerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03759748613223711212noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10923291.post-67032661441136623472010-02-26T08:53:51.132-06:002010-02-26T08:53:51.132-06:00totally agree. xtotally agree. xhttp://interior4homes.blogspot.com/https://www.blogger.com/profile/09946556071500977272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10923291.post-70471650871525813612010-02-21T15:38:27.802-06:002010-02-21T15:38:27.802-06:00I agree with all your comments about FLW since I t...I agree with all your comments about FLW since I too, was a former interpreter for the H & S in OP. Yes, he was genius in his designs but one has to question the authenticity of his creations. There was a prairie style movement that was going on with Greene & Greene in California, Charles Rennie Macintosh in Scotland, Elbert Hubbard in East Aurora, NY, etc. FLW was a part of that movement; he did not start the movement despite what some might think. I do think that there would not have been a FLW without Louis Sullivan and that Sullivan had been put in the shadows by Wright's self-grandiose promotion of himself during their lifetimes. Let's not forget that Sullivan's ideas and principles influenced not only FLW but architects like Mahoney and Griffin. Marty, you did such a wonderful job on your book about Van Bergen that you should consider writing a book refuting some of the alleged facts about FLW. I, for one, would definitely read it especially since the book, "The Fellowship" opened my eyes to what Wright was all about.Gayle Weylandnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10923291.post-86724855579784589712010-02-15T10:47:03.495-06:002010-02-15T10:47:03.495-06:00It seems Adler is always dismissed in the same way...It seems Adler is always dismissed in the same way - that he was just a great "engineer". He was in fact, an architect. I often suspect history treated him the same way, as a Jew, the way it treated Marion Mahony as a woman.<br /><br />Wright and Sullivan are in many ways self created icons, mainly because they spent a lot of time writing their own, and in effect, everyone elses histories/biographies, beefing up their own images while tearing everyone else's down. In Wright's case, two differents versions of his autobiography you might think would make anyone suspect.<br /><br />Adler would probably have had an admirable career without Sullivan. I not sure the reverse would have been true.<br /><br />Indeed, Van Bergen might not have been a Prairie School architect if he hadn't hooked up with Wright, but he probably would have been an architect in any case. But you are right, his history has been written on the coat-tails of Wright.<br /><br />"Frank Lloyd Wright" as history, is many layers of reality intertwined with equally many layers of mythology -- often difficult to tell which is which. As with Sullivan, it is as much religion as it is history.<br /><br />Some amusing history of Wright that I learned from tour guides on my many visits to the Home and Studio in Oak Park--Frank Lloyd Wright invented: the casement window, radiant heating, the horizontal line (that's my favorite!), and the "Prairie style".<br /><br />Other common deviations from the facts that Wright's house's never had had basements or attics(they did) because "he hated them", that the draftpersons he had in Oak Park were his "students" (they were not), and that they were all copying him ( they were not and in many cases it was equally the reverse.) A large volume could be written on just the easily refutable mytholgy.<br /><br />Those are always those factual issues, which can't be ignored, since, in my view, history should be based first on the discernable facts, then followed by interpretaion - all the other more etherial stuff rests on the facts.<br /><br />There is no denying the beauty of the buildings, an appreciation I'm sure we share completely, and a beauty that you are much better at describing and presenting! But I differ with many architectural historians when they start to get a little too religious about the characters.<br /><br />And I differ in many cases with attribution, especially with a lot of the stuff coming from Wright's office during the Oak Park years. After all, the idea of his supposed early genius should be based on those attributions (think Griffin, Mahony, Drummond, Van Bergen, and yes, even Isabel Roberts - not just a "secretary" but an architect.).<br /><br />I can hardly think of a greater polemicist than Frank Lloyd Wright! You might say he invented it. ;-)<br /><br /><br />And you have a great blog!Marty Hacklhttp://martyhackl.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10923291.post-78458485085215037872010-02-14T20:19:23.125-06:002010-02-14T20:19:23.125-06:00Light is not decoration. Nor is surface. A great...Light is not decoration. Nor is surface. A great room is more than the engineering, even acoustical engineering. Falsest idols? Shallow polemics and suspect judgment. If there had been no Frank Lloyd Wright, there would have been no John S. Van Bergen.Lynn Beckerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03759748613223711212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10923291.post-5576812162580298962010-02-14T17:39:06.590-06:002010-02-14T17:39:06.590-06:00The space you see and experience in the Auditorium...The space you see and experience in the Auditorium is Adler's genius. Sullivan decorated it.<br /><br />Sullivan and Wright, two of the falsest idols in architecture.Marty Hacklhttp://martyhackl.netnoreply@blogger.com