• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Frank Lloyd Wright and the Destruction of the Box Author(s): H. Allen Brooks Source: Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 38, No. 1 (Mar., 1979), pp. 7- 14 Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Society of Architectural Historians Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/989345 . Accessed: 11/09/2011 15:12 By purchasing content from the publisher through the Service you agree to abide by the Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. These Terms and Conditions of Use provide, in part, that this Service is intended to enable your noncommercial use of the content. For other uses, please contact the publisher of the journal. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal. Each copy of any part of the content transmitted through this Service must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. For more information regarding this Service, please contact [email protected]. University of California Press and Society of Architectural Historians are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians. http://www.jstor.org FrankLloyd Wright and the Destructionof the Box H. ALLEN BROO KS Departmentof Fine Art, Universityof Toronto FRANKLLOYD WRIGHT wrote eloquently and often about conceptof interiorspace, and he began this processby the destructionof the box,1 and writersever since have indis- dismemberingthe traditionalbox. criminatelyused such phrases as "open space" and "flow- The Rosshouse (19o02) at DelavanLake will ideallyserve ing space," whether they are discussinginteriors by Wright, to demonstratehow he approachedthe problem.Being Le Corbusier, or any number of zoth-century architects. amongthe earliestof Wright'sprairie houses, changes in it In so doing they reveal basic misconceptions concerning can be notedat a rudimentarystage in theirdevelopment, Wright's achievement:Wright's spaces are more open and andbeing a smallhouse, it is notso difficultto analyseas the flowing than those that existed previously,but they are also morecomplex Willits or Martinhouses of aboutthe same profoundly different both in their design and in their psy- date. And becausethe plan derivesdirectly from a Shingle chological impact from the interiors with which they are Stylehouse, it is easy to compareand contrastdifferences. often associated. FromBruce Price's Kent house (1885) at TuxedoPark When Wright entered the profession late in the i88os Wrightaccepted, in designingthe Ross house, the basic the Shingle Style had largely spent its force. From this style layoutof the plan.Both are cruciformin shape,both have he inherited the idea of using generous openings between the same dispositionof similarrooms, and both have a principalrooms and of occasionally basing his layout upon characteristicU-shaped veranda around the front (Figs.I an axial or cruciform plan. Until about 19oo this exerted and z). Differentbut essentialis the subtlespatial relation a considerable influence on his work. in Wright'sdesign between the diningand the livingrooms. But Shingle Style planning did not call into question the Wrightattacked the traditional room at its pointof great- basic concept of the room. The four walls, joined at the est strength-atthe corner.He dissolvedthe cornerbetween corners, and the uniform floor and ceiling remained; the the diningand living rooms at the Rosshouse by permitting room continuedto be a box. What had changedwas the de- one room to penetrateinto the other.If the living room gree of openness between the rooms and this was achieved walls are extendedto theirpoint of contact,the corneris by increasingthe size of the door (the hinged door gave way at the diningroom table. A similarextension of the dining to a sliding door, or might be eliminated altogether) until room walls makesa cornerlocated well withinthe living it approachedthe size of the wall itself. The specific organi- room.At a primarylevel, therefore, both rooms are making zation and use of the room was not affected. What one use of an areawithin the otherroom's space; this is totally gained was a sense of spaciousnesswhile looking from room differentfrom Shingle Style space (Fig.3). In addition,the to room. What one lost was a sense of privacy. areaof overlapserves as a connectingspace (the corridor Wrightrealized this. He also saw that room specialization or doorway)between the rooms.Thus Wright obtains sev- exceeded realistic limits with each social or family function eral usesout of this singlespace and he can reducethe size requiringa separateroom. In effect, one box, neatly labeled, and cost of the houseby that amount-withoutmaking the was placed beside another and a series of these boxes made houseseem any smaller. up the home. This was nothing new; the room as a box This, when demonstrated,is a simpleidea (most great had been a western tradition since earliest times. It was a ideas are simple ones) yet in its ultimateimplications it situation that Wright inherited, yet he soon redefined the is one of the most important"discoveries" ever made in architecture. In Wright'swork, space loses its fixedvalue and acquires a relativeone. In the sensethat it i. most concise discussion of the box will be found in dependsupon experience Wright's and An Autobiography, New York, Duell, Sloan & Pearce, 1943, 141- observation,this is empiricalspace, contingent upon 142 in the section "Building the New House." the viewer rather than possessing an independentreality of 7 8 Den. Porch. T Dining Room. Hall. ............. Parlor. L!V O 7 VIRkNDA, Terrace. 0o N D L ; U .O~Q,7 u Nr O ~LGC:C . Fig. i. Frank Lloyd Wright, Charles S. Ross house, Delavan Lake, Fig. z. Bruce Price, William Kent house, Tuxedo Park, NY, 1885, WI, 190oz,plan (Hitchcock, In the Nature of Materials). plan (Sheldon, Artistic Country-Seats,1886-1887). its own. It relates to individuals and their changing position already at the Ross house Wright began manipulating the within that space. height of the ceiling in order to enhance the activities taking The visual space in the Ross house extends well beyond place underneath. The dotted line on the plan indicates a the point of overlap between two rooms. Unlike the vista higher ceiling in the front-center of the living room-the in the Shingle Style house, it is diagonal, not face-to-face. area where one normally stands. Near the fireplace, along As a result, Wright gains more privacy and variety. The the windows of the outside walls, and in the dining room- view into the neighboring room is restricted, and changes all places where one normally sits-the ceiling height is markedly as one moves from place to place. lower. Outside corners were more difficult for Wright to elimi- The axonometric sketch, Figure 4, clarifies what has been nate, yet once he got rid of them his "invisible corners" (of said. To the left is what Wright set out to destroy, a house mitered glass) became one of the hallmarks of the modern made up of a series of boxes, each placed beside or above movement. In the Ross house he took a major first step the other, and each with its single specialized use. Enlarging in this direction. The glazed doors leading to the veranda the openings between contiguous boxes (as in the Shingle are set flush against the corner, visually eliminating the right Style) created a sense of greater openness, but if carried too angle at this point. As one looks down the length of the far, the smaller rooms would merge and become a single lateral walls one's sight is not stopped at the corner but larger room with one relinquishing its identity to the other passes outside through the doors. At the other end, the left (a process that again produces a series of boxes). hand wall has no visible inside corner where it dissolves The axonometric at the right indicates Wright's first step into the dining room. It is beginning to assume the character in destroying the box. He interlocks two rooms so that of a freestanding slab. When Wright completely freed the part of each space is given over to the other. The corners wall from its corners, it did become a slab, and once it (the least useful part of the room) are destroyed and a became a slab he was free to move it around or divide it up controlled view into the adjacent area is opened up. This at will. When this happened, the room as a box was de- view, which is diagonal and pinched at the point of inter- stroyed. lock, is limited and leaves much of the adjoining area Yet boxes have tops and bottoms as well as sides, and obscure, introducing a sense of mystery into the spatial se- 9 ;??'??:~:::: ?'?? ??.. ?.: C .'II :.? ?. ~ ?\:?'\ .?,: ?' -?I:I,??i ~'t?'~?? ?.-Ir ???? ~ i I 1???I:. ?- ?? ?;?? ?. ?? " " ri -? :: r.? r\ .. i ?~?~?;?i?,'?I~. \ ':5rr??\::? ?:h .. `418 A ;? x: Fig.3. ShingleStyle vs. FrankLloyd Wright. Left: typical Shingle Fig. 4. Left: typical house composed of box-like rooms. Right: Style plan with large openingsbetween the principalrooms. Wright's first step is destroying the box. Rooms are interlocked, Right:in a Wrighthouse, one room penetratesinto the other, usually at the corners, with each relinquishingpart of its space at the corners. to the other. Sometimes this occurs at different levels creating A, B, and C show the angle of vision, taken from identical balconies, split-levels, and varying floor and ceiling heights. The positions,into the neighboringroom. Wright achieves more pri- corner has been dissolved (author). vacyand variety. Roomdimensions in thesetwo plansare identical (author). quence. Mystery is an essential element in Wrightianspace; he never resolves all visual questions at once; rather he p k holds in reserve something to be examined later.

Load more

  9

Copy Link