Hacker News Reader

Comment by brudgers | Hacker News Reader

The house has received pushback from official Frank Lloyd Wright organisations such as the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation (The Foundation) and the Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conversancy

From a practical standpoint this usually means that if you put this house in a publication about Wright, the Foundation and Conservancy will deny you use of their archival material and photographic access to their sites.

Their behavior is why you rarely see Wrights work at Florida Southern College in books on Wright despite Florida Southern being the largest collection of Wright designed buildings anywhere, one of a few examples of his commercial work, absolutely amazing designs, and actually in ordinary use…worth a visit if you are passing by Lakeland on I4.

View on HN

I was wondering if there was some practical, legalese reason for this "pushback." It seems that whenever someone tries to faithfully deliver on some other artist's vision, the original artist's foundation or estate or representatives will always chime in to say something like "Well, we disavow this work and it has nothing to do with the actual artist!" No matter how much love, care, and attention to detail in the derivative work. Happens a lot when a movie is based on a book. The adaptation is never good enough.

Typically this type of organization exists to protect the “brand” in the interests of heirs…for example, https://shop.franklloydwright.org/?_gl=1*fsfezc*_gcl_au*NTk1.....

whenever someone tries to faithfully deliver on some other artist's vision

"Trying" is not a meaningful bar to clear. Love or care doesn't matter, either. According to the article, the foundation says that the building is simply not built to Wright's spec, which is an objective measure.

The owners don't outright deny this, using a handful of of qualifiers in response: "true to Wright's plan, intent and spirit while also ensuring that the home would meet current building regulations."

Saying your house was designed by a famous architect, especially one the stature of Wright brings a value and prestige that is worth claiming, like any other brand. On the flip side, if you own the brand, it is worth protecting from knock offs.

meet current building regulations

This is a synonym for “the worst construction allowed by law.”

If it wasn’t designed to meet current building regulations, the construction would be illegal.

That said, building code changes over time, and even if Wright's original design met building code at the time it was designed, it likely doesn't meet current building regulations. I.e. it would be illegal to build exactly to the original design, or at least if you did it would be illegal to use the building.

If it doesn’t meet code, it is not architecture.

Steady, we’re taking things like having outlets every three feet of countertop in kitchens.

Unhinged comment. Is the Parthenon not architecture because it’s not ADA-accessible? If someone installs an elevator does it become architecture again?

I used “architecture” to refer to the discipline not as a synonym for “a building.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_of_the_Sun#Gallery

Reply on news.ycombinator.com