Home Architecture Talk
Was Frank Lloyd Wright a one trick pony?
I know he is supposed to be this amazing architect, but his prairie style architecture just doesn't move me, say the way lesser known architects like E.B. Green http://www.pbase.com/kjosker/ebgreen does. I personally feel that he pulled a sham on the "architecture world" in the same way that Andrew Worhola did. His buildings seem like soup cans & soda bottles to me. I am moved by some of his design elements, just not his architecture as a whole.
Public Comments
- Not any more or less than, say, Michealangelo or Christopher Wren.
- He was THE greatest architect of the 20th century and built in a variety of styles...every building was different and unique.
- The difference is most architects (such as EB Green based on your link) were designing fairly formulaic buildings, built on the styles of the time. Heavy columns, complete load bearing shells, pediments as decorations, and such are just a few examples. The difference is that many buildings Wright designed in the late 19th century, and first few decades of the 20th is that it would be years after FLW that those styles began to become a norm. Fallingwater is a superb house by any right, but the fact it was designed in the 1930's and not the 1960's is what makes it so special. The Guggenheim was progressive enough, that there are newer architecturally significant buildings that look clumsier and more dated than the museum, despite the design is almost 50 years old now. Also, even if some of his buildings fell short technically (leaking roofs anyone?), FLW commanded enough respect to have absolute control of his work. Few other architects have managed to so successfully control their projects from design, to intricate detailing, to the design of all significant furniture to be located inside. Wright also managed to completely reinvent himself not once, but twice. From Prairie Homes, to the Taliesin School, to his Usonian homes, it would take thesis projects to find any significant connections between his principles of design. From the extravagance that is Fallingwater and his campuses for living, it was a far cry to the home for the average person that he designed and theorized upon at the end of his life. Most architects love to say they can do this. Most also can't. Edit to match your last added comment: I agree, there is some of his architecture that borders on bland and some on contrived. I think that's an unavoidable part of the profession. And architecture is art, some you'll love while others hate, and vice versa.
