CHAPTER 19 - Notes
[408]. See Zevi, B., Verso un’architettura organica, Turin, 1945; English translation, Towards an Organic Architecture, London, 1950.
[409]. See Pellegrini, L., ‘La decorazione funzionale del primo Wright’, L’Architettura (1956), 198-203.
[410]. Wright’s ‘Baroque’ period, running for approximately ten years from 1914 to 1924, parallels the Expressionist episode in European modern architecture (see Chapters [21] and [22]). That may be considered to open with van der Meij’s Scheepvaarthuis of 1912-13 in Amsterdam and to run out in general sometime in the mid twenties. It is not apparent that there was any influence of consequence either way; indeed, the effect of studying Wright’s work in the war years and the early twenties was rather adverse to Expressionism and related tendencies, particularly in Holland where Wright’s influence was strongest.
[411]. See Life, V (26 Sep. 1938), 60-1.
[412]. See Ladies Home Journal, February 1901; June 1901; April 1907.
[413]. Wright, F. Ll., The Story of the Tower, New York, 1956.
[414]. Wright had a tendency to scoff at the work of his former junior associates and to deny the reality of their discipleship. There are at present in practice a good many architects who have been for shorter or longer periods at Taliesin, where the Fellowship has at times since the Second World War included over sixty. Those who were at Taliesin some time ago have naturally made the greater mark, since many of the post-war members of the Fellowship had, in the mid 1950s, only just begun their own practice. Alden Dow (b. 1904) in Midland, Michigan, and Henry Klumb (b. 1905) in San Juan, Puerto Rico, have over the last few years the greatest volume of work of more-or-less Wrightian inspiration to their credit. But it must not be forgotten that Richard J. Neutra (b. 1892), whose work is of a very different order, was also for a time with Wright; while there are some architects whose work is Wrightian to the point of parody who have never had any direct contact with Wright at all.
[415]. Richard E. Schmidt (1865-1959) and Hugh M. G. Garden (1873-1961).
[416]. The contribution of these men is only beginning to receive the study which it merits now the realization is growing that American architecture was far less dominated by traditionalism in the first quarter of the twentieth century, particularly in the Middle West and on the Pacific Coast, than has generally been supposed in the last thirty years. See Brooks, A., ‘The Early Work of the Prairie Architects’, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, XIX (1960), 2-10.
[417]. See Thompson, E., ‘The Early Domestic Architecture of the San Francisco Bay Region’, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, X (1951), 15-21; Bangs, J. M., ‘Bernard Ralph Maybeck, Architect, Comes into His Own’, Architectural Record, CIII (1948), 72-9, and ‘Greene and Greene’, Architectural Forum, LXXXIX (1948), 80-9; McCoy, E., Five California Architects, New York, 1960; and Woodbridge, J. M. and S. B., Buildings of the Bay Area, a Guide to the Architecture of the San Francisco Bay Region, New York, 1960, which covers both earlier and later work.
[418]. See Price, C., ‘Panama-Californian Exposition: Bertram Grosvenor Goodhue and the Renaissance of Spanish-Colonial Architecture’, Architectural Record, XXXVII (1915), 229-51.
[419]. See Macomber, B., The Jewel City, its Planning and Achievement..., San Francisco, 1915.
[420]. See Lancaster, C., ‘The American Bungalow’, Art Bulletin, XL (1958), 239-53.
[421]. That is, on the West Coast; considered as an alternative to the ‘International Style’ suitable for emulation everywhere, as it was for a few years, it had no more validity than any other regional mode.