Discussing Frank Lloyd Wright’s Understanding of Nature as a Theorist and as a Practicing Architect.

(Essay from BA Architecture, Second Year)

Frank Lloyd Wright was an architect and theorist of the 20th century, who revolutionised American architecture and continues to have a profound effect on how architecture is today. Born in Wisconsin in 1867, he lived predominantly between Wisconsin and Arizona until his death in 1959, though his career started in Chicago, Illinois. His style of organic architecture came from his beliefs in nature; not only the physical environment, but also the true nature of a thing or person, including the nature of America, the nature of man and the nature of materials. Wright’s goal was to create an architecture indigenous to America, for he was unhappy with the ‘copycat’ architecture of the time. He believed this architecture must reflect nature in all aspects. His influences came initially from the childhood in the countryside and his mother’s teachings. Later influences came from poets and philosophers, rather than other architects, such as the 19th century philosophers John Ruskin and Ralph Waldo Emerson, whose thinking about nature shaped many of Wright’s ideas. These inspirations, along with his beliefs in the importance of nature in architecture, gave him a radically different approach to his contemporaries. He never academically qualified as an architect, dropping out from university before he could graduate. His unfinished education proved no hindrance however, and throughout his career he designed more than one thousand structures, of which over five hundred were built, mostly residences (Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation, no date). One such house was the Robie House in Chicago, seen in Figure 1; an innovative example of Wright’s first, ‘truly American’ architectural style, which best displays Wright’s understandings of nature and architecture.

In this essay, Wright’s understanding of nature will be broken down into his different beliefs and consequential theories, that will showcase his clever understanding of the meaning of nature. Figure 2 helps the reader to visualise this. Firstly, nature as the physical environment: in structure, geometry and ornament. And secondly, nature as the identity of something: as in the nature of America, man, and materials. The Robie House will be used to demonstrate how best he presents these philosophies of nature within his architecture.

Firstly, nature as the physical environment. A fundamental tenet of Wright’s architectural theory and practice was his belief that nature was structural and geometric. This understanding started in his childhood, where he was strongly influenced by the curriculum of the ‘Froebel Kindergarten’, as taught by his mother (Wright, 1954). This education system, created by the naturalist philosopher Friedrich Froebel, was centred on design and underpinned by a philosophy that one must learn from nature’s own geometry, structure and pattern (Froebel Gifts, no date). Wright was given wooden blocks to play with atop a unit-grid table. These were the very building blocks for Wright’s understanding of Nature as Geometry.

As Wright started work as a draftsman and began his own career, advancements in technology led to new architectural ambitions. Specifically, the invention and subsequent embracement of steel made it possible to successfully build large cantilever systems (Science Encyclopaedia, no date). The Robie House was Wright’s first house to use this cantilever system. He wanted to represent the structure and geometry of the natural environment and felt that the cantilever was an effective way to do this. His interpretation can be seen in Figure 3. The suspended line could be seen everywhere in nature, such as in the branches of a tree or petals of a flower (Hoffmann, 1986). Thus began his obsession with both the cantilever and the horizontal line. In the Robie House, Wright uses a number of cantilevered roofs, so emphasising the horizontal of each storey, and further exaggerating the effect by extending the horizontal underfoot with balconies and porches (Hoffmann, 1984). Not only is the horizontal line used at a large-scale, but it is accentuated throughout, down to the minutest detail. Roman bricks are used in the masonry, as they are longer and slimmer than conventional bricks, highlighting the horizontal (Connors, 1984). Moreover, the vertical mortar joints are concealed, making them disappear, so reiterating the effect as demonstrated in Figure 4. Horizontal stone trim on the exterior of the building further diminishes the vertical, so that the house in elevation looks like a stack of long, thin, rectangular blocks. One could even compare this geometric clarity with the Froebel blocks Wright played with in his Kindergarten days.

Geometry can also be seen in Figure 5, in the aerial view of the Robie House. In its simplest form, you can clearly see two rectangles, placed adjacent and parallel, but offset, to one another, in a grid-like formation similar to the worktop from his Kindergarten days. However, the two rectangles differ in size, and the asymmetry of this design likely reflects Wright’s belief that nature is not flawlessly symmetrical (Hoffmann, 1986). Philosopher John Ruskin, who influenced some of Wright’s ideas about nature and symmetry, approached the topic differently. He believed symmetry in architecture to be of high importance, as it reflected the beauty of nature (Ruskin, 1849). Wright believed that it was the asymmetry of his designs that best reflected nature (Hoffmann, 1986).

Wright’s opinion of symmetry changes at a smaller scale, as he believed nature to be symmetrical when inspected close up (Hoffmann, 1986). This can be seen in the simple, geometric ornamentation of the Robie House: by his use of the square, with two axes of symmetry, and the circle, which is symmetrical from all angles. Ruskin and Wright both believed in the importance of simple geometry; Ruskin believed the square and the circle to be “areas of power” for sublime architecture (Ruskin, 1849), whereas Wright believed they imitated nature’s structure. He even uses both in his personal insignia, though he later simplified the design to just a square (Hoffmann, 1986).

Indeed, these single shapes, seen as motifs in the ornamentation throughout the house, are indicative of Wright’s next major theory; his belief that one of the best ways of reflecting nature was in ornament. He believed that within nature’s irregularities was structured pattern, and that ornament should display this organisation, thus ‘integral ornament’ (Wright, 1971). This shows again the influence of the Froebel Kindergarten system, as nature was broken down into simple shapes and blocks. The motif of the circle within a square can be seen in Figure 6; internally in the light fixtures, and externally in the large flower urns. The square alone, is rotated and repeated throughout the home, as seen the ventilation shafts, the chair detailing, and as a pattern on the carpet (Hoffmann, 1984). Wright also used patterns of repeating verticals in the ornamentation, to accentuate the “horizontal drama” (Hoffmann, 1986:22) of his design, seen in the casement windows, the decorative glass and the internal wooden screens. According to Wright, ornamentation must be functional, so practical items such as doors and windows were included as ornament (Wright, 1954). The vertical lines he created in the interiors, match up one horizontal line to another, reinforcing the horizontal and creating clean-cut, purposeful geometry (Hoffmann, 1986). In Figure 7, the verticals on the walls join in a line across the ceiling, like another horizontal in a different plane. The vertical lines are also repeated in the high backs of the dining room chairs, also seen in figure 7, also sorely compromising comfort for aesthetics. Wright also believed that nature itself should be the ornament of a building, and incorporated planting into his schemes, seen externally on trellises, in pots and draped around the walls (Hoffmann, 1986). For example, the large urns at the Robie House were added to the design to present the flowers of the surrounding Prairie. This also reinforces the link between the building and the surrounding environment.

Secondly, his understanding of nature also came from the true essence of a thing or person, namely the nature of materials, the nature of man and the nature of America. America’s true nature was the first of his philosophies of this kind. As an American architect, the nature of America as a new nation, was crucial to his organic architecture. Wright was distraught with the American buildings of the late 19th century, deeming the architecture to be just an imitation of Europe, incorporating nothing of the American physical or cultural landscape (Wright, 1954). He believed that America was ‘reborn’ in its Independence in 1776, and with America’s subsequent “fresh cultural life” (Wright, 1954:171), a new architecture was needed. This new, indigenous architecture would reflect America’s true nature, one of democracy and freedom. Furthermore, in the origins of the word nature, the etymological root is the French Latin word ‘natura’, meaning birth (English Oxford Living Dictionaries, no date). This establishes another link between nature and America’s ‘rebirth’, in which Wright so sacredly believed.

The cantilever, in addition to expressing the horizontal line, was used by Wright as a tool for emphasising freedom, as it appears to be floating free in space. It also ‘belonged’ to the new cultures of America, as a reinvention of the 20th century. The cantilevered roof of the Robie House thus expressed freedom, and it also offered new freedoms in shelter, creating exterior space that is both light and airy but protected from the rigours of the environment (Wright, 1952). Wright talks about this outside space becoming “a natural part of space within the building” (Wright, 1954:218). According to Wright, the cantilever is the embodiment of depth, and brings the exterior into the interior and vice versa, connecting the two (Wright, 1954). Wright believed the interior space to be the most important, and responsible for shaping the character of a building (Wright, 1954). His focus on freedom is further reflected within the Robie House. In Figure 8, the living and dining areas are combined to create a large expanse of free-moving space, although the spaces each have their own distinctive features, as defined by the furniture and carpets (Hoffmann, 1984).

Another key theory of Wright’s spiritual understanding of nature was of man’s true nature. According to Wright, man’s true nature was his spirit and his spirit was organic, as organic meant intrinsic, from within (Wright, 1954). Each individual is like no other, especially a free man. For Wright, this idea of individuality also needed to be expressed within architecture. A building should be reflective of nature, but it should also represent mankind, as it is built for human use. The prevailing architecture of the time, with philosophies of grandeur or with its roots in religion, emphasised the godly with large entryways and high ceilings. Wright believed a building should reflect the human scale; his buildings are generally low-lying, with low ceilings, emphasising the low and the human (Wright, 1952). A comparison can be seen in Figure 9.

Wright’s ideas of the true nature of man can also be seen in his ornament within the Robie House. The pattern on the glass stained windows resembles Indian arrowheads (Hoffmann, 1984). This can be linked to Wright’s feelings about the primitive man, believing the American-Indians to be the true nature of old America, before its rebirth as a new democratic nation (Wright, 1954). Moreover, Wright believed that nothing in nature was ever exactly identical. A building, as a metaphor for nature, should reflect this individuality and be like no other; uniqueness meant quality. He considered that standardisation and mass-building were improper, as these buildings lacked individuality and therefore quality (Wright, 1954). Wright followed through on this concept in his practice. He designed over one thousand homes, and although some of his houses may look similar, none are the same (Varinsky, 2016).

Wright’s fundamental belief in individuality developed into his belief of architecture as an organism. Wright believed that a building should be seen as a single entity, growing like any object of nature, from the inside out (Wright, 1954). This idea started in his youth. Wright came from a family of ardent Emersonians, strong believers in Ralph Waldo Emerson and his “religious feelings towards nature” (Uechi, 2016:17), see Figure 10. Wright came to hold Emerson in high regard and shared many of his ideals. Wright’s concept of ‘organic integrity’, beginning from within, stemmed from the Emersonian belief of the organic (Uechi, 2016). This led onto one of Wright’s major principles in architecture, “from within outward” (Wright, 1954:224), which can also be linked to many of his other theories. This philosophy is realised in his buildings, in which the interior space stretches towards the exterior. For example, in the Robie House seen in Figure 11, there is a prow at each end of the open plan area, one facing East and one facing West. This directs the visitor, like an arrow, towards the windows at each end. This unfolding of interior to exterior, is also seen on the long, south side of the space, where a row of large casement windows opens onto a balcony (Hoffmann, 1986). The use of glass enables the space to open up to the environment outside. From within, the vista gives a sense of freedom and stretches the interior out into the exterior, echoing the concept of ‘from within outward’. This idea is further enhanced by the extended horizontal lines of the cantilever and the decking, further drawing the interior spaces of building out into the landscape.

Wright’s final major interpretation of nature belonged to the true nature of materials. As a child, Wright spent time on his uncle’s farm working amongst materials in their raw state, giving him a deep understanding of nature’s resources (Pfeiffer, 2011). He believed that by valuing the materials as “gifts of nature” (Hoffmann, 1986:26), identifying the true essence of each, and then using them ‘correctly’ in architecture, he hoped man could become closer to his essential spirit (Wright, 1971). In architecture, a material should not be disguised as another material, such as stone appearing as marble, as it would “abuse the integrity of the whole design” (Wright, 1954:220). Instead, an architect should present the material as itself, unadorned, displaying its identity honestly. This would contribute to the feeling of an organic building, also enabling it to harmonise with the surrounding environment. In the Robie House, each material is presented plainly as itself, wood as wood, plaster as plaster, with little paintwork. Paint would disguise the raw material.

This natural presentation of materials is also seen in the furniture, such as in the dining room, where the chairs, table and cabinets are all made of oak (Hoffmann, 1984). One can tell that Wright had a particular love for wood, and he believed he was showcasing it in the most organic way. However, the geometric lines that fashioned his wooden furniture are too straight to be reflective of wood in its most natural form, that is, a tree. This seems to contradict his theory that nature should be reflected within design. Elsewhere, the materials are used in more authentic ways, such as a plaster wall rough to the touch, reflecting the sand from which it was made, like in Figure 12. Subdued, natural colours are used throughout the Robie House, as Wright wanted to use colours reflective of each material’s true nature and the physical environment (Wright, 1971). Wright rejected using materials in combination, unless the character of each material was fully revealed (Hoffmann, 1984). Although a range of materials are used in the Robie House, they are assigned to separate elements, such as beams of steel, or walls of brick. This did however contradict his other theories, specifically the building as an organism. Wright saw the building as a single entity, all parts connected, yet by assigning different materials to different areas, he creates internal divisions, so rejecting the seamless transitions about which he is so enthusiastic.

Indeed, many of Wright’s theories contradict each other. For example, his views on geometry and structure contradict his views on the building an organism. One presents nature as ordered, and the other presents nature as free-flowing. His buildings seem too structured and geometric to be seen as a natural organism. In addition, he repeatedly calls both architecture and the American man free, yet lists many principles one should follow, which are constraining to the individual. His arrogance is further shown when he preaches his theories. For example, in lectures in densely populated areas such as London, he attacks the city and insists on a more rural life through his organic architecture, without stopping to consider that the Londoners may actually like London (Wright, 2017). Even when publishing his lectures at a later date, he refused to acknowledge his error. When considering Wright’s buildings, without the knowledge of the theory behind it, they do not seem so representative of nature. From his theories one can see he really felt strongly about nature, but the material expression of his theories was very personal and idiosyncratic.

In conclusion, Wright understood nature to have many meanings, and although all his theories are heavily intertwined and often contradictory, his beliefs can be split into two main categories, nature as the physical environment and nature as the true nature of a thing or person. His education in the Froebel Kindergarten, and his upbringing on the farm obviously had a very strong influence on his beliefs, shaping many of his theories, and thus his architecture. The influences of theorists and philosophers and less so from architects are reflected in his buildings. He concentrated too much on the aesthetics and design of a building, and the practical elements such as the heating or the structural support are not adequately considered (Varinsky, 2016). The Robie House was highly expensive to heat in winter, resulting in abandonment and it was twice threatened for demolition (Hoffmann, 1984). Many of his other buildings have also needed renovations, including his most famous and most admired, Fallingwater (Varinsky, 2016). In a way he was a better theorist than an architect. As we become increasingly aware of nature in our over-developed world, one feels more in sympathy with his philosophies and can appreciate more his influence and his designs. Although his collapsing buildings and impressive ego label him as controversial, his ingenious understandings of nature have made him a figurehead of modern architecture.

References:

Connors, J. (1984) The Robie House of Frank Llloyd Wright. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Hoffmann, D. (1984) Frank Lloyd Wright’s Robie House: The Illustrated Story of an Architectural Masterpiece. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.

Hoffmann, D. (1986) Frank Lloyd Wright: Architecture and Nature. New York: Dover Publications, Inc.

Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation (no date) The Life of Frank Lloyd Wright. [Online] [Accessed 4th January 2019] https://franklloydwright.org/frank-lloyd-wright/

Froebel Gifts (no date) A Brief History of the Kindergarten. [Online] [Accessed 20th December 2018] http://www.froebelgifts.com/history.htm

Pfeiffer, B. B. (2011) ‘Taliesin: Romance, Tragedy, Rebirth.’ Frank Lloyd Wright Quarterly, 22(1) pp. 4–21.

Ruskin, J. (1849) ‘Chapter III.- The Lamp of Power’ in The Seven Lamps of Architecture. Boston: Dana Estes & Company. Publishers. pp. 70–100.

Science Encyclopedia (no date) Cantilever. [Online] [Accessed on 2nd January 2019] http://science.jrank.org/pages/1171/Cantilever.html

Varinsky, D., (2016) 7 things Frank Lloyd Wright, one of the greatest American architects, got wrong about design. [Online] [Accessed 27th December 2018] https://www.businessinsider.com/what-frank-lloyd-wright-got-wrong-2016-8?r=US&IR=T

Wright, F. L., (1952) ‘Organic Architecture looks at Modern Architecture.’ In Pfeiffer, B. (ed.) Frank Lloyd Wright Collected Writings, Volume 5, 1949–1959. New York: Rizzoli International Publications, Inc., pp. 45–50.

Wright, F. L., (1954) ‘A Testament.’ In Pfeiffer, B. (ed.) Frank Lloyd Wright Collected Writings, Volume 5, 1949–1959. New York: Rizzoli International Publications, Inc., pp. 155- 225.

Wright, F. L. (1971) ‘In the nature of materials: a Philosophy’ in: The Natural House, London: Pitman Publishing. pp. 48–78.

Wright, F. L. (2017) An Organic Architecture: The Architecture of Democracy. New ed., London: Lund Humphries

Uechi, N. T. (2016) ‘For You O Democracy: How American Transcendentalism Helped Define Organic Architecture.’ Frank Lloyd Wright Quarterly, 27(4) pp. 17–23.

Bibliography:

Dennis, M. J. and Wenneker, L. B. (1965) ‘Ornamentation and the Organic Architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright.’ Art Journal, XXV(1) pp. 2–14.

Gorlin, A. (1986) ‘Geometry and Nature in the Work of Frank Lloyd Wright.’ A&U, 2(185) pp. 55–62.

Kassler, E. (1985) ‘Breaking Down the Man/Nature Interface: Martin Buber and Frank Lloyd Wright.’ The Princeton Journal, 2(unknown) pp. 28–34.

Robinson, S. K. (2011) ‘Frank Lloyd Wright and Victor Hugo: Architecture and the Book.’ Frank Lloyd Wright Quarterly, 22(4) pp. 28–29.

Wright, F. L., (1953) ‘The Language of an Organic Architecture.’ In Pfeiffer, B. (ed.) Frank Lloyd Wright Collected Writings, Volume 5, 1949–1959. New York: Rizzoli International Publications, Inc., pp. 45–50.