A worrisome trend has precipitated with the advent of ebay. With the rise in popularity of Frank Lloyd Wright designed buildings and decor over the decades, the separating and selling off of Wright-related items has also risen. When furniture, windows, sconces etc. are sold-off from the site they were integrally meant for, that site is diminished in a way that it may never recover from.
Why? In many ways, it is like taking a person's eyebrows or nose off their face. That person is still technically a person, but those now missing features make that face forever different from what it was meant to be.
Architectural "strip-mining" can also occur beyond the lights and windows of a Wright house. It's possible to separate the actual history from it as well. A recent example of this is occurring right now on ebay as I write this post. Letters and notes documenting the history of the Kenneth Laurent House in Rockford, IL are for sale. These items are as much an integral part of the house as windows or doors. When they are sold off to private collectors and lost to the public, then a rich part of understanding a Wright structure is lost as well.
Now, I'm as true a believer in property owner's rights as much as the next American. But when you happen to live in a building that is also a work of art and apart of our cultural heritage, it belongs to the rest of society as well. You become a steward more than a mere property owner. If letters, blueprints and drawings, which form part of the history of a Wright house, are sold away or put in danger of being destroyed or lost--we all are poorer as a result.
Mr. Laurent, if you ever read this--please reconsider selling the story of your house. If you cannot tend to it, then find a public institution that can care for it and preserve it as a whole for future generations to study and appreciate.
As always, we appreciate your thoughts and feedback.
Is it too simplistic to propose that the relevant documents be copied and those copies stay with the house? The originals then could be sold off to museums or collectors. Would this copying diminish the value of the originals? In this fashion the information, though not the historical value, of the item is passed to the houses new owners.
I believe several houses already have reproduction art glass, the originals having been deemed to valuable to remain exposed to the weather, vandalism, fire, etc. Ditto for original furniture versus reproductions.
If these buildings are to be preserved for the ages, some compromises have to be made. One could take the position that the original owners took the financial risk of hiring Wright in the first place, bore the inevitable cost overruns as well as the often onerous maintenance costs. If they feel the need to get as much return as they can for all this it is understandable if not particularly desirable.
Posted by: Ed Jarolin | Oct 26, 2007 at 07:53 PM
This is a good editorial. It was integral to my research on the Hardy House for my book to have all the letters written to the house since 1968, as well as some of the homeowners' archives which have been passed on from one to another, since 1941. Mark Hertzberg www.wrightinracine.com
Posted by: Mark Hertzberg | Oct 30, 2007 at 06:16 AM