Frank Lloyd Wright and Cubism - Essay Example

Frank Lloyd Wright Frank Lloyd Wright and Falling water Frank Lloyd Wright and Cubism: A Study in Ambiguity Falling water also known as Kaufmann Residence is one of the works of Frank Lloyd. This house was built in 1935 and it was located in rural Pennsylvania south east of Pittsburgh. The beautiful residence was built over the Bear run water fall found in the Laurel highlands of Allegheny Mountains. On its completion it was regarded as the most beautiful job by wright and it was listed among the Smithsonian’s life list of places to visit before one dies. In 1966 it was designated to a Historic landmark (Engel, 1967). In 1991 it was considered as the best all time work and skill of American architecture by the American institutes of Architects. In 2007 the residence was ranked 29 in the America Favourite architecture by the AIA. Frank was given this opportunity at the age of sixty seven by Edgar Kaufmann who was an established businessman. Fallingwater part1: Materials-conservation efforts at Frank Lloyd Wright’s Masterpiece Fallingwater Part 1: Materials-Conservation Efforts at Frank Lloyd Wrights Masterpiece analyzes the conservation measures that were used in the erection of the Fallingwater building. The reviving of the query to supply rocks that were to be used in the construction was one of the ways of coming up with the building that bet all odds and today stands as a tourist attraction site. The Falling water clearly depicts Wrights passion for Japanese architecture which mainly involves sensibility of space. The design of the falling water places harmony between nature and human beings. The fire place integrates with the boulders found on the surrounding site and the ledge rock protrudes through the living room to the root also brings out the link between the inside and outside. He majored in the interpenetrating the interior and external spaces. He has connected the site with the house and even includes the sounds from the waterfall. He waxed the floors and left the hearth plain creating impression of rocks protruding from a river. This shows Wright’s prowess and exceptional skill in integrating the details of his design. His unique skill is also shown in the mixing and blending of the colours. The colours he used in painting the house blends well with the natural surrounding environment (Toker, 2007). This also brings out the harmony of the residence and the environment. This architectural design shows that Wright had a keen understanding of structural properties of the materials and he could also reflect and implement structural ideas. Smaller details are revealed through integration. This can be evident from the fact that there is absence of metallic frames in areas where the glass windows and linings meet the stone of the building. The main tactic that was used in this model was the running of horizontal dividers on stonework consisting of caulked recess. This tactic was able to achieve the effect of the stone walls appearing to be glazing without distinctions in terms of separations between the windows and the stone wall. Another interesting architectural style that is remarkable in this building is the cantilevered stairway that leads to the stream below. The unique positioning of this house made it a spectacle enjoying various things that nature provides, which included a stream below and the trees that gave it a nice ambience. The type of stone and the way it was layered achieved maximum attention and it emitted an ambience and aura of class, complemented with expansive windows and balconies. This building had a remarkable touch of skill during its construction. When it was deeded to the public, it remains a tourist attraction sites where movies or clips are shown to visitors at the end of their trips around Pennsylvania. Experiencing Architecture: Teacher Residency at Fallingwater From the Archives: Edgar J. Kaufmann, Jr., Fallingwater, and the Museum of Modern Art, the Fallingwater is a building that has had its mark ion the architectural scenery. Its elongated beams and engraved sheathes glass to the stone wall have become a modern day icon of reckon. Many teachers have preferred to host their students in this particular building, especially when they visit Pennsylvania. They come to watch various documentations and preview the architectural work that was involved in coming up with the building. Various challenges are highlighted which are previewed below. The major challenge faced was not the fact that Wright chose a location, but the main challenge was building the house in the location he had chosen. The chosen site was at the northern bank of the bear Run. It provided a limited amount of space to build a firm foundation for the building. Other than the construction challenges that were already prevalent, there was the customer’s needs, preferences and expectations about the building that were also a challenge. One of them is that Kaufmann wanted to host very large groups of visitors. The space that was available the building site could not accord this type of design but something had to be done. After the buildings blue prints were approved, materials started being collected. One major move was the reopening of an old rock query in December 1935 at the western side of the site so as to supply stones for the construction of the building’s walls. However, there were conflicts that arose after the house had been constructed. Kaufmann was no pleased with what the contractor had done. Besides, Wright who was the building architect also expressed his discontent in the building and requested Kaufmann to return the architectural designs back to him. Kaufmann relented to this orders and the engineer’s evaluation reports were buried in one of the stone walls of the house. The stonemasonry of the bridge that had been built did not fit Kaufmann’s preferences therefore he ordered it to be rebuilt. An upside down beam that was T-shaped was used to form the ceiling and helped to reduce any form of concentration that would be exerted on the building. This beam was therefore integrated with a concrete slab that was monolithic. Walter Hall, who was the contractor, insisted on reinforcing steel on the floor of the first slab to add on the resistance of the top floor in cases where the pressure would be much for the building to handle (Jerome, Weiss,& Ephron, 2006) . The amount of reinforcement was quietly reinforced by the contactor, who understood the risks of the building if Mr Kaufmann was going to use it as he had stated it previously. The contractor ignored the building of the slight upward inclination shape on the building. This was to act as a compensation for the deflection and settling of the cantilever. The removal of the concrete formwork led to the development of the cantilever which was noticeable sag. When Wright came to inspect the building, he discovered that Kaufmann had the constructor had made major modifications in his plan. On their defence, Kaufmann explained to the architect that there modifications were relevant and there was no large deviation from the original plan. Whatever they added had been able to with stand various rests that had been performed on the building to ensure that it would achieve its purpose without any fears of collapse. The main house got completed in 1937. References Engel, M. (1967). Frank Lloyd Wright and cubism: a study in ambiguity. American Quaterly, 24-38. Mims, S. K. (1993). Experiencing Architecture: Teacher Residency at Fallingwater. Art Education, 19--24. Pamela Jerome, N. W. (2006). Fallingwater Part 2: Materials-Conservation Efforts at Frank Lloyd Wrights Masterpiece. APT Bulletin, 3-11. Toker, F. (2007). Fallingwater Rising: Frank Lloyd Wright, E. J. Kaufmann, and Americas Most Extraordinary House. Pittsburgh: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group. Read More