Frank Lloyd Wright furniture
ttho...@wln.com
furniture designed by Frank Lloyd Wright? I am particularly
interested in his designs from the "Prairie" period, e.g. Robie
House, Dana House, etc. Thanks for your help.
Vince Miller
Can't help you. But can talk. I was just in his first house and studio in
Chicago. Saw the original dining set in the house. Estimated price $2.5
Million. Wow.
I was dissapointed to find that them tall back chairs with rectiliear angles
all seem to have wiggled loose as I always thought they would while looking
at the pictures. Seems the tall backs were to give some sense of enclosure
at the table.
I was struck that he was a designer first and the designs weren't nesc all
that great at thinking about the wood they were made from. A lot of mitre
framed table tops which had the expected gaps showing.
The workshop was an very impressive place: brick, stone, wood, iron all
working together. Very cool.
I figure ol' Frank can take a crit or two from the likes of me.
Vince
ca...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
: Does anyone know where I might find plans or measured drawings for
: interested in his designs from the "Prairie" period, e.g. Robie
: House, Dana House, etc. Thanks for your help.
Try Prairie Designs of California
Box 886, Brisbane, CA 94005
A couple years ago I purchased plans for their Woodlawn Lamp, a double
pedestal lamp based on a FLW design. Excellent plans and instructions.
There are plans available for other lamps, windows, tables, chairs, etc.
--
Ray Evans
Lakeland Canoe Company
gopher://freenet.edmonton.ab.ca/h/i/llcanoe/lake_index.html
Kevin W. Tucker
>
>Does anyone know where I might find plans or measured drawings for
>furniture designed by Frank Lloyd Wright? I am particularly
>interested in his designs from the "Prairie" period, e.g. Robie
>House, Dana House, etc. Thanks for your help.
There are many, many books with good photographs of FLLW furniture, but
none (?) that offer a measured drawings. You can, however, order
photocopies of original furniture schemes from the FLLW Foundation at
Taliesin West, Scottsdale, AZ (can't find their number right now, email
me if you want it) IF you know the project that you want it from AND if
they have the originals (many early drawings are lost or scattered in
various public and private collections) - they have almost all of the
later Usonian works, but little of the Prairie period. In addition, the
photocopy setup fee and charges are not cheap by any means and the
reduced copies are often hard to make out.
For photographs and a limited selection of drawings, try "Frank Lloyd
Wright: Furniture and Interiors" by Thomas A. Heinz; "The Decorative
Designs of Frank Lloyd Wright" by David Hanks, or the 12 vol. monograph
by Yukio Futagawa.
Some Wright furniture is being reproduced by various firms, though these
repros are quite pricey - $25,000 for a Robie house dining set...
Good Luck,
Kevin
Rob Nyberg
>Does anyone know where I might find plans or measured drawings for
>furniture designed by Frank Lloyd Wright? I am particularly
>interested in his designs from the "Prairie" period, e.g. Robie
>House, Dana House, etc. Thanks for your help.
Just to splash some cold water into this, I've yet to meet a single person
who's had the opportunity to sit in a real Wright design chair who has not
remarked that his stuff is damned uncomfortable. And also, every
designer/woodworker I've met (granted not many) who's been inspired to emulate
a Wright design chair has had to, ahem, *modify* his prototype to make it
tolerable to sit in. Good luck, Rob. (just an observation...)
Gary Chenkovich
>Does anyone know where I might find plans or measured drawings for
>furniture designed by Frank Lloyd Wright? I am particularly
>interested in his designs from the "Prairie" period, e.g. Robie
>House, Dana House, etc. Thanks for your help.
I can give you a possible indirect contact. We went through his design school
in Scotsdale, Arizona last year. The had a book store connected with it. Was
very interesting to go through. Don't remember seeing exactly what you were
looking for, but probably had it. You might start with the yellow pages.
Good luck
Ron Williams
> >furniture designed by Frank Lloyd Wright? I am particularly
> >interested in his designs from the "Prairie" period, e.g. Robie
> >House, Dana House, etc. Thanks for your help.
OK, here's the problem with reading too many woodworking magazines.
A while back I read an article (I think in Fine Woodworking) telling
about a little known government agency that documents things built
and/or owned by the feds. The example was detailed plans for tables
and chairs in a FLW home now maintained as a museum.
I don't remember the issue, but the article was a 1/2 page news item
near the back.
Ron Williams
Don Ernst
sit in a few. It is very clear that his chairs and love seats were designed
for style, which is great, without trying them for comfort. Comfort ranks in
the realm of terrible. The seats are small and the backs are at right angles
to the seats and are vertical. His buildings are very modern and were
designed and build several decades before their time. IF you didn't know the
history , you would think they were very modern. Amazing man.
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Kamilche Mac BBS, (360) 426-3262, (360) 426-2742, (360) 426-8928. |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Don't send me files or attachments larger than 30K combined! |
| Send large items to ci...@halcyon.com w/forwarding instructions. |
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
ca...@fn1.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
: > In article <30BF55...@wln.com> ttho...@wln.com writes:
: >
: > >Does anyone know where I might find plans or measured drawings for
: > >furniture designed by Frank Lloyd Wright? I am particularly
: OK, here's the problem with reading too many woodworking magazines.
: A while back I read an article (I think in Fine Woodworking) telling
: about a little known government agency that documents things built
: and/or owned by the feds. The example was detailed plans for tables
: and chairs in a FLW home now maintained as a museum.
The article was in FWW,Aug.95,#113.
The agency is :
HABS/HAER, Prints and Photographs,
Division of the Library of Congress, Room 337
James Madison Bldg.
First and Independence Ave., S.E.
Washington, DC
20540-4840
Kevin W. Tucker
Charles Lamont <Cha...@abdab.demon.co.uk> wrote:
{snip} Just "hmm, now how
>can I skimp things to make this look really stupendous within the
>budget, so that my next commission will earn me even more. Who cares if
>it starts to crumble before it is finished, that's the builder's
>problem." Look closely at the Falling Water house, very soon it will be
>falling in the water. This is not because it was innovative, but because
>it was shoddy.
Wait a minute...I think you need to realize how far Wright was willing to push
the envelope to get a good design (yes, in the aesthetic sense) to work
(yes, in the practical sense). Maybe you have heard of the
story that when E.J. Kaufmann talked to one of his engineers
that had pointed out that a support pier for Fallingwater was
too short to support the floor above and that it would surely
fall into the stream if it were built that way, Kaufmann told
the engineer to go ahead an add the few feet to the wall,
thinking that Wright would never notice it. A few months into
the construction, Wright took Kaufmann back under the house and
pointed to the pier in question. Kaufmann noticed that the top few inches of
the added pier wall was not there! Wright informed him that he
noticed the "addition", and had the supporting section removed.
And he told Kaufmann - "now that the house has not fallen into
the falls, shall we demolish the rest of that non-supporting
pier?"
Unfortunately, many of Wright houses were constructed by builders that had
very little, if any, experience with the type of construction that Wright
wanted, and by the time of the Usonian houses (1930's on), had to deal with
Wright's sandwich wall construction among other things. Yes, he could have
built every house with a standard balloon frame, but his experimentation was
innovative, and when it was constructed to his exact specifications, highly
successful in every sense. Fallingwater like many one of his designs with
extensive cantilevers (roofs, floors, etc.) suffers from sags, and more
seriously, from (joist) wood rot from the humidity from the stream below. The
sags were usually caused by not using metal beams, but by substituting cheaper
wooden beams that not take the extended load. Not Wright, but the client or
the builder here... At Fallingwater the problem may have been compounded
by the temporary builder's shack that was constructed right at the very edge
of the main floor at the tip of the cantilever. The wood rot, ok, but what do
you expect from a house over a waterfall? I guess you could run one giant
dehumidifier ;D!
Kevin
Vince Miller
>>> furniture designed by Frank Lloyd Wright?
>[various comments]
>> falls to bits, uncomfortable, designed for show.
>This is what you get with lots of famous architects, unfortunately.
>What you get is mostly "look at me, I was designed by Frank Lloyd
>Wright" - or whoever - "you know". No quality of construction, no
>thought for the poor users, and less for the poor buggers who are
>saddled with trying to maintain these masterpieces. Just "hmm, now how
>can I skimp things to make this look really stupendous within the
>budget, so that my next commission will earn me even more. Who cares if
>it starts to crumble before it is finished, that's the builder's
>problem." Look closely at the Falling Water house, very soon it will be
>falling in the water. This is not because it was innovative, but because
>it was shoddy.
Well, I dunno about the architecture itself. It seems to me to be built as
well as other stuff. Is it the designs themselves which are poor there? I'
ve looked at Falling Water a lot in my life. If it was a bad design, we'd
know by now wright? ;-)
As for the furniture, there is a dift problem, Wright and McIntosh et al,
were designing shapes. As much as I hate to admit it, one adoring
commentator said about the latter, he really was before his time and could
have done so much with plastics.
There are certain qualities to wood (differential expansiong along dift
axes) that have to be taken into account. Wright's furniture often fails
here.
I like Franky's homes and find them very comfortable.
Vince
Charles Lamont
>> furniture designed by Frank Lloyd Wright?
[various comments]
> falls to bits, uncomfortable, designed for show.
This is what you get with lots of famous architects, unfortunately.
What you get is mostly "look at me, I was designed by Frank Lloyd
Wright" - or whoever - "you know". No quality of construction, no
thought for the poor users, and less for the poor buggers who are
saddled with trying to maintain these masterpieces. Just "hmm, now how
can I skimp things to make this look really stupendous within the
budget, so that my next commission will earn me even more. Who cares if
it starts to crumble before it is finished, that's the builder's
problem." Look closely at the Falling Water house, very soon it will be
falling in the water. This is not because it was innovative, but because
it was shoddy.
Did some good *looking* designs, though.
--
Charles
Sam Sutherland
Apparently, some (many?) of Wright's houses suffer from roof leaks. But
as one owner put it, "That's what happens when you leave a work of art
out in the rain."
Sam Sutherland
Austin, TX
sa...@aol.com
Doug Green
wrote:
> In article <30BF55...@wln.com>, ttho...@wln.com says...
> >
> >Does anyone know where I might find plans or measured drawings for
> >furniture designed by Frank Lloyd Wright?
I just read (within the last couple of weeks) that one of the federal
gov't agencies had done measured drawings of some of Wright's furniture
during the depression. Gov't had lotsa programs like that -- sent folks
out to document the USA -- folk songs, photographs, architecture and
apparently at least some of FLW's chairs etc. Can't remember where I
saw the article, but it may have been in a FineWoodworking that was 3 - 6
months old.
Maybe someone else has more info.
Vince Miller
>On the practicality vs aesthetics of FLW's designs:
>Apparently, some (many?) of Wright's houses suffer from roof leaks. But
>as one owner put it, "That's what happens when you leave a work of art
>out in the rain."
A lot of High School gyms suffer roof leaks too. I suspect it has more to
do with flat roofs than art.
Vince
Eric W. Overgaard
> This is what you get with lots of famous architects, unfortunately.
> What you get is mostly "look at me, I was designed by Frank Lloyd
> Wright" - or whoever - "you know". No quality of construction, no
> thought for the poor users, and less for the poor buggers who are
> saddled with trying to maintain these masterpieces. Just "hmm, now how
> can I skimp things to make this look really stupendous within the
> budget, so that my next commission will earn me even more. Who cares if
> it starts to crumble before it is finished, that's the builder's
> problem." Look closely at the Falling Water house, very soon it will be
> falling in the water. This is not because it was innovative, but because
> it was shoddy.
>
> Did some good *looking* designs, though.
>
> --
> Charles
Charles,
Here is the story I got about Wrights "Prarie Style". The construction was good. The Morris
adapted Prarie style chair was comforable. However, the way the furniture was designed, caused a
lot of bruised shins. This was noted by Wright himself & he admitted that it was a mistake.
Eric
John Levin
>
>On the practicality vs aesthetics of FLW's designs:
>
>Apparently, some (many?) of Wright's houses suffer from roof leaks. But
>as one owner put it, "That's what happens when you leave a work of art
>out in the rain."
Flame on, Scotty!
This is why I really hate Frank Lloyd Wright and all his works. An architect
(or anyone else) that designs solely for effect and gives little or no thought
to design for living, suitability of materials, durability, and utility is a
complete failure, IMHO. It's a twentieth century sickness, and FLW, Le
Courboisier and the rest of the avant garde of the 20s and 30s are the founding
fathers of modern design -- all style, little substance and designed for
robots. Rather than celebrate this guy, we ought to hold him up as a textbook
example of professional arrogance. I was sort of hoping that we had turned the
corner on that kind of design and rediscovered how to design for the comfort
and health of people, not the glorification of the designer. It's just plain
nuts to celebrate an architect who couldn't design a water tight roof.
Flame off, Scotty.
ktu...@scsn.net
>There are a number of Wright-designed houses in the Phoenix area. The
>consensus on them is they're architectural treasures, but they were hell
to
>build and they're no fun to live in -- unless you're just the right
size.
>
Wright did tend to design houses on a human scale that was more in tune
with his height than for people over 6' tall. I don't know, I'm 6'4" and
I feel pretty comfortable in his houses, but some of his hallways do make
me feel that I am on a submarine...
Kevin
Rick Cook
>On the practicality vs aesthetics of FLW's designs:
>
>Apparently, some (many?) of Wright's houses suffer from roof leaks. But
>as one owner put it, "That's what happens when you leave a work of art
>out in the rain."
>
consensus on them is they're architectural treasures, but they were hell to
build and they're no fun to live in -- unless you're just the right size.
--RC
Vince Miller
>In article <4aaqfv$g...@news2.delphi.com>, rc...@BIX.com says...
> Wright did tend to design houses on a human scale that was more in tune
>with his height than for people over 6' tall. I don't know, I'm 6'4" and
>I feel pretty comfortable in his houses, but some of his hallways do make
>me feel that I am on a submarine...
According to a Wright groupie leading a tour I was just on (he's not really
dead you know ;-) the narrow, small hallways were ways of psychologically
framing the living spaces, making them speak all the more.
Vince (arrogant or not, flat roofs leak quite often) Miller
Vince Miller
>Flame on, Scotty!
Duly noted sir.
> This is why I really hate Frank Lloyd Wright and all his works. An architect
>(or anyone else) that designs solely for effect and gives little or no thought
>to design for living, suitability of materials, durability, and utility is a
>complete failure, IMHO. It's a twentieth century sickness, and FLW, Le
>Courboisier and the rest of the avant garde of the 20s and 30s are the founding
>fathers of modern design -- all style, little substance and designed for
Now wait one cotton pickin minute here. Ain't we mixin apples and goats
here? Ok, Courboisier is a heavy concept dude, and unfortunately, with an
exception or two, the concepts seem dated. A friend who spent a night in
the Dominican priory in wherever France, said it was miserably cold. The
dominicans with few exceptions have abandoned it as living quarters.
Now "fathers of modern design" of course thats that kind of phrase that is
always false, but lets follow it to the canyon. Early Bauhaus stuff is
pretty much Germans ripping off arts and crafts, before desiding they wanted
to use the word as a put down. Gropius goes through about 5 stages, closely
related to the political upheavals around the school and the availability
of benifactor monies and comes out with a rather dift aethetic and ethos
then he had when he went in. Then there's his successor Van der Rohe and
his evolutions and the various levels of skill of his american successors.
Eventually we end up with big tall square boxes.
Which of course don't look much like ol' Frank's stuff do they? Now I don't
tower, but I think Wright's archetecture is among the most comfortable stuff
I've been in. As a young man, I dreamt of some crypto-fascist action which
would have me live in that ever so comfy (albeit flat roofed no
doubt) woodland retreat south of Pittsburgh.
But, he wasn't much of a cabinet designer. That much is clear.
Vince
John Levin
obnoxious American architect designer omitted]
I don't see as great a distinction as you do. Both FLW and the Bauhaus types
were more interested in their place in the history of design, than the needs of
their actual clients. (Their clients may have shared their interest...there are
culture vultures everywhere). The point is that any time your theory of design
becomes more important than the actual human-related thing you're designing,
you run the risk of creating a piece of beautiful junk. It is a poor
woodworker who treats his material as if it were plastic, ignoring swelling,
grain and resistance to stress. That was what FLW did in effect. He built
without regard to his materials, or the human needs of his clients. In effect,
the people became props to his artistic sensibility.
Tom Wolfe did the best sendup of this kind of conceit in his book "The
Painted Word". My personal opinion is that these folks should all be hunted
down and chained to "Cabbage Patch Kids" assembly lines.
>But, he wasn't much of a cabinet designer. That much is clear.
Yeah, but he insisted, as part of his vision... didn't he?
Jeff Jonas
>>On the practicality vs aesthetics of FLW's designs:
>>Apparently, some (many?) of Wright's houses suffer from roof leaks. But
>>as one owner put it, "That's what happens when you leave a work of art
>>out in the rain."
> This is why I really hate Frank Lloyd Wright and all his works. An architect
>(or anyone else) that designs solely for effect and gives little or no thought
>to design for living, suitability of materials, durability, and utility is a
>complete failure
...
>It's just plain
>nuts to celebrate an architect who couldn't design a water tight roof.
I just read this thread in one sitting and I have mixed feelings.
The engineer side of me admires Wright for experimenting with new materials
such as reinforced concrete pillars and the glass tube ceiling/roof.
I love glasswork and he created some wonderful stained glass designs
which integrates into the rooms.
I know the frustration of trying to do things with materials not yet invented.
But that's what separates engineers from scientists.
Engineers have to cope with reality - things break, fail, lose tolerances, etc.
I'd expect an artist to make a building out of soap to demonstrate
the transitive property of beauty, but architects are supposed to engineer
enduring deisgns. Had Mr. Wright been called an artist, he'd get more
leeway and excuses for what appear to be engineering errors.
I have a few books on Frank Lloyd Wright art and architecture, and some
of the glasswork deserves to be near the Tiffany works.
FLW is quite functional compared to Gaude' (sp?) and other 'celebrated'
artist/architects who made things that look downright painful to use.
For pure functionality and beauty, I prefer Shaker design and
Scandanavian designs, particularly the gently curved wood furntiure.
I don't mean the stuff in Ikea, but in the other stores such as
House Of Norway (who are not afraid of selling the really expensive stuff
whereas Ikea only sells the less expensive/more affordable stuff of
cheaper woods).
That's my 2 cents.
--
Jeffrey Jonas
je...@panix.com
Kevin W. Tucker
vincent.j...@nd.edu (Vince Miller) wrote:
{snip good stuff about Wright NOT being part of the Bauhaus group}
>But, he wasn't much of a cabinet designer. That much is clear.
>
Well, if you go through a bunch of his later Usonian houses, it seems like the
whole house is designed like a beautiful "cabinet" - he did love a natural
wood finish! One of his most interesting (from a fittings "point of view") is
Auldbrass Plantation in SC - the walls are slanted and canted 10 degrees - all
Tidewater cypress and built-ins like you would not believe. The small kitchen
and office areas are sights to behold with stunning cabinet doors that are
carefully angled to fit together with neat joins at all sorts of compound
angles. I am sure the builders cursed his drawings more than once, but you
can't complain at the result. It reminds me of the fittings in a fine sailing
vessel more than the usual "cabinets" you see in most houses...
Kevin
Gene Kim-Eng
Fallingwater today) runs a whole lot of dehumidifiers in Fallingwater!
Gene