I have been inside several FLW houses/structures in the LA area and I don’t get it. They are massive, angular, with small windows and very little natural light, and evoke the feeling that you’re in a burial chamber built in the 1950s. Not for me and I wonder if his popularity is mostly bandwagoning like other modern art.
back
6 comments
Most buildings from that time period wouldn't have leaned into too much natural light and large windows, because residential AC was far from common. That said, for the time, Wright used a lot of glass, though from looking through pictures online it seems he did less so in his LA buildings. I'm guessing it'd be in response to the climate.
That said, "large and angular" fits his style pretty accurately. Though the most indicative aspect of his designs is the layering. A lot of his buildings are built to have a very particular look of being made up of mostly flat horizontal layers of various thicknesses, protruding or retracting from the layers below them in varied shapes. Often these leaned heavily into having a lot of right angles, but when he used curves, he leaned hard into them: The Norman Lyke's House or The Center for the Performing Arts in San Jose are example of extremely curvy buildings still unmistakably in his style.
Ultimately, Wright's enduring fame can be easily understood by the fact that he was novel, consistent, and prolific. His style was (and to only a slightly lesser extent, still is) new and different from most everything else, and he stuck to it enough that people could recognize his work in particular. Combine that with designing quite a few buildings, and you've got yourself a recipe for the most famous architect ever.
He changed architecture. This is likely a large part of it.
The I love Lucy show changed the TV industry. It is the first TV show made with archival quality footage, on some kind of reasonable schedule for the actors to have a life, invented the rerun and many of the basic techniques still used today in the industry.
The people who radically alter what was tend to be revered but those who come after and grow up with the heritage of what they fostered often take it for granted and don't get why it's special.
I've been to Falling Water in PA and his house in New Hampshire (pro tip: set GPS to Currier Musuem for that one).
https://currier.org/frank-lloyd-wright/
I like them (the ones I've seen anyway). They have an interesting and unique aesthetic. I like the design of the stained glass alot. I'm not sure how practical living day to day, but people did. The one in New Hampshire (Zimmerman house) had wall to ceiling windows on the back side.
This is a fun use of 3d tech. I did some Unreal engine work, and the first thing was building out an apartment interior you could then move through in real time. It was kind of neat. The detail in having to place all the interior lights and all was something.
The "Groupius House" (by walter Groupius) is another modern really practical house. But in this case the architect was the ocupant.
Those were later period buildings.
Look at photos of the Robie house in Chicago, typical of his early prairie period:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robie_House
https://www.google.com/search?q=Robie+House+interior
The largest building of his prairie period was the Dana-Thomas house in Springfield, also worth seeing.
The Los Angeles period for FLW is special. They're not well connected to what came before, or after - they were his midlife crisis homes.
Here is a very well done KCET documentary that explains more.
IIRC, his Las Angeles period he was "borrowing" his employers' designs and then adding his own twists, and then letting houses be built without royalties/notice to original architect(s). Eventually one of his bosses saw a house that looked an awful-lot familiar (i.e. he could tell FLW had modified one of the owner's design) and this caused FLW to ... get on with the next phase of his life in Wisconsin. IIRC.
No - thats how he broke from Sullivan, but it was less about him stealing designs (AFAIK he wasn't), its that he was moonlighting without permission, which was contrary to his contract with Sullivan. His style stood out, so it was easy to see.
FLW has a distinctive style with strong ideas. IMHO, I find the style visually pleasing, although I'm a more of a form follows function kind of person, and a lot of FLW's buildings and other things like chairs and such aren't very functional, so he doesn't score many points in my book.