Chapter 19: Notes

Footnote 408:

See Zevi, B., _Verso un’architettura organica_, Turin, 1945; English
translation, _Towards an Organic Architecture_, London, 1950.

Footnote 409:

See Pellegrini, L., ‘La decorazione funzionale del primo Wright’,
_L’Architettura_ (1956), 198-203.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 411:

See _Life_, V (26 Sep. 1938), 60-1.

Footnote 412:

See _Ladies Home Journal_, February 1901; June 1901; April 1907.

Footnote 413:

Wright, F. Ll., _The Story of the Tower_, New York, 1956.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 415:

Richard E. Schmidt (1865-1959) and Hugh M. G. Garden (1873-1961).

Footnote 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.

Footnote 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.

Footnote 418:

See Price, C., ‘Panama-Californian Exposition: Bertram Grosvenor
Goodhue and the Renaissance of Spanish-Colonial Architecture’,
_Architectural Record_, XXXVII (1915), 229-51.

Footnote 419:

See Macomber, B., _The Jewel City, its Planning and Achievement_...,
San Francisco, 1915.

Footnote 420:

See Lancaster, C., ‘The American Bungalow’, _Art Bulletin_, XL (1958),
239-53.

Footnote 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.

------------------------------------------------------------------------