UNDERSTANDING FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT'S ARCHITECTURE Donald Hoffmann With 197 IllustrationsUNDERSTANDING FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT'S ARCHITECTURE DONALD HOFFMANN DOVER PUBLICATIONS, INC. New YorkACKNOWLEDGMENTS Fox their various instances of help and patience in affording me access to Wrights buildings, providing illustrations, furnishing information and, most of ll, eneouraging a project at Fst so nefnlous and hence so long in gestation, Iwish to thank Donald P Halle rath, Lynda Waggoner, Viginia Emnst Kazor, Jelfey M. Crusid, August Oliver Brown, Howard W. Ellington, James Dennis, Mildred Rosenbaum, Maya Moran, Minerva Montooth, Richard Cares, Suzette Lucas, Bruee Brooks Peiffer, Oscar Munoz, Indira Bernitson, Sidney K. Robinson, Curtis Besinger, jack Quinan, James O'Gorman, Sarah Bradford Landau, Paul E. Sprague, John Eile, Robert Kostka, Charles Biederman, Nicolette Bromberg, Carolyn De Witt Koenig, Dorothy H. Shields, Steve Wyatt, Shon nic Finnegan, my brothers George Hoffmann, John Hoffmann and Fred Hoffmann, and wy fiends Harry Haskell, Edgar Tafl, Ellen Cohen, Elpidio Rocha, Pamela Kingsbuey and Robin Jefferies Younger DH. Copyright Copyright ©1695 by Donald Hoffmann, ‘Alright eerved. Bibliographical Note Understanding Eran Loyd Wrights Architecture isa rew works fst published by Dover Publication, Ine, 9 1995, Library of Congress Cataloging-in Publication Data Hoffmann, Penal Urslerstaraing Frank Lleyel Wrights architestre/ Donald Hefimann Inches inden ISDNIS: 9754862836827 iphk.) ISBN0, 048628564 (pbk 1, Wight, Frank Loyd, 1867-1959 Cates and interpretation. 1 Title, NATST THES 160s 720" Sh—de20 saan ap Manwsicerd in the United States by Courier Copration eax ‘won doverpblicatonscomCONTENTS List OF ILLUSTRATIONS /V INTRODUCTION / 1X THE ROMANCE OF THE HortzonTaL/1 Roor, CANTILEVER AND RirT/ 11 A NeW SENSE OF BUILDING ENTIRELY" / 50 Tun COUNTENANCE OF PRINCIPLE / 67 AN Iptocentric WorLp/ 94 Inpex/ 101LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS |. Victorian house. Photo: the author. Prairi landscape. Pho: Joseph J. Pennell, 1502. Courtesy: Kansas Collection, University of Kansas Libsaries. . Projeet for “S Home in a Prarie Town,” Copyright © 1957 The Frank Lloyd Waight Foundation. Courtesy: ‘The Frank Lloyd Wright Archives. “A Hom in Pai Town pla, Ado The Lei? He rc February 1901. Project for Elizabeth Stone summer cottage. From the Wasmuth portfolio of 1910. ‘liesn, Photo: the autho. Project forthe Horseshoe Ion, From the Wasmuth portfolio of 1910. Robie howe, sceond-story plan. From the Wascmith portfolio of 1910. House for the architect. Pho the author Lake Mendota Boathouse. Courtesy: State Historical Society of Wisconsin. Projeet for Yahara River Boathouse. From the Wasmuth portfolio of 1910. WH. Winslow house. From the Wasrnuth portflio of 1910. Cover of Taliesin, 1940... Gasements in the architect's home. Photo: the author. «.. K. C, DeRhades house. From the Wasmuth portfolio of 1910, Casernents, Robie house. Photo: the author ‘Casernents fiom indooss, Robie house, Photo: Aaron Siskind Fallingwates living room. Photo: the author. Basilica to cathedral. From E.-E, Viollet-le-Duc, Diseouries on Architecture, ‘iin, dei of pn fam 1925. Adapted rm The Lf én th Are Architect : Fallingwatey, living room. Pht: the author Darwin D. Matin an! Geoye Baron hows, owe ln. Adapcd fm he ‘Wasmuth portfolio of 1910. . Susan Lavvrenee Dana howe, eas front’ Photo the author FF Tornek house. Photo: the author Hillide Home School. From the Wasmuth potflio of 1910. Hollyhock House, bedroom wing. Photo: the author... Larkin Building, Adapted from the Wasmuth portfolio of 1910, Latkin Build Unity Temple. Copyright © 1962 The Fi “The Frank Lloyd Wright Archives. Unit Jan, Adapted from the Wasmuth porfclio of 1910. nkLoyd Wright Foundation Courtey “Temple, plan. Brom the Wasmuth portfolio of 1910, Temple, narrow light. Photo: the author. ‘Temple, blights. Phot: the ator Iv] B B 15 16 16 i 1 19 19 19 20 20 20 21 2 B 2 25 25 6 26 2 8 2» 2 2» 30UNDERSTANDING FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT'S ARCHITECTURE 56. Unity ‘Temple, auditorium, Photo: Chicago Atchitectural Photographing Com= pany. Courtesy: Art & Architecture Library, University of Michigan Robie house. Photo: Chicago Architectural Photographing Company: Robie house, dining room, Photo: Chicago Architectural Photographing, Company. Ellingwater, guest suite. Photo: the author... ‘Alma Gootsch-Kathrine WineHler house, trellis nfs, Photo: © Leavemvorth Photographics, Inc ‘Biisin, living room. Photo: the author. . , Fallingater, bridge over driveway. Photo: the suthor Same Freeman house, living room, Photo: the ater “ais, livingroom. Photo the author . Taliesin, approach. Photo: the author. . Taliesin, toward entrance. Photo: the author. Taliesin, guest room, Photo: the author. ‘Dliesn, dining aleove. Photo: the author. Freeman house, glass detail. Photo: the author. . Fallingwater, glass detail. Photo: the author. Hollyhock House, ground plan. From The Life Wosk of the American Architect. Avery Coonley house, interior vista. From the Wasmuth portfolio of 1910. Lincoln Memorial Garden, by Jens Jensen. Photo: the author, Dana house, interior vista. Photo: the author : ‘Taliesin, living room. Photo: the author Follingwater, cantilevers. Phot: the author. Dana house, interior vista. Photo: the author Robie house, living-room fireplace. Photo: the author... ‘Table for EW. Little house. Courtesy: The Metropolitan Museum of Ar, Eri C. Chadburne bequest, 1972 (1972.60. 3), Des nd ci for oso Wa Builing Coury Skee, In Dana house, stair landing, Photo: the author. . Dana house, living hall. Photo: the author. Darwin D. Martin house, Courtesy: University Atchives, State University of New York at Buffalo, |. “Three good architects.” From John Ruskin, The Stones of Venice. (Covered bridge. Photo: Peter Brit. Courtesy: Southem Oregon Historical Society. Clasical entblatue. Courtesy: Loyd Allred Hollyhock House, brig. Photo: the authon. din H. Cheney house, Photo the author. (Crane Merial Library, by H. H. Richardson. Photo the author. ane Meneril ia an Adept fom M,C. van Renal, Hey Hen Richardson. Wairsight Building, by Adler &Sullinan’ Photo the ath. CCantilevers in nature, Photo: the author Dane house, entrance. Photo: the author VC. Morr shop entance. Pte: the author. ara house, south front Pato the author. Fountain, by Richard Bock with Wright. Pho the author {vil 31 32 3 4 ¥ 35 36 % 3 38 38 0 40 41 41 2 B 4 4 4 45 46 467 % 7. 8h 8 8 87 88. 89, 9, 91. 92, 8 %. 96, 77, 98, 100, 101. 02 103, nt 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 10, mL nz 1B. TOF ILLUSTRATIONS Pett Memorial Chapel. Photo: the author. . Henry |All heats. Photo: the author. Gasgeniin Meu, penpetve dy Coprght © 1862 The Fak Lod Wight Foundation. Courtesy: ‘The Fiank Lloyd Wright Archives. : Wrights signature. Copyright © 1995 The Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation. Fallingvater, section. Courtesy: Avery Library, Columbia Univesity Lowell Walter house. Ptr the author |. B, Harkey Bradley house. Photo: Chieago Architeetaral Photographing Campany Gourtey: Art & Architecture Library, Univesity of Michigan. Bradley house, plan. Adaped fra the Wasmmth pestolio of 1910 ‘Bradley hous, living room. Courtesy: The Frank Loyd Wright Archives... Frank Thomas house. Copyright © 1986 ‘The Frank Lloyd Weight Foundation. Courtesy: The Frank Lloyd Wight Archives. ‘Thomas house, plan. Adapted from the Wasnt porto of 1910. ‘Thomas house, “demitasie.” Phot: the author. Ward W Willits house. Phofo: Chicago Architectural Photoaphing Company Gur Ar Architects Lisa, Unies of Michigan Willits house, detail, Photo: the autho... : Wills house, plan. Adopted from the Wasrmith portil Hilde Home School. Courtesy ‘Phe Frank Lloyd Wi Hilde Hore Seboal, detail of plan. Adapted fiom the Wastouth potttio of 1910. Cheney house. From the Wismuth portolio of 1910... Cheney house, plan, Adapted from the Wasrnth porte of (10 Vahara River Boathouse project. Frean the Wasi portilio of 1910. t. Robie house, south front. Pho: Richard Nickel. Robie hous, west ckvation. Courtesy: Richard Tiss Hallyhock House, study: Courtesy: Cily of Los Angeles Ctra Aflats Deantinent Halyhock Hous, rooftop vistas. Courtesy ‘The Fk Lloyd Wright Archives Halshock Hose, narrow light. Peto: the author... - Halyhock House, garden court. Courtesy The Frank lloyd Wight Archives Freeman house, living oom. Photo: the author Freeman house, ail bometic. Historic Amencan Buildings Survey Courtens The Library of Congress Cantilever office tower From the Architectural Record, October 1928, Comin © 1928 by MeGraveHill, Ine... Goorly house, plan. Adapted ftom Aucgefitirte Bauten, Berlin, 19L1. Goxtsch-Wineket hese. Photo: @ Lenenworth Photographs, Ine. ‘Stanley Rosenbaum house, living ream, Photo: the author. Herbert Jacobs house. Photo: the autho. : Fallingwater, Photo: the author Rock sttire cn Bear Ruo, Pats the aux Fallingvatr, from the southeast. Phot: the author Robie house, For the southeast Photo: Chicago Architctial Photographing Com- pany. Robie house, rickwovk Phot: the author. Fallingvater, stonework. Photo: the author. Fallingwale, reading aleve. Photo the author vilUNDERSTANDING FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT'S ARCHITECTURE 14 M5. M6. n7, us. 119, 120, 121 122 1B. Lee as. 126. iD. Fallingwater, skylight ard hatch, Photo: the autho. Fallingvate, terraces. Photo: the author... Fallingvater, toward entrance. Photo: Harold Corsini. Courtey: Westem Pennsyhva- nia Conservaney. - Fellingwater, ft floorplan. Couztery:Avexy Libary, Gauri Univers Johnson Was Building, Photo: the author Johor Wax ug, pia scion, Copnight © 1979 The Frank lord Wight Rourdation, Courtesy: The Frank Lloyd Wright Archives, Jobson Was Building, great workroot. Peto: the author Guggenheim Museum. Photo: the author...» Gaggenhcim Muscum, preliminary sein. Copstght © 1985 The Frank Loyd Wright Foundation. Courtsy‘The Fak Hoye Wight Archives Guggenheim Moscur, interior. Photo: the author... Wright at ‘Taliesin. Photo: Hedrich-Blessing. Courtesy: Chicago Historical Soci Midnay Gardens Copyright © 1987°The Frank Lloyd Wight ordtion Courtesy The Frank Loyd Wight Archives... Coro Orchard cotage. Adkipted for the Wasmath patil of 1910 ‘aiesin Photo: the autho (vii 1 8 88 8 0 0 oO 2 2 % 95 BaeINTRODUCTION The literature about Frank Lloyd Wright, now so vast, remains largely unsatisfactory. Waight fought for principles, not mnere details or idioxynetaies, and yet very few commen- taries even ask what those principles might be. What ingpized his work? Hew did his architecture mature? What are the dynamics of ts characteristic expression? Why will the formative principles always be valid? ‘Observations about Wright commonly fal to reach any understanding of his art. Such formulations as “flowing space” and “ribbon windows” and “overhanging eaves” persist not only as clichés but as insipid, inaccurate, worthless lite phrases, Plainly ‘enough, space isnot liquid and does not flow; instead, itis moved through, bodily or with the eyes, imagination and memory: The noble spaces in Wrights architecture consist oF ighly strctuned vstas—oblique perspectives that change with cach slight shift or turn and lure the mind toward what is just out of sight. A “ribbon window” ought to describe only @ narrow, unpunetuated, snwoth surfice of gkss. But the windows in Wright's buildings are both vital and articulate; they open outward and break fice from the uniform plane. The words “overhanging eaves,” apatt from their obvious redundancy, cannot begin to suggest the shecr generative energy of projection in his roofs and cornices ‘Tobegin aftesh with Wright isto reject the aecurmulated burden of received opinion, allthe academic theories that pretend to explain his architecture from presumed methods and sources, whether from the Froebel kindergarten toys is mother so proudly claimed cdi for giving him (although he was alecaly nine years ald), or the Arts and Crafts movement, the Vienna Secession, manipulations of grid systems or tartan plaids into ground plans, playful exercises in pure abstiaction (clearly in advance of Cubism, but somehow dependent on European modernism for validation), archetypal memories or sophomoric Freudian syrbels, arcane literary allusions or even dreamlike condensations ‘of meifs cunningly harvested from the whole history of architecture (as fan art on this order could have been constructed upon a foundation of footnote) Ta respond to cach of those theories would only compound the pedantry beyond which Wight never fis o soar. Goethe remarked the absurdity of scholars who avoid the living concept to concem themselves merely with what others have sad about it Ott von Simson writes in The Gothic Cathedral that those who overtate and oversimplify such assumed influences, seeking in art history a consistent and predictable course, take the sure road to misunderstanding all that is significant, original and authentic. Nothing. more diecty kills the productive capcety in art, said Schelling, than a concentration on ‘memory. Or, a8 Fope nicely put it Where beams of warm imagination play, The memory’ soft figures melt away. ix]UNDERSTANDING FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT'S ARCHITECTURE Much that has been published about Weight’ life and work remains trivial, repeti- tive or ilevant. Critical inquiry too quickly gives way to historical narrative, history lapses into biography, and, to pander to what Plato called the ignorant snultitude, biography descends into rurmor and gossip ‘The ar itself goes unexamined Buildings stand still, but Wright could invest them with the force of movement and with an aesthetic integrity that evoked organic growth. ‘The visual dynamics of his work will be understood only after the informing principles have been grasped. Wright always meant tobe an exemplar, not teacher. Avers to school and rule, he said it was not his task to assessor interpret his own works moreover, he was intensely competitive and thus far from eager to expose his innermost procedure. His writing grew discursive and too often beside the point. Henec his words nced to be sifted and weighed with ear, sifed again and always tested against the evidence of the eye. Then they wil help to identify the principles that give hisarchitecture not only its extraordinary vigor of structure an form, expression and meaning, but its surprising continuityTHE ROMANCE OF THE HORIZONTAL ‘Surely itwas from Louis H. Sullivan, the architect he most espected other than himself, that Frank Lloyd Wright gained for his art its purpose and its probity. Paradoxically, he needed nothing at all from Sullivan’s architecture. Echoes of Sullivan's work in fact diminished Wright’ early buildings, just as Waight’s work later produced a backwash Sullivans, This complex elation between master and pupil Wright came to describe with ‘eat poignancy inthe memoir he tied Genius and the Mabocracy. What had Sullivan, then, thet proved of such consequence for Wright? Three things: an undiluted concept of the architect as an arts, a high intelletual regard for nature ane fervent deste to create for America an architecture of its own, Thus diceted in his life's work, Wright could revere the master as a man of great principle avd at the same time submit the master’s architecture to the most unsparing of critiques. No one saw Sullivan's weaknesses s0 cleatlyzs Wright. “The buildings he hes leftwith us for brief time,” Weight sai, “are the leat of him," Despite the abiding affection he professed for nature, Sullivan found the natural snatrials of building inet and inoxganic. They had fo be “organized and vitalized,” he ‘wrote, “in order that a weal building may exist.” Sullivan had litle empathy forthe inherent virtues of material, ther distinctive strengths and diferent voices. Wright saw that he treated brick, stone, wood, iron and plaster as fall were the same, and al destined to be impressed with the fluent and often florid orarentation best lf to baked clay, or terracotta, To regard architecture asa triumph of spirit over matter, Wright sid, as to assume a fake and fatal division ofthe house against els °A grester triumph will be snsn's when he triumphs through the nature of matter over the superstition that separates him from its spin.” An architect, said Wright, should train himself to see that every rnsterial posuestes& poctry of its own, hence becomes its own omamentation and even suggcats the appropriate proportions for a building. Sullivan considered architecture a spititualization of mates, but Weight saw its the materialization of sist. As early as 1900, the architect Robert C. Spencer, Je, wrote that Wrights ecling forthe sources of beauty in materials was extraordinary. And in 1924, at the very end of his life, Sullivan Wight, in AtoignpyNen Vek, 193), p. 269 alo see Gensel the Mabry (Nes Yk, 19), sim, 1)UNDERSTANDING FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT'S ARCHITECTURE graciously conceded that Weight possessed “an apprehension ofthe materia, so delicate as to border on the mystic, and yet remain codrdinate with those facts we call real life.”= Nor dd Sullivan give much attention tothe other fundamental aspects of architec- ture: the structural system and the effects of space. The imaginative and eccentric R. M. Schindler, who fora few years worked for Waight, once deserbed Sullivan 2s an architect “who has not yet understood completely the third dimension,” Wright himself wondered about Sullivan's preoccupation with plstcity in ornament. “Why 2 prineple working in the part,” he asked, “if no living in the whole?” Moreover, the obvious naturalism of the make-believe plant forms in Sullisan’s ornament betrayed a preliminary stage in the imitation of nature. Sullivan thus left himself vulnerable, Wright said, to an “insidious sentimentality.” An imagination thet cou stay within the realm of geometric invention vwas bound to be more architectonic. Weight also discerned that Sullivan lacked an awareness of the implications of the machine in architecture and feiled to see in plate lass, sec and reinforced coneete the latent poetics of te modem. The ancient tration ofthe masonry ach stil seemed to Sullivan the most eligible and emotional of stractural principles? Undiminished by all those shortcomings, Sullivans force of character gave Wright every encouragement to hold nature in the highest esteem. At his distant country retreat in Mississippi, for which Wright had designed the simple cottage and stables, Sullivan lived almost engulfed by plant life, and in Kindergarten Chats, bis most important book, he continually preached 2 nature doctrine. Nature provided 2 metaphor “infinite of interpretation.” Nature signified fertility, chastity, strength, generosity, beauty, mobility, subtlety and serenity. Nature's powers and deeds possessed “exquisite logic.” And nature remained the “one unfailing source.”“To have removed man from nature, Sullivan said, was the great exime of education: The great minds may go to the great cities but thoy are not (generally speak- ing) born ane bred in the great cities. In the formation ofa great mind, @ simple mind, 2 master mind, solitude is prerequisite; for such a mind is mur- tured in contemplation, and strengthened in it. tn the quiet, in the silence, alone with itself and Natine. .. . All great thought, all great ideas, all great impulses, are born in the open ai, close to Nature, and are nursed, all un- known, all unsuspeeted, upon Nature's bosom.* In most of what Wright read he found the maste’s thoughts confirmed, indeed prefigured. ‘The outdoor spirit—particulaly if opposed to the squalor of the modem industrial eity—was very much in the ait. For one, Ruskin wrote that “the Power of ‘human mind had ils growth in the Wilderness,” and he recommensied that an architect Kindergarten Chas 1918] Dene prin, New Vek, 179.140; Ble Brel and Frank Llord What Avchitecare and Mare Life ew Yok, 1997, pl, and Wight "nthe Case of ‘Archtostre: The Mani of Matera Stare,” the Aretual Rezid 3 (Apel B28}, p 355; Sulla, Relist Ryo Diaster the Archecta Red 35 (Ry 1920, 111, “esther Meo. Viena te Lee Angee. Too ume Sante Morea, Cait, 1979 p30, ae Weht, An Autobegephi 9p 146, 103, Silva, Kiniguren Cots, pp $8,108,201, 133, 159,196 112 (2)THE ROMANCE OF THE HORIZONTAL “Five as litle in cities as a painter” Nietasche warned that in the mice ofthe city “great thoughts are boiled alive andi cooked fill they are small.” Thoreau gave thanks for the “indescribable innocence and beneficence of Nature.” Whitman pronounced democracy the younger beather of nature Now sce the secret of the making of the best persons, It's to grow in the open air and to eat and sleep with the earth.* ‘The more that Wright read, the more he saw his adolescence in a new light; now he ‘could look back to bis lang summers on the family farmlands of southern Wisconsin not simply as a time of hard work and moral growth but as an intimate introduction to the aesthetics of nature. Nature—whether in microcosm or in landscape—achieved the absolute repose of “destiny fulfilled.” Creatures, trees, flowers and weeds, Wright said, flourished 2s glorious exemplars of organized form. Ifthe organic approach to art was as ‘old as Aristotle, it could nonetheless inspire every generation with fresh energies. Weight beard Sullivan talk of nature's eloquence of organization, and he already knew the words of Viollet-le-Duc: Nature, inal her wors, has stile, because, however varied her productions may be, they are always submitted fo laws and invariable principles. ‘The lilies ofthe fie, the leaves ofthe trees, the insects, have style, because they grow, develop, ata exist according to essentially logical laws. We cam spare nothing from a flower, because, in its organization, every part has its func- tion and is formed to earry out that function in the most beautiful manner. Style resides inthe true and well-understood expression ofa principle, and hot in an immutable form; therefore, as nothing exists in nature without a principle, everything in nature must have style Wight could se that nature had nothing to do with fashion but always attained style, or what he deseribed as the poetic expression of intrinsic charaeter—“the result ofan organic working out ofa project in character and in one state of feeling,” Measured against such a standard, American architecture appeared incoherent. “The average desire,” Wright said as ealy 2 1894, “seems to be to build something which will ear on itshind legs and paw the air in order that you may seem more important than your neighbor.” Most buildings of the Victorian era conspicuously insulted the land upon which they so awkwardly stood Fig. I), Victorian atchitecture, Wright wrote later, was failed architecture: What was the mater with the house? Well, just fora beginning it led about cverything. It had no sense of unity at all nor any such sense of space as ‘Joh Rakin, The Seren Lape of Arter London, 1849, o. 1, 99 FW. Netsche, Ths Spe arahstra 18892, Wales Kayan New Yor, 160), p17 Hey Davsl Thoreau, Wer 874, [LM Krath (Now Yer 1962)» 207. Wale Wintran "Song he Open Road” 1885 n Th Portable Wal Whomen, of Maa Ven Dorn New York, 173) p13. 13]1. Vieorion house on the prairie. should belong to a free people. It was stuck up in any fashion . . .. Ta take any one of those so-called homes aay would have improved the laneseape ‘and cleared the atmosphere. So far asthe terms of art the typical Vietorian house looked hopeless; and yet its ruption of bays and turrets, the nooks and rooms that broke off rambunetiously from other rooms, atleast defied the tradition of foursquare, genteel and bexy buildings. Weight ‘ig “APlonpyo Fine AAU), in Called Whiting, 0, BB. ier New York, 192, p43, E-E Valet Dues Ditmas on Arcitestre t Henty an But Benon, 1S), p78, Wight, A Testament (New Vik, 1957}, 225, Augefelete Hauten und Entytfe won Frank Liond Writ (10) ‘Dover rept New Yee Dranbg at Plan of Fen Liye ght The Fal Ped 195100), 108834 Caled ‘Wht, HB, 10 Wight, “The Arctic he Min” B04, Caleta F ‘rghit “Tro Leet on Archetun” 191) in Caletod Wiring, 2 (Now York 192), Pov he pac Vit on Wight, sc ty essay “Pan ol Wight ae Vad k Doe Sacey of Archaeal Historians 78 (October 18), pp. T3183 + mal ef he (41THE ROMANCE OF THE HORIZONTAL faced the task of finding a potent souree of aesthetic discipline fora better species of freedom, Ifthe products of nature presented exemplars of form, what lessons might reside in the landscape itsel Wright discovered the catalyst to new principles of architectural ‘expression only after he chose to invoke the lost praives of the Middle West. This was his finest moment with nature. ‘The prairies had been a strangely open land, devoid of human setlement and altogether lacking in trees or any other features by which to mcasine distance, scale direction. Impressed by such vast expanses of grases and wildflowers, edry travelers often recalled the grandest parks in Pngland, Some worried, however, about a soil that seemed unable to preduce trees; but the prairie earth soon proved exceedingly rich. Its tangles of grassy roots could shatter castiron implements. Setlrs in Hingis used 2s many as eight ‘oxen fora frst plowing, and found that without sowing again they eould harvest a second crop of wheat a forty bushels tothe aere. Reports reached far abroad na one wrote more profoundly of the prairies than a man who had newer seen them, the philosopher Schopenhauer Let us imagine ourselves transported to a very lovely place, with unbroken horizon, under a cloudless sks: . . . Such surroundings ace, as it were, a call to seriousness and contemplation, apart frorn all will and is ravings; but this is just what imparts to such a seene of desolate stillness @ touch ofthe sublime. For, because it affords no object, ether fivorable or unfavorable, for the will, which is eonstantly in need of striving and attaining, there only remains the state of pure contemplation, and whoever i incapable ofthis, is ‘gnominiously abandoned to the vacancy of unoceupied will, and the misery ‘of ennui, So far it isa test of our intellectual worth, of which, generally speaking, the degree of our power of enduring solitude, or our lone of ts & 00d criterion.” ‘The fate of the wild prairie landscape was unhappily forced by its very fertility after the invention ofthe steel plow, what was once touched with the sublime gave way ta the banal economies of agriculture. William Cullen Bryant traveled in nods in 1841, and wrote of a landscape “spreading away on every side until it met the horizon.” Five years Tate, wher he returned, he found “the road for long distances now passed between fences, the road prairie, inclosed, was turned into immense fells of maze, oatsardl wheat.” He also noted that settlers often fll prey to mysterious fevers from which they contracted powerful feelings of guilt Iisa common remark in this country, that the frst cultivation of the earth renders any neighborhood more or less unhealthy. “Nature,” said a westean "Auth Sehopenone. The Wr ot Wi ond Representation, wl 11819, 19) n Pepin oft and Bonu ed. lttaer aa R Kus (zag 68, 463. Stchithe poner oa es unencunere by expen. nthe Critique Att fadeent Kact wits dts besuticirt toons, wilentshurningsocey bsxncthing appre hingrhesine Niece wes gfigaeneseas"o cnn shkence a ae 15]2. Prati londscope, 1902 rman to me, some years since, “resents the violence done her, and punishes those who fist break the surface of the earth with the plough.” Jastas Wright began to find his own voice, atthe turn ofthe century, Hanlin Gatland published his popular reminiscence titled Boy Life onthe Prairie. Garland wrote that by 1884 the landscape of northern Iowa, a state once mote occupied by praises than any other, had become a diferent world. No open prairies could be found and the wildflowers ‘were gone. Wright was born in 1867 and for the most part raised a the edge of the prairies, He witnessed the very years when the virgin landscape disappeared, * ‘Wiliam Cullen yan, Letter of Tel (New Yr, 1850, pp. 55, 262-5, 267, Malin Caan, Bey Lien the Pare Bestn, 1699, 416. Galan book vas popu i eortiaued though ght ens. 161THE ROMANCE OF THE HORIZONTAL From that loss, came the birt of a prairie sprit an afterglow of poetic nostalgia for such seenes of quiet beauty and broad significance a the image of freedom. Before he began to shape his buildings in full eonseiousness ofthe prairie pict, Wright wasa killed and accomplished architect but hardly a great one. In his project to redeem the lost landscape through an architecture conceived as its abstract cquivalent, or analogue, he liscovered the principles that would inform: his at for the res of his life Wright's progress was slow and unsteady and often far from evident, His romance with the landscape began long before he took hold of the principles that became so formative. At fis, he liked to say, he had only been feeling his way, knowing that some better relation between buildings and the land had to be posible. Emerson observed that in every landscape the point of astonishment occurred where earth met sky; but only on the prairie was that intersection so grand and uninterrupted (2) In 1835, a New England merchant journeyed to northern Illinois and noted in his diary what he saw: ‘The country about Chicago, for the distance of twelve niles from the Lake, {is mostly a low prairie covered with grass and beautiful lowers. Southwest fiom the town there is not one tree to be seen; the horizon ests upon the pret Boy Life on the Prairie sounded the same theme. ‘The prairies had been “wide, sunny, ‘windy county,” Garland wrote, where “the sky was so bigand the horizon line so low and so far away.” Louis Sullivan spoke of “a dream bom of the incomparable Lake and the strong, silent, lovely prices.” But it was a dream he never made clear, just as he never made the horizontal the leading motif of his architecture. To regard Sullivan es the founder of a “Prairie Schoo!” would be nothing less than grotesque, Wright wrote in 1915 to Wilhel Miller, who in that year published a tract on the prairie spirit offered free to anyone Ilinois who promised to undertake some permanent omamental planting, Miller la- :mented the los of the wild prairies. “How can men restore lowes and poetic suggestion to land nearly ninety percent of which is tilled?” he asked, His answers came mainly from the landscape architect Jens Jensen, whorn Wright knew: [n public parks and on private states Jensen invoked the prairie spirit by planning broad meadows bordered by native trees, many of whieh responded to the prac horizon inthe stratified disposition oftheir limbs. “For years the message of our great prairies had appealed to me,” Jensen once recalled. “Every kisure moment found me ramping through unspoiled bits of these vast areas. wanled to understand thei force, their enehantment that ealled on and on.” ‘The Prairies had impressed Jensen as early as 1885, wrote Mille, but it was 1901 before he engaged in his frst lange prairie design ‘Wright said he found Jensen to be a lovable soul and one possessed ofa true grasp of alee C. Best, in Prabie State, el. Paul ML Arg (Chicags, 1968), 1H; Cela, By Life the Pri MSilen,Kinegarten Chat, Weigh, Lett Arches, eB. B, Pee (Peso, Cai, 184), 1p, 5 Wiichn Miler he Prine Spr in Lardope Gardening (Ub, 1 115), 3 Fors sen, Sage [1939 Chega, 158), 973 [71UNDERSTANDING FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT'S ARCHITECTURE ‘the “peculiar charm of our prairi landscape.” But he also thought that Jensen imitated nnatuce much too literally, and told him so: I think you would be interested to see how a minority report, such as 1 might bring in with my experience in the study of structural Farin as inter pretation of nature, would compare with yours ‘You arc a realistic lardscapist. | am an abstrationistsecking the pattcm be- hind the realism —the interior structure instead of the comparatively super ficial exterior effects you delight in. n other words Iam a builder. Yoo are an effeetvist using nature’s objects to make your effects, Even at the tum of the century Wright had deplored naturalistic art and its “gasping, poverty of imitative realism.” Architecture was a more useful art and atthe sare time more abstract. It could easily outdistanee what he later would eal the “subgeorvetri.” If the prairie horizon rarely appeared as a straight line, it nonetheless gave birth to the lengthened horizontal—an abstraction with the full poteney ofa generative architec- tural idea." Any house, Wight aid in 1894, should appear tobe partoits site “and nota foreign clement sct up boxise on edge to the utter humiliation of every natural thing in sight” His early work filed to emphasize the horizontal consistently, but only because he had not yet formed a clear idea of how the lost prairies might inspire a new aesthetic. But by 1900 Robert. Spencer, J, could writ ofthe “evident love forthe horizontal dimension and the horizontal line” in Wrights buildings, and note that “long lines ate obtained whenever possible,” Early the next year, with the publication of his project for‘A Home in 4 Praite “Town in the Ladi’ Hone Journal, Wight acknowledged his source [3, # ‘The exterior recognizes the influence ofthe prairie, is firmly and broadly a- sociated with the site, and makes a feature of ils quiet vel. ‘The lw terraces and the broad eaves ave designed fo accentuate that quiet kel and complete the harmonious lationship Wight told his associates in 1903 he was “thoroughly saturated with the spiit of the prairie,” and in the March 1908 issue of the Architectural Record published his clasie statement: ‘We ofthe Middle West ae living on the prairie. The prairie has a beauty of its own and we should recognize and accentuate this natural beauty, its quiet level. Hence, gently sloping roofs, low proportions, quit sky lines, sup- “Wight, Ltrs to Arcitets p22, “Chicago Cale” [1918 in Clete Wiig, ol. ep ISVs Acchtsot, py The At abd Ceo he Msehine 190), sn Caled Writs, vol, p Shean Autebegr inp 2 piste of poem,” Ruskin wis, “oer ite mene than ible rance of man adetion of somaya of hits but eltecue oppoathe ote Toa let ofa, bor of His neces. 2 ‘psec his anu’ se The toes of ene ol. 2 (London, 1859.60. (8)THE ROMANCE OF THE HORIZONTAL Above: 3. Project for “A Home ing Proire Town,” 1900. Right: 4% Home ina Prairie Tow,” lon, pressed lieavyset chimneys and sheltering overhangs, low terraces and out reaching walls sequestring private gardens. In 1910, forthe portfolio of his work printed by Emst Wasmuth in Berlin, Wright wrote that his buildings and projects respected “an ancient tradition, the only one here worthy of respeet—the prairie.” ‘ewig, “The Architect the Machine, 2; Robert Spence, "The Week fin oye Weight,” ‘Arcitecnal Review ne 190), pp 3-47, OF Wr Heme ina ic Tow" Las Home eal 18 (Petar 190) p17; Lote, 1281906, by Chases = Wee om he Stadio Frank ovd Wag, NK Mores Sma, imal of citer Ever 25 (10) 104 gh," the Casneat Aue,” ‘he Achtectrl Record 25 Mareh 908,» 157; Angie Boer und En wif in Caleted Writings, vol. puss 91UNDERSTANDING FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT'S ARCHITECTURE ‘The wild prairies were lost, but the lay of the land stayed the sme; and ifthe prairie horizon forever seemed remote, intangible 2s a rainbow, the long horizontal could be realized instantly as the most elementary mark from pencil and T-square, The basic tools ‘ofarchitectural design, Wright said, suited him perfect. Strictly geometric design could take him beyond his carly imitations of Sullivan’ fechand sty, its simulations of plant life and suggestions of sentimentality, and keep hiso fee s wel from the nostalgia implicit im any celebration ofthe lost landscape. His romance ofthe horizontal would alvays be raled by what he called the “more severe rhythms of point, line and plane.” Hence the lengthened horizontal was never a mere imitation of the prairie. Tt was an idea, a vital abstraction.!? ‘A building impelled by the horizontal took its place on the land with great fai. had an idea it till seems to be my own) thatthe plancs parallel tothe earth in buildings identify themselves with the ground, do most to make the buildings belong to the ground,” Wright said. Parallel horizontals—all horizontals being cither paralle] or