Concealed within the forest landscape of the Ozark Mountains in Arkansas, the acclaimed Thorncrown Chapel will celebrate its 35th anniversary this summer. Designed by E. Fay Jones, who was commissioned by retired schoolteacher Jim Reed, the 48 ft. tall chapel boasts 425 windows and over 6,000 sq. ft of glass, and it became widely recognized for its organic "Ozark Gothic" style when it first opened on July 10, 1980.
To mark the Thorncrown Chapel's anniversary, architect-turned-photographer Randall Connaughton from Atlanta began an ongoing photography series of the wood-and-glass structure last year in what he described is "an effort to add new depth to the visual record of Thorncrown Chapel and bring its transcendent experience to a wide audience."
Thorncrown is the backdrop to countless wedding photos, but according to the Chapel organization, Connaughton's snapshots are the "first professionally produced photos of their kind" since 1980 -- when those photos that first contributed to the structure's success were taken. Connaughton's full collection of photos will be published in an upcoming book.
As expected, the Thorncrown Chapel has won awards, particularly from the AIA. Deemed as the fourth most significant building of the 20th century by the organization, the chapel received the AIA Design of the Year Award for 1981 as well as the prestigious AIA 25 Year Award in 2006. In 2013, local groups fiercely protected the Chapel in opposition to an encroaching electric power-line project.
Learn more about the Thorncrown Chapel here.
40 Comments
So beautiful !
As good as it looks in pictures you must see in person....
Now, that is impressive! makes me wanna find Jesus!
One of my favorite buildings.
Probably the most masterfully done piece of architecture of all time….a must see pilgrimage, you must see it in person to believe it, and when you go, take a check and donate to its care, then take a pew and pray that they never, ever, tear that down.
I love this building.
someone i used to work with was married here. i was not invited.
vado retro, I think we all feel your pain. Nonetheless, this magnificent building is still there, if not that ceremony . . .
By not eschewing association with America's vernacular traditions in architecture, e.g. the use of wood, and establishment of a very simple basic form, Jones has made truly American architecture here, especially considering the relationship of this chapel to its site, and to landscape generally. That Jones also carries his composition toward sophistication of structure and its expression, adds to this building's paradoxical modernism and vernacular-inspired simplicity.
^ Uranus.
I'll bet it's so fully packed with your head that there isn't any room.
Jones must have had Lloyd Wright's Wayfarers Chapel, in Rancho Palos Verdes, California (built ca 1950), in mind as he was designing Thorncrown Chapel. Since Jones' design is hardly a direct copy, I see no problem with his use of the Wayfarers as a source.
Actually, while Lloyd Wright's building is quite zippy and fun, I find Thorncrown to be better in its inventions and so more bracing by a mile. Ultimately, despite the obvious association of these two chapels, when it comes to their actual style and mannerisms, it's a bit like comparing apples to oranges (Lloyd Wright was actually Frank Lloyd Wright, Jr. In Wayfarers. he manages to move toward expression that is less derivative of his father's work, although some of the tell-tale motifs are still present.)
I once brought that inspiration to the attention of an academic 'expert' who was giving a talk on the chapel. She was taken aback and didn't seem to be aware of Wayfarer's! BTW, Lloyd Wrght designed another glass chapel for the Swedenborgians (which wasn't built) and, decades earlier, a glass Cathedral (also unbuilt).
^ Interesting reference. I wasn't familiar with Wayfarer's Chapel.
Indeed Miles, and while I haven't seen it in person, it's obvious from photographs that the site for this building, above, and looking out toward the Pacific Ocean is stunning.
When you go to Thorncrown you’ll murmur to yourself like I did…”2X4’s? “2X4’s? 2X4’s?”…….
Wright was Fay Jones’ hero and he first met Wright in 1949 as a student when he went on a class trip to see Wright get his Gold Metal…afterwards Jones bumped into Wright as he was leaving and Wright stopped to introduce himself which lead to Wright showing Jones around the Shamrock Hotel and discussed its architecture for thirty minutes….Jones was in love.
After graduation he met & worked for Bruce Goff (University of Oklahoma), and was invited to a small faculty dinner party with Wright which ultimately landed Jones an apprenticeship with Wright during the summer of 1953. Although Jones's later work was strongly influenced by Wright and Goff, he managed to create his own unique style by adhering to the basic principles taught by these two architects, rather than trying to imitate their work….I like to call it “Invisible Architecture”.
Maybe one good reason to go to AIA meetings:)
Carrera, Yes, imitating Frank Lloyd Wright is invariably not productive at all. The Italian critic Bruno Zevi said as much when he spoke to the apprentices at Taliesin not long after Wright's death. He said: "Now you must take his portrait and turn it toward the wall."
Jones, at Thorncrown Chapel, at least, was able to assimilate Wright's influence, but was not de-individualized by it.
f o f, If you believe that original expression in architecture, that is, "make it new" really matters, and, that authorship, for lack of a better word really matters, then I would say: most definitely, imitating Frank Lloyd Wright is not productive. I don't think of this as an evidence question so much as a philosophical question, a question about aesthetics. As I see it, Wright's designs are too idiosyncratic, too individual, to copy or imitate. This is not a fault in or of his designs. However, most Wright knock-offs, including the work of the Taliesin Associated Architects, just aren't worth the time of day (or as Arthur Danto might have said: they're just a "hole in the ground"). That is, there is a considerable difference between copying Wright and Wright's influence per se. The latter matters a lot.
Paradoxically, this is not the case, I believe, with the designs of Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. In this instance, nearly the opposite holds true. Mies's designs are so generic, that following his lead and designing buildings that are variants of his formulas works just fine. Of course an original building by Mies is just that, and so adheres to the principle I outlined about Wright, above. But, the many buildings that depend on his approach to architecture, and that have been designed with some finesse, are just fine too, as I see it.
Wright has many, many more interesting followers than Mies has (Jones, Goff, Lautner, Soleri, Dow, Griffin, etc., etc. They all learned the principles and eschewed the mannerisms.
Quondam, do you have any actual evidence of where in "some instances it is possible for a copy to be exactly the same as the original"?
f o f, I will need time that I don't have right this moment to respond to your observations here. These are vital and important questions for architecture. As I see it, architecture is essentially an art, and not a science. This means that we need to look to philosophers such as Kant, to find sources for the explanations of and ways of talking about this art, architecture.
In Kant's Third Critique, he goes to great lengths to lay the groundwork for why judgments of taste in art are not merely arbitrary statements, but have a legitimate place in rational discourse. Following Kant's lead as a legitimate aesthetic project, judgment and taste, when it comes to architecture, as I see it, really matters.
Moreover, if the making of composition and form in architecture were merely the end-result of a scientific or tectonic process, I doubt that we'd find buildings produced in this way particularly inspiring or interesting. Architecture is a humanist endeavor. The creation of architectural form comes, in part, from intuition, inspiration, and invention. When the architect pursues these ideals, he or she is also engaged with judgment and taste (it would be difficult to imagine otherwise), that is, his or her own judgment and taste. Once the building is released into the world, critics and aficionados of architecture, in turn, bring their own judgment and taste to the manifestation at hand.
architecture is essentially an art
Here we go again ...
For the moment, here's an example of the attempt to build a Frank Lloyd Wright house posthumously. I'm referring to the Joseph Massaro house, at Lake Mahopac in New York. Even though Massaro hired an architect who was a Wright scholar, the result simply doesn't have the feel or finesse of a Frank Lloyd Wright original. Details, including the interior roof-structure don't look or feel right at all. Massaro insists that he has built a house that is really by Frank Lloyd Wright, but, lacking the mastery of Wright's autograph details and judgment in execution, it's impossible to say that this is actually the case.
To their credit, the Taliesin Foundation did not endorse this posthumous project, and rightly claimed that it was not being carried out in the proper way (and, we may wonder if Wright's work can actually be constructed without his supervision, so long after his death at all). Some posthumous projects can work, e.g. the Roosevelt Memorial designed by Louis Kahn for New York. However, quite often the results can be truly disappointing once the original architect is no longer directly involved. (See link for debate about the Massaro house.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massaro_House
fineprint, what does a digital copy have to do with architecture, which is of course not a series of imitate-able 1s and 0s?
a 2x4 comes from wood that has a random development. if i put a 2x4 of the exact same size in 2 different locations, it is not a copy, even if the 2x4s were from the same tree and right next to each other when the tree was cut up. they would have different grain patterns and they would weather different. the stuff that makes architecture can't be compared to the stuff that makes digital data.
Don't you think today everything is a copy of something, somewhere, in some manner.
Agree that some Wright inspired work tries to drill down too deep, but following the inspiration should be encouraged….things could have turned out much worse on the Domino's Pizza Headquarters, but think Gunnar Birkerts pulled it off, albeit reluctantly…..
unless each and every particle is in the same exact location (which is impossible to prove due to the uncertainty principle) as the original it is an approximation of the original.
The philosophical ideas above break down when you change the medium. Sure you can copy and paste a cad block, but a physical object is impossible to replicate an "exact" copy of.
f o f, I understand the distinctions you're making between copying, imitations, and the attempt to make an original in architecture (and I think copying or imitating can be nearly the same thing at times). I would differentiate between imitation and influence, for example. It's manifestly difficult to produce an architectural design that is so original that virtually no influence can be found in it. I think that we shall have to agree to disagree about whether imitating Frank Lloyd Wright's style in a quite direct way, especially now in the 21st century, qualifies as a viable and productive pursuit in and for architectural design.
I had a project in Arkansas a couple years ago and being able to see this on site visits made that incredibly frustrating job almost worth it.
I'm in the process of trying to convince my better half to get married there next year...Only $800 to reserve it for a Saturday...
With some architects we would be better off if they did copy.
f o f, Perhaps my original statement that imitating Frank Lloyd Wright is not a productive path for architectural design right now could have been expressed more clearly. What I mean to say, is that imitating and/or copying Wright's designs (as though he were still around, looking over the imitator's shoulders) cannot be a productive basis for an entire career in architecture, or for a design strategy generally. Wright will always have done it better anyway, and, he had no reason to guess what was going on in his head, or better, his imagination.
I did not and do not mean to say that emulation and influence must necessarily be ruled out when it comes to Wright. Soonish, I'll provide some links to bolster my discourse.
f o f, Well, who hasn't found the need to clarify what they really meant to say, etc.? In public discourse, we are not under oath, but it does pay to be as clear as possible.
Here is an example of imitating from Wright, by the Taliesin Associated Architects, that I find stilted in conception and form, and, lacking in inspiration:
http://rockymountainnationalpark.com/get-around/visitor-centers/beaver-meadows-visitor-center
And here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beaver_Meadows_Visitor_Center
And here is a community center in Brooklyn, designed by George Ranalli, that emulates early Wright in a skillful, thoughtful, and revisionist way:
http://www.georgeranalli.com/saratoga-avenue-community-center/#1
Basta alors!
f o f, quondam, or whomever, I think I've made my case. With regard to a comparison with the Taliesin Associate Architects and George Ranalli, all I can say is: Surely you jest. There's no comparison, really
And, as an aside here, we should note that Robert Venturi is set to be 90 this month, that is on June 25th. Lord willing, we'll be celebrating his 90th birthday. What an incredible gift to American, and world architecture, this architect, and his wife, Denise Scott Brown!
did you just say robert venturi was a gift to his wife? come all, we all kind of know deep down inside she carried him a little.....
or were you saying denise scott brown is a gift to architecture? that makes more sense.
My syntax in previous statement was not confusing at all: I obviously said that Robert Venturi's accomplishment was a gift to American and world architecture, and, then, I included Denise Scott Brown in this encomium too. Any other interpretation by you, or anyone else would be a misreading, for sure. Moreover, I have nothing to say about their marriage. How could I know about that?
quondam.com, I really wonder if Scott Brown actually said that per se. What she has said, from what I know, is that Venturi's idea of retirement, is that you do just that, that is, he's been Robert Venturi, architect, and, he's had his say, and now he's Robert Venturi, retired architect. I don't see a problem with that. From what I've read, Venturi's parents always wanted him to be an architect, and, his mother was an interior designer. Given this actuality, his attitude toward retirement may be entirely apropos. Here a brief YouTube of a recent planning award for VSBA, featuring Scott Brown and Venturi in person; it's ironic and fun, in the best way:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4voAIq7O6nQ
That's an interesting quote quondam.com, About two years ago, Scott Brown gave a talk about architecture and planning at Columbia U. I saw it. It was wonderful, and they even gave her a birthday cake with candles. The architecture students were taking pics with their cell-phones of her planning slides, and she fielded the typical PC questions quite well (the holier-than-thou questions so many of the young are good at, that is). Scott Brown also mentioned that "Bob" couldn't make it that evening, and the audience groaned with sympathy--nice.
At another, earlier, event in New York, Scott Brown suggested that the practice of architecture, at least in a modest-sized firm such as theirs, can be quite difficult, to say the least. I report with dismay that she said: "Don't do it (i.e. become an architect) unless you have to do it."
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.