I was in J. J. as a student in the seventies and like most other colleges of architecture at the time, 'Fountainhead' was much talked about novel of the day. Howard Roark is a typical Ayn Rand hero, but the philosophy he talks about is all borrowed from Frank Lloyd Wright. (FLW)How many students of architecture saw FLW as a hero is a moot point-we were all zapped by the character build-up of the hero by Ayn Rand.
The problem with Ayn Rand or for that matter anybody who wrote about FLW is a problem of straight-jacketing. FLW was a genius, bracketing him into an 'ism' is meaningless. I have seen him listed as a part of 'Art & crafts' because he fits very well in the chronology, and his prairie houses praised as a return to the craft tradition. I have also seen him described as the father of the modern movement-celebrating the machine age. For those who are aware that 'Arts & crafts' was a movement based on nostalgia and was opposed to the changes brought in by industrialisation would see the contradiction here. There has been-to the best of my knowledge-very little attempt by historians to clarify this confusion.
When I visited Guggenheim Museum in New York, all this came back to me, when I tried to explain my son Pranav (who is an IT Consultant & not an architect), the importance of this particular building in the history of architecture. We had just been to Buffalo, where we visited the 'Martin House' by FLW, and the contrast in the actual form of the two buildings by FLW could not be greater.
It is very difficult to perceive that the Guggenheim Museum is designed by the same person who did the prairie houses, but this is true of most of the work of FLW. If we compare this with his contemporaries & even the great architects of the later period, most of them are known to be fond of certain configurations of built form/detailing/colour/texture & so on, which they have repeated from one project to another. What somebody would call a 'signature tune'. FLW seems to be content without any such thing.
What struck me however, was the universal character of the form of Guggenheim. Here (rarely for FLW) was a building conceived purely as an art form-independent of the context. It looks now completely in contrast with its surroundings. If you discount the great central park (which you can not see for the compound wall anyway), all the buildings in the layout are strictly rectangular, the layout itself is the typical grid-iron of all American cities, and even the terrain is reasonably level, so there is no change of scene. It would seem that FLW was consciously seeking a contrast but knowing that he tried with the octagon first, his curves must have come in as design development and not as a basic idea of contrasting form of curved shell.
Incidentally, when I visited Guggenheim, they were celebrating 50th anniversary of the building (It was built in 1959), and had put up the exhibition of FLW's work in the Museum. It contained drawings, photographs & models and many small sketches & perspectives done by FLW. They had also on display many working drawings done in FLW's office.
The building is a continuous curved ramp making up a total of five levels, with a huge skylight on top-and what I wanted to check is whether the continuous ramp makes viewing of objects difficult. It does. Though the diameter is very large, there is a sensation of a slope which is not convenient at all when you are trying to view an object of art-or for that matter any exhibit.
This of-course is not the only problem with the building. The floor slopes up to make way for a skylight below-making approach to the exhibits awkward-but this may have been a good thing too-preventing public access to the exhibits.
But the curved wall does pose a problem for exhibits like paintings which are flat and anchoring them to the wall is an issue. I was told by a gentle curator that for each exhibition they drill holes in the curved wall anew, and after the exhibition make it up by cement plaster. Which means that a part of wall is destroyed & touched up again for each new exhibition & this has been going on for the last fifty years. It is a wonder that the building shell has survived all this for so long. And it is not only a question of physical damage to the building-it is criminal to treat so sacred a building in such a cruel fashion.
I put this to the curator, and he accepted the fact but shrugged his shoulders in the typical American fashion and said that you must deal with the situation in the best practical fashion. i was wondering why they could not fit in permanent nails so that the walls need not be drilled for every new exhibition, but the idea seemed foreign to him. (It was-I talked to the Asian guard there, who concurred with me-it is only Asians, who seem to see the presence of God in the inanimate!)
The skylight in the centre was too big, and I was wondering the effect of heat built-up. The museum is now air conditioned and they have solved the problem of heat built up by covering the sky-light from top. Not only that, they have also covered the strip of skylight all along the external wall (which gives a distinct shape to the building) and have placed artificial lighting below for the exhibits. This makes the original design redundant, but then skylight is not a good thing for any museum exhibit. The quality of light changes throughout the day, and you can not direct the light to the painting anyway. It could only serve as a general purpose lighting. Even this general purpose lighting, if done in excess, defeats the purpose of the museum-in many museums of this kind you can not see the exhibits properly.
On the other side, the parapet wall is a bit low considering the height-it feels unsafe near the edge. Moreover, the parapet curves outward to confirm with the overall design pattern of each upper floor coming in a bit, which enhances the feeling.
How can the building be a monument to the modern architecture with all these defects? Or is it? Is it a metaphor for all the 20th century buildings obsessed with the form and not the function? And this too, in building designed by FLW? Are we reading the signs right?
I know the building is criticised for these and many such flaws and still stands a testimony to the philosophy of FLW. Like the Chandigarh Assembly building-it paved the way for a new aesthetics for modern architecture. The question is-if it does all this-what do you read in the building now as a student of architecture? I think we need a more detailed discussion on the meaning of Guggenheim Museum in the present context.
Showing posts with label F. L. Wright. Show all posts
Showing posts with label F. L. Wright. Show all posts
Monday, August 03, 2009
Saturday, July 25, 2009
In the footsteps of the master
While planning my trip in USA, I had thought of visiting at least one house designed by F. L. Wright, but most of the houses designed by FLW are not part of the routine tours. However, the opportunity came my way quite by co-incidence when we were in Niagara. (If you are an Indian visiting the USA, you must see Niagara-not to visit is almost a sacrilege!) We were discussing plans for the next day and I found a brouchure showcasing an FLW house under renovation with a list of conducted tours of the place. That was great. I had found this system in all the hotels I visited here-in the hotel lobby all the visitor literature is displayed prominently and you can take your pick-It features all the local sight-seeing places, and also all the local happenings in which the visitor can participate alongwith maps, bus/railway-schedules & so on. This is something we can follow at our tourist places too. (Is somebody listening?)
Anyway, the place was near the Hotel, and we decided to give it a try. When we approached the area, I could identify the house easily. It was executed in the distinct prairie style of FLW in an otherwise calm & serene neighbourhood of Buffalo. But I was in for a disappointment when I was told that all the tickets for the conducted tour were sold out for the day. Having come all the way, I would be denied the opportunity of a lifetime.
It was Amruta (my daughter-in-law) who suggested that I declare myself as a tourist from India, and a professor in architecture at that and request the organisers to accommodate me as a special favour. I was skeptical of the result but it worked and I was admitted as a special gesture for the next tour.
This was the Martin House, FLW's early works, published in the Wasmuth Volume. Built in 1903-5, the Martin House is considered one of the most important projects by FLW's prairie school era, and is now taken over by the University of Buffalo for renovation. The Buffalo University has now built a pavillion on the side of the existing house, which works as a reception area, and includes a museum. They have preserved all the original drawings of FLW, including his correspondence with Mr. Martin.
The tour started with a small film on FLW & his work, and also the bio-graphy of Mr. Martin, and his interaction with FLW as a young architect. An umble clerk in the Larkin Soap Co., Mr. Martin had risen to a senior partner and had became a millionaire. The story was interesting and here I could see a pattern in all the early clients of FLW-all the practical down-to-earth people who had started quite low & made it to the top by intellect & hard work. Only these kind of people would appreciate the functional quality of the work of the young architect like FLW and would not bother about the style of the house.
In the group on the tour, there was only one other architect besides myself, and we got acquainted easily. He was from Mexico, and had chanced upon the place just like me. The guide, though not an architect himself, was well versed with the process of design & execution, and gave us an insight into its making.
As it happens, the layout of the neighbourhood was done by a landscape architect, who chose a deviation from the strict grid iron plan and provided curved streets all over the place resulting in varied shapes of plots. In the first letter written by FLW to the Owner, he mentions the fact that the house can be aligned to any one of the sides only, and it was Wright's intention to align it to the neighbouring house. FLW goes on to provide a sketch plan of the site in the letter, clarifying this, which must have been approved, as the final outcome matches the sketch plan done by FLW.
The house has a chequered history. The house was built by Martin when he became a partner in the Larkins, and contains 4/5 independant buildings joined together. One is a house for his sister on the edge of the plot, Martin's own House in front consisting of two separate parts joined together by a covered walkway, a stable and a caretaker's house. It was some kind of a challenge for FLW, as he was asked to design & build the house of the sister first, based on which he was to be given further job. The rest his history-FLW was given not only the remaining part of the house to design but also the Larkin Office Building in Chicago.
Unfortunately, Mr. Martin lost all his money in the stock market crash of 1929, and had to sell of the rear portion of the plot to a developer. The developer built apartments in the rear portion, demolishing part of the house. The front portion was saved as some FLW enthusiast bought it & lived in it himself. It was however declared later as a national monument, and both these portions were purchased by the University of Buffalo, for renovation. Thus the front portion of the house is now the only original portion of the house, but the University has rebuilt the rear portion based on the original drawings-a thing strict conservationists may not like but FLW is a national celebrity in USA and this may be pardonable in a nation which has not much history to start with.
Going through the house, following the detailing of FLW, and seeing for the first time a house which I had only seen in photographs and sketches in the Wasmuth volume, was a unique experience for me. It was almost like a pilgrimage for me. I could imagine FLW with his flamboyant style of functioning moving through the place, giving instructions, supervising the work, and there I was, catapulted into history from a distance of roughly 20,000 miles to witness the result in person.
The discussion in the tour, however, centred on simple everyday matters, like the cross-shaped (pin-wheel) plan giving light & ventilation for most rooms from as many as three sides, the special study room that Martin wanted as an extension to the Living room, the placement of library at the edge with its windows on all three sides to help the nearsighted Mrs. martin, the partially hidden staircase signifying the seperation of the living room from the rest of the house, the connection to conservatory with its mechanical equipment to open & close windows which were inaccessible, and hiding of the services in the cluster of brick pillars. At one level, the house was all about functional utility, at other, it talked about the personality of FLW and the insistence of continuity of space with no intervening walls between spaces, and ceilings dramatically lowered in places to indicate division of space. The house flowed into the exterior as easily without a break in detailing and the continuity of finishes made it all the more subtle.
Anyway, the place was near the Hotel, and we decided to give it a try. When we approached the area, I could identify the house easily. It was executed in the distinct prairie style of FLW in an otherwise calm & serene neighbourhood of Buffalo. But I was in for a disappointment when I was told that all the tickets for the conducted tour were sold out for the day. Having come all the way, I would be denied the opportunity of a lifetime.
It was Amruta (my daughter-in-law) who suggested that I declare myself as a tourist from India, and a professor in architecture at that and request the organisers to accommodate me as a special favour. I was skeptical of the result but it worked and I was admitted as a special gesture for the next tour.
This was the Martin House, FLW's early works, published in the Wasmuth Volume. Built in 1903-5, the Martin House is considered one of the most important projects by FLW's prairie school era, and is now taken over by the University of Buffalo for renovation. The Buffalo University has now built a pavillion on the side of the existing house, which works as a reception area, and includes a museum. They have preserved all the original drawings of FLW, including his correspondence with Mr. Martin.
The tour started with a small film on FLW & his work, and also the bio-graphy of Mr. Martin, and his interaction with FLW as a young architect. An umble clerk in the Larkin Soap Co., Mr. Martin had risen to a senior partner and had became a millionaire. The story was interesting and here I could see a pattern in all the early clients of FLW-all the practical down-to-earth people who had started quite low & made it to the top by intellect & hard work. Only these kind of people would appreciate the functional quality of the work of the young architect like FLW and would not bother about the style of the house.
In the group on the tour, there was only one other architect besides myself, and we got acquainted easily. He was from Mexico, and had chanced upon the place just like me. The guide, though not an architect himself, was well versed with the process of design & execution, and gave us an insight into its making.
As it happens, the layout of the neighbourhood was done by a landscape architect, who chose a deviation from the strict grid iron plan and provided curved streets all over the place resulting in varied shapes of plots. In the first letter written by FLW to the Owner, he mentions the fact that the house can be aligned to any one of the sides only, and it was Wright's intention to align it to the neighbouring house. FLW goes on to provide a sketch plan of the site in the letter, clarifying this, which must have been approved, as the final outcome matches the sketch plan done by FLW.
The house has a chequered history. The house was built by Martin when he became a partner in the Larkins, and contains 4/5 independant buildings joined together. One is a house for his sister on the edge of the plot, Martin's own House in front consisting of two separate parts joined together by a covered walkway, a stable and a caretaker's house. It was some kind of a challenge for FLW, as he was asked to design & build the house of the sister first, based on which he was to be given further job. The rest his history-FLW was given not only the remaining part of the house to design but also the Larkin Office Building in Chicago.
Unfortunately, Mr. Martin lost all his money in the stock market crash of 1929, and had to sell of the rear portion of the plot to a developer. The developer built apartments in the rear portion, demolishing part of the house. The front portion was saved as some FLW enthusiast bought it & lived in it himself. It was however declared later as a national monument, and both these portions were purchased by the University of Buffalo, for renovation. Thus the front portion of the house is now the only original portion of the house, but the University has rebuilt the rear portion based on the original drawings-a thing strict conservationists may not like but FLW is a national celebrity in USA and this may be pardonable in a nation which has not much history to start with.
Going through the house, following the detailing of FLW, and seeing for the first time a house which I had only seen in photographs and sketches in the Wasmuth volume, was a unique experience for me. It was almost like a pilgrimage for me. I could imagine FLW with his flamboyant style of functioning moving through the place, giving instructions, supervising the work, and there I was, catapulted into history from a distance of roughly 20,000 miles to witness the result in person.
The discussion in the tour, however, centred on simple everyday matters, like the cross-shaped (pin-wheel) plan giving light & ventilation for most rooms from as many as three sides, the special study room that Martin wanted as an extension to the Living room, the placement of library at the edge with its windows on all three sides to help the nearsighted Mrs. martin, the partially hidden staircase signifying the seperation of the living room from the rest of the house, the connection to conservatory with its mechanical equipment to open & close windows which were inaccessible, and hiding of the services in the cluster of brick pillars. At one level, the house was all about functional utility, at other, it talked about the personality of FLW and the insistence of continuity of space with no intervening walls between spaces, and ceilings dramatically lowered in places to indicate division of space. The house flowed into the exterior as easily without a break in detailing and the continuity of finishes made it all the more subtle.
And then there was the masterful organisation of the form and the detailing-the specially chosen roman bricks with horizontal inset mortar joints to accentuate the horizontal lines, the sweeping roof projecting out and joining the entire composition, the full length windows replacing walls as a complete element of design, the urns & many other small detailing reminding one of a chinese house with strict rectangular/square patterns.
The house stands apart in the neighbourhood of borrowed-style duplex bungalows all over, and I could not help wondering why there were no followers. But then, FLW is a difficult man to follow. It was heartening to find out that the University of Buffalo is using sustainable systems (earth-tunnels) to air-condition the house now-which fits in exactly with the philosophy of organic architecture by FLW. I had once remarked that FLW was not understood in the land of plenty when he talked of organic architecture-but things seem to have come a full circle-what with Al Gore (of all the people) making a movie on global warming (The Inconvenient Truth) and the Buffalo University actually installing a sustainable system in an FLW house. If it can happen here-sustainable architecture has a future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)