It had been discovered
and purchased by pure chance – Fallingwater, published by
Rizzoli, New York, 2011 in association with the Western Pennsylvania
Conservancy on the 75th Anniversary of this home: edited by Lynda
Waggoner, photographed by Christopher Little: see -
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2017/12/frank-lloyd-wright-accommodating.html
The book looked to be an interesting publication. This judgement was
not made by admiring the classic image on the cover taken in the
half-light of dusk with the layered warmth of the interior lighting
all softly aglow above the blurry fuzz of the waterfall. The pages
were filled with a broad collection of unusual, unfamiliar images of
the place, different aspects of the home: its details, contents and
context. After flicking randomly through the stunning illustrations,
and reading some of the captions, it was noticed that, at the very
end of the publication, there were short articles by Edgar J Kaufmann
Senior, his wife Liliana Kaufmann, and their son, Edgar Kaufmann
Junior, collected as the Appendix: Kaufmann Essays. These
texts were added, seemingly to complete the commentary and overview,
to give the clients' version of things. It is an interesting idea.
Only too often do the clients get ignored when really everything
relies on them for all projects to be initiated and completed.
Indeed, we frequently ignore the clients’ opinions when it comes to
assessing and judging a home or any project, when simple logic has it
that the success of an architectural outcome surely has to do with
the clients’ satisfaction, rather than that of the architects, or
the profession’s glossy PR award system.#
The article by Kaufmann
Senior looked as though it might be an interesting read. It gave the
story of the house from his point of view: how it began, developed,
got built and was finished. One wondered how Kaufmann Senior might
have recorded his first sightings of the sketches for his house.
Famously, the ‘Wright’ story goes that Kaufmann Senior was
travelling close to Taliesin, and had decided to take a detour, to
call in to see how things were going. He had apparently not heard
anything from Wright for some time. He telephoned Taliesin to tell
Wright that he would be there in a couple of hours to see his
project. The tale is that Wright then sat down and started drawing
Fallingwater for the very first time, and completed the remarkable
design prior to Kaufmann's arrival.
Apparently all of the
apprentices sensed something significant was happening, and gathered
around Wright at his drawing board, gazing on intently as ‘The
Master’ developed the design before their very eyes. When Kaufmann
Senior arrived, Wright had the sketches of Fallingwater ready to
explain the concept for his weekender – or so the story goes. These
were said to be the first lines Wright had ever put to paper for this
house. Who might dare question The Master? There is a photograph of
the students standing around Wright as he draws, an archival document
that seems to want to prove that the event actually occurred. Was
this staged? It certainly looks like it. Who took the photograph?
Why? There is no great surplus of images of Wright at work in any of
the records. Why does this photograph exist? Here one is reminded of
the architect carefully and self-consciously drawing the
'preliminary' sketch to give to the client, to be framed as a memento
of the project, after the event: “This one is for the client.”
One frequently sees such informed ‘sketches’ that have been
prepared specifically for promotional material under the guise of
being an inspired preliminary sketch that has been removed from the
pile of office scribbles: see -
http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2017/01/murcutts-mosque-meanings-sources.html
Oddly, in spite of the
pervasive quality of this story, Kaufmann Senior mentions nothing of
it. He does document a visit to Taliesin to see his son in 1934. Here
he tells of his dining experience with Wright and others, and
outlines his discussions concerning: the Broadacre City model –
Wright wanted money to develop this model; a planetarium that
Kaufmann was promoting in Pittsburgh; and a proposed weekender at
Bear Run. It was shortly after this that Kaufmann and Wright visited
Bear Run to inspect the site. “The Master was amazed at the beauty
and forceful contours.” Wright requested a detailed survey of the
site, “a topographical map which was to include everything 100 feet
above and 200 feet below the falls, showing every tree more than 2
inches in diameter, and every stone and boulder permitted, by the
ages, to rear its head above the ground.”
One can assume that,
given his sensitivity to place, Wright would not have started
drawings prior to the receipt of this detail.
In 1935 Kaufmann Senior
records his attendance at a workshop on the Broadacre City - “It
was the busiest workshop I have ever lived with” - an experience
that was followed by a chat on the planetarium, and detailed
discussions on the house at Bear Run. Wright wanted to know more
about how it was planned to be used; what materials might be
available; how many rooms; how it might be lived in; etc. In short,
Wright was developing his brief. It seems that Wright might not even
have thought about the house before this chat. Kaufmann records that
the topographical map was sent to Wright on 9th March, and writes:
“On April 27th a letter arrived: “We are ready to go to work on
the waterfall cottage at Bear Run . . . ” . . . ” It is difficult
to know if the ‘we’ is Wright referring to himself, or to the
office generally, but it seems that the manifestation of the idea
took over four months rather than two hours.
Kaufmann continues:
“September 15: Floor
plans and coloured elevation of Fallingwater arrived. The next few
nights were sleepless. . . .
On September 16: I could
not work. I thought of nothing but the house.”
Kaufmann clearly does
recall his excitement – his sleepless nights and distracted days –
after receiving coloured drawings of the house in September. He does
not tell us of any meeting with Wright at Taliesin to view freshly
completed sketch drawings prior to this occasion. One might have
thought that Kaufmann would remember his first sighting of the
sketches in every detail; that he could not be wrong in his
recollections of this event. The impact that the drawings had on him
seems to suggest that there was no earlier viewing of any material to
do with this ‘waterfall cottage’; that the documents that
‘arrived’ - apparently by post – were the first images Kaufmann
had seen of Wright’s ideas for his weekender.
What really happened?
Is the story about ‘The Master’ – even Kaufmann Senior refers
to Wright in these terms – purely a promotional fantasy, what we
might today call a ‘Trump-like ego-boosting’ yarn: ‘fake news’?
Wright was never backward in coming forward with glowing
self-assessments of his genius. Was this story a creation to support
the legend – perhaps to reinforce it? Wright had gone through some
tough times.
Kaufmann’s
relationship with Wright varied, to finish as love: “I know that I
am a better man for having met him, built with him, battled with him,
and learned to love him.” There were bumps. Kaufmann had the
engineering drawings checked. Wright was not happy. A genius is never
questioned!
“August 27: The
following letter from Taliesin:
If you are praying
to have concrete engineering done there, there is no use whatever in
our doing it here. I am willing you should take it over but I am not
willing to be insulted.
So we will send no
more steel diagrams. I am unaccustomed to such treatment where I have
built buildings before and do not intend to put up with it now so I
am calling Bob back until we can work out something or nothing . . .
Kaufmann
responded likewise. The matter was settled; the work progressed.
In
late December 1936 – Fallingwater was finished in the Spring of
1937 - Kaufmann records that the engineers “made a complete
investigation of the engineering features of Fallingwater. . . .”
The report noted that “the structure does not have a satisfactory
factor of safety, or what might be termed reserve strength.” One
chapter of this Rizzoli publication is titled: Strengthening
Fallingwater by Robert Silman. It describes how, in 1995, cracks
in the concrete were causing concern: engineers were consulted. After
much research, the large cantilevers were stabilised with concealed
tension cables. The deflections of about 150mm could not be reversed.
The work strengthened the cantilevers to stop further deflection and
possible failure. Wright would not have been pleased – he sacked
Edgar Tafel who told one apprentice to put steel into a carport
cantilever - but his presence was felt. The solution had to be
totally unobtrusive; it had to maintain the image - and the
reputation? - unchanged; unquestioned. As Kaufmann discovered, his
genius could not be challenged.
Like Wright himself. photographers usually prefer the supports to be hidden in the shadows
It is in this somewhat
oppressive circumstance, Liliane bravely tells of her lack of
excitement about the house; how she had to change to live in it and
grow to like it. She learnt to live “the Wright way.”
“I moved into the
house with numerous misgivings . . . In a very short time, I decided
that since I could not adapt the house to my way of living, I must
adapt my way of living to the house.”
She concluded her
one-page essay with: “Perhaps these are the vestigial remains of my
previously undeveloped standards – they may disappear with the rest
in another year when I have learned to live the Wright way.”
It is a sad
observation: the lack of appreciation is the client’s fault -
‘undeveloped standards’! The architect has placed demands on the
client rather than accommodating the client’s preferences: the
creative genius must prevail. Wright did suggest that Fallingwater
was a response to the European modern white buildings, especially
those of Le Corbusier and Aalto. Such self-interest is becoming a
very familiar scenario in the profession, almost a cliché. Little
wonder that architects are so disliked as pompous and self-centred
individuals concerned only with their own reputations. Is this
ambition the origin of Wright’s photograph of himself working on
Fallingwater? It certainly appears to be formally staged, indeed, a
little awkward.
Kaufmann Junior, an
apprentice at Taliesin who designed some interior items of
Fallingwater – he was the contact that got Wright the job - ends
his piece by talking about the trial and error of the lighting
design. What else in this project was trial and error? He sums
up: “Thus, gradually, after trial and error, our big problems have
evaporated, leaving us a house we love to live in, flexible, still
growing.” Was there a list of the ‘big problems’? Just how the
house is ‘still growing’ is not clear; it was certainly still
deflecting. Perhaps Kaufmann Junior was aware of the philosophy of
incompletion: see sidebar – THE NECESSITY OF THE INCOMPLETE.
The Kaufmman Essays
tell us a lot about Fallingwater and Wright. They show Wright in his
true colours; and his limitations. Perhaps it is good to find out
that he was just human too, able to be wrong. When laid out on the
dray that took him to his grave, one apprentice commented on how tiny
a man he was. Photographs of Wright at the Guggenheim, (it is not a
good gallery space in spite of Wright’s insistence otherwise), show
how small he was when standing beside its balustrade.* Yet he was
large in presence. Sadly he would not listen. Is this his weakness;
his fundamental flaw or his strength?
Mies van der Rohe once
visited Taliesin with one of his students. As they were walking
around, the student nudged Mies and pointed out a scrappy detail,
anticipating Mies’s agreement with his perceptive criticism. Mies, known for
his precision and rigour, ("God is in the details"), merely responded, “Be thankful that it’s
here.” Indeed, we can all be thankful.
#
NOTE:
In a recent talk at the
Abedian School of Architecture, Bond University, Hannah Tribe of
Sydney, (Tribe Architects), used the words of her clients to
accompany the images of their houses that she had designed for them.
It was an inventive approach that gave both good and bad reports on
her work. At least it acknowledged the importance of the client in
architectural outcomes: see - http://voussoirs.blogspot.com.au/2017/12/hannah-tribe-portrait-builder.htm
*
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.