By: Jay Freerking, undergraduate art history student
The most common phrase heard in public art museums is “What the heck is that supposed to be?” The public that isn’t familiar with art struggle to understand some of the paintings in the art world. In fact there is a lot of art in the world that isn’t eye catching to people. There is one area of art that everyone can appreciate and not necessarily known as art, it is architecture. Architecture is the art of designing a building and seeing it through the building process.
On specific architect whose work can be viewed as art was Frank Lloyd Wright. He was born in Richland Center, WI in 1867 and died at Taliesin West, AZ in 1959. He attended the University of Wisconsin Madison for a short period studying mechanical drawing. He didn’t last the full tenure so he became an apprentice for an architect in Chicago. He became famous on his own after designing some of the most luxurious houses. He had two houses, one in Spring Green WI called Taliesin and another in Phoenix, AZ called Taliesin West. He didn’t like the summers in Arizona and he didn’t like the winters in Wisconsin so he commuted every season change between the two. He even formed his own school, The Frank Lloyd Wright School of Architecture. His students followed him on every trip and the school continues that tradition today with all of its full time students with the two houses serving as campuses.
Wright hated the idea of tradition “box” rooms, as he put it. He believed that houses should be big and open. He liked to combine rooms by leaving out walls. He came up with the first Great room. That is a room that combines the kitchen, living room, and dining room all into one big room separated by arches and dimension differences. The picture below from Fallingwater in Pennsylvania has an open room as you can see.
As you can see from the picture above, Wright loved big spaces. He used different techniques to make a room appear bigger than it actually is. This is an art form in itself. He intrigued the human eye by having all the exterior walls fitted with windows. This gives the feeling that the room extends beyond the wall to the outside. He also raised the lights in the ceiling to give the feeling of the room being taller than it actually is. This is also an example of a Great room because there is another room to the left that is open up by taking away a wall.
Wright loved nature. He didn’t like the look of a stick building thrown into the wilderness. He said that it didn’t look natural. Wright wanted his buildings to tie into the surroundings. He didn’t want the natural habitat to be destroyed. He also used materials that blended win the surroundings and even some materials from the surroundings. The picture below is from a house in New York that Wright designed more than 50 years ago that has been built.
As you can see the house blends with the rocks, and it even uses the rock as a piece in the house. Wright didn’t want to knock off any of the rock. He just wanted to build around the rock and use it as a piece in the house. The amount of time he put into this building was incredible. He believed that this was his greatest house he ever designed. But unfortunately he never had the chance to see that it was built. This is another reason why architecture is an art from that anyone can appreciate. The engineering that made this house possible is evidence enough.
Another building that exemplifies art is the Edgar Kaufmann House also known as Fallingwater located in Mill Run, Pennsylvania as seen in the picture below.
Edgar Kaufmann and his family would vacation at this spot and loved it so much that they wanted to build a house by it. Well Frank Lloyd Wright went one step better; he built a house over the stream that feeds the waterfall. The stream flows around, under and at one point through the house. Wright loved to use nature as a focal point. He used the decks and terraces to mimic the rock’s shape to help make the house look like it grew up from the ground. This is how Wright wanted his works to be appreciated by all those who see it. He wanted to the house to look like it belonged there.
Wright didn’t only think about just houses as a whole or mixing room together, he also thought about individual rooms. I saw this five years ago when I had the opportunity to visit Taliesin West. Walking through the house I noticed something strange about the dining room. The ceiling was significantly lower than the rest of the house. I was 6’6” at the time and if I walked straight into the dining room without slouching, the ceiling would have hit me in the chest right below the neck. It was about 6 feet in height. I asked why that was and the tour guide said that Wright liked to play with size. Wright also believed that the dining room was for eating and not standing and socializing. So by lowering the ceiling it forced people to sit down. Now that is a piece of art. He manipulates all those who look at it to sit down just like he wants to. Isn’t that what all artists are trying to do? Make people see what they want them to see?
Wright wasn’t trying to be an artist, he was trying to make houses more appealing to the eye and comforting to the people in them. However, after seeing his houses no one can deny that he was an artist. He changed the idea of living in “box” rooms to big open spaces that encouraged families to be with each other. Wright didn’t like eye soars of houses that looked like they were dropped out of the sky. Instead he designed and built houses that blended with the nature that surrounds them. He even used nature inside the house. Wright manipulated dimensions of rooms to fit their needs. Like the dining room at Taliesin West forcing people to sit down. Frank Lloyd Wright built and made things to catch people’s attention and appreciate what he was doing to houses. All of these things show how Frank Lloyd Wright is an artist.
Sources:
9 comments:
I enjoyed your point about how Wright was attemping to "manipulate" the inhabitors of his rooms with the dining room example from Fallingwater. I also couldn't help be think, taking Wright's "intentions" a step farther, that he was taking away people's privacy. A house with no walls, in the midst of nature, to me indicates Wright was annoyed with privacy above anything else!
*I also couldn't help BUT think...
Like William, I also found your discussion of the ceilings at Taliesin West particularly compelling; it was interesting to hear the opinion of someone who had visited Taliesin West, since I have not!
I'm not sure I agree with your point that architecture is "one area of art that everyone can appreciate." Do you mean that architecture is more easily appreciated because of its relationship to human needs? Or that it is just noticed more often?
Jay, I thought you did a nice job of limiting your discussion to a few of FLW's works. This makes your discussion more focused.
Have you been to Taliesin in WI? It has a fabulous, intriguing history but is also having some trouble with upkeep and is dangerously close to not being able to raise the funds to maintain and preserve it. You may find that this subject has turned you into an advocate for architectural preservation, and want to get involved with helping save Taliesin!
So far, it seems like your post is very pro-FLW. Have you read any of the comments of his detractors? He has been criticized for his ego, his Guggenheim, and in the case of Fallingwater, lack of structural integrity. How would you respond to his detractors?
You can read the Fallingwater critique here: http://www.wright-house.com/frank-lloyd-wright/criticism_fallingwater.html
Jay-
You have done a nice job of presenting information and creating an opportunity for dialogue. Here are some questions I have:
I wonder if your idea of art that everyone can appreciate comes from the size and enveloping nature of a home, or from the functional aspects of architecture? Perhaps both?
I'm also curious- would you want to live in a FLW home?
You seem interested in the incorporation of nature and the manipulation of the viewer. Is this something you enjoy in other media?
Jay, I think that your piece on FLW is very focused an interesting: there is so much to discuss with an architect like him, and I appreciate that you limited your focus to space and nature. I would have liked to hear some of the "negative" connotations that carry with Frank... for example, isn't it interesting that he created a dining room so that people would sit and talk, but he had a strained relationship with his family and with himself? I also would have liked to hear about his development in terms of his art: what did he start with? Did certain themes of his rise and fall, and why?
I enjoyed reading your piece, Jay. You did a great job of painting a picture of a complex man (and his complex art!)
Jay,
Your entry was extremely interesting and informative, but it's really not unbiased at all in that you sang FLW's praises but didn't offer any dissenting opinions for us to consider.
For example:
You said FLW's homes were luxurious. Were they really? Couldn't people argue that the lack of privacy, low-slung ceilings, etc. etc. aren't luxurious so much as dysfunctional for a lot of families?
And also, is art truly about manipulation? Do artists really want to force people to see something a specific way, or do you think that for some artists work to rectify their own thoughts and visions without consideration of what others will see in it or think about it?
I appreciated your careful selection of images to showcase Wright's themes in his various designs. Each was an appropriate and helpful supplement to your descrition. I thought that the post was well-organized and I appreciated the fact that you focused on Wright's particular interests/themes and highlighted those with examples from his designs, rather than simply presenting us a catalogue of his complete works.
One question you pose in the article seems to me a generalization which I would have been interested in seeing you explore further. When you say that all artists make you see what they want you to see, I took it to mean that you believe the intent of all artists is to create one singular meaning/experience for those witnessing it- that there is only one "right answer." Couldn't it be argued that some artist want you to see what YOU want to see- that you as the viewer should formulate your own experience?
I enjoyed your views on Frank Lloyd Wright as both an architect and as an artist. I had the priviledge of visiting his Arizona house several years ago and was amazed at the open functional space inside combined with all of the natural products and nature settings throughout. I do agree that art can come in a variety of forms other than paintings. Perhaps Lloyd Wright was hoping to create livign breathing natural art in a home like setting.
Post a Comment