It has been one week since the School of Architecture at Taliesin (SoAT) made the public announcement that, at the end of this academic season, it would officially close after 88 years of training architects. In the days since, we’ve seen dueling editorials from members of the School Board and the President of the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation, opinions by former students and instructors, a beautifully written and heartfelt letter from the current student body, and an enormous outpouring of support for the unique and often mythic institution. Even with so much attention, the question still remains: Can the School of Architecture at Taliesin still be saved?
A recurring issue that continues to come up in all of these writings is that the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation would like to pursue a non-accredited education program that essentially eliminates the need for the School. As Cruz Garcia and Nathalie Frankowski clearly articulate in their editorial for the Architect’s Newspaper, “the legacy of the institution they claim to protect cannot be safeguarded with K-12 education and sporadic arts and crafts workshops”. Non-accredited architecture programs are very important but present their own challenges and often result in non-critical structures that do not adequately broaden an institutional message or add direct value back to the profession. They are great ways to introduce concepts and hopefully inspire future architects, but they do not have the rigor or legal ability to credential graduates. Only an accredited degree in architecture can do that.
The key problem with non-accredited programs is that it misses the demographic that can benefit most from the education and promote that institutional message in practice. High school students interested in architecture will prefer to enter accredited colleges and universities for architectural education. Newly graduated architecture students will enter the profession to gain work experience. Mid-level professionals will be too busy building careers to participate in a non-accredited architecture program. Cruz and Frankowski are correct: which is why these programs are almost always selectively geared toward K-12 applicants for a reason.
What is not being discussed is that this is not the first time the School has faced the threat of closure. Over the past two decades, the School and the Foundation have time and again successfully fought to save accreditation with both the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) and the National Architecture Accrediting Board (NAAB). Yet, no one from either institution has indicated what has changed to suddenly prefer a non-accredited program over the current offerings in place. It seems to me that the accredited Master of Architecture degree provides longer-term value to the Foundation because it is a direct conduit to the profession. That is, the School can validate the Foundation’s mission at a much more expansive level than a non-accredited program.
In emails to Stuart Graff, CEO and President of the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation, and Aaron Betsky, President of the School of Architecture at Taliesin, I tried to gather this information while offering my experience and perspective on these issues and calling for each of these leaders to be guided by their responsibility to their respective institutions. “Our positions within any organization are always only temporary,” I said, and these organizations should rightfully, “outlast you and the current board members just as [they] were intended to outlast Wright.”
In response, Mr. Graff reiterated his plan to build a new “sustainable program for the 21st century”. He elaborated on his desire to not just make the campuses of Taliesin and Taliesin West mere house museums but instead find ways to advance Wright’s ideas by putting them into practice. Based on his own editorial and what has already been stated about non-accredited programs, Mr. Graff’s ideas do not seem practical with the reality of the situation. By removing a viable and important school of architecture, the profession and architectural education clearly suffer, but so does the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation.
Mr. Betsky’s brief response was simply that the decision to close the school was irrevocable.
In the desire for each organization to control the narrative of this situation, it is becoming increasingly obvious that neither entity is truly aligned with their mission statement or the legacy they have been entrusted to protect. We, as architects, have a right to be concerned about such a situation occurring as it extinguishes diversity in architectural discourse by removing a School that has stood in resistance to more broadly accepted tradition and structure. If the leaders and board members of this institution cannot be trusted to uphold the integrity of the organizations they serve, I believe the only reasonable measure is for them to step down and be replaced by individuals willing to fight for the Taliesin Community.
What is often misunderstood about the School of Architecture at Taliesin is that it is not solely focused on disseminating Frank Lloyd Wright’s principles and vision for organic architecture. The School is built upon an idea about architecture education where not everything is found within a book but through life experiences. You learn about design by living in community with fellow students and instructors. You learn about materials and structure through constructing with your own hands. You learn about sustainability by living with nature, fortifying your own residence, and studying the diverse climatic landscapes of Arizona and Wisconsin. It is the only school in the world where students can learn about Wright by inhabiting Wright. In my opinion, this is an idea worth continuing.
The School of Architecture at Taliesin can still be saved but not without these organizations realizing what is really at stake. The past week has shown deep admiration for this institution and how troubling its closure would be to the broader architecture world. For the School to survive, it needs this continued advocacy in the form of letters, varying perspectives, and pressure on the leaders of these organizations to protect the legacy they represent. If we, the architecture community, go quietly on this issue, so will Taliesin’s future.
Gabriel Nolle is an architect, educator, and writer that believes architecture begins with the land. Based in Pittsburgh, PA, Gabriel’s work focuses on place-specific design and how architecture interfaces with the natural world.
1 Featured Comment
I'm not sure donors can be assured that the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation is making a wise move here. A growing accredited program, hosting the world's top architects, steadily gaining tuition-paying grad students is being terminated... in favor of VAGUE plans.
Losing the quarter-million Frank Lloyd Wright's school paid each year (suddenly increased to half a million), are we sure busy professionals will actually have weeks to spend top dollar on non-accredited classes that aren't required in their professions?
The rustic shelters and Wisconsin dorms that were a delight for the young, as were the kitchen duties, studio cleanings and shared toilet/shower may feel, um, "threadbare" to professionals paying royal sums, and what was revered by students to live as the Apprentices lived may have demands for improvements that change the nature of Mr. Wright's buildings, built as they were for training new architects and not as a stop-over for Viking Cruises. What study are they relying upon to ensure that killing Wright's historic school isn't a colossal mistake?
All 4 Comments
I fundamentally believe that this is an effort at boldly going where most corrupt, duplicitous, and murky intentions lead; the further monetizing of the FLW Brand. Is it going to surprise anyone to see these homes wind up on airbnb? That's the logical place, right? I can see it now; Airbnb brings you the place where the wife was hatcheted! Sleep where Frank slept! What's the thread count? Robie House! YES! Spas at Taliesin West!
Those day class, $350 per person. Want to stay a week, and learn about Usonian design, $2000; FLW Tie Extra.
I'm not sure donors can be assured that the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation is making a wise move here. A growing accredited program, hosting the world's top architects, steadily gaining tuition-paying grad students is being terminated... in favor of VAGUE plans.
Losing the quarter-million Frank Lloyd Wright's school paid each year (suddenly increased to half a million), are we sure busy professionals will actually have weeks to spend top dollar on non-accredited classes that aren't required in their professions?
The rustic shelters and Wisconsin dorms that were a delight for the young, as were the kitchen duties, studio cleanings and shared toilet/shower may feel, um, "threadbare" to professionals paying royal sums, and what was revered by students to live as the Apprentices lived may have demands for improvements that change the nature of Mr. Wright's buildings, built as they were for training new architects and not as a stop-over for Viking Cruises. What study are they relying upon to ensure that killing Wright's historic school isn't a colossal mistake?
This may be moving the discussion away from the specifics of Taliesin, Taliesin West and the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation; but in my opinion this is tied to bigger issues like colleges and universities meeting NCARB and NAAB criteria to be an accredited school of architecture. Ever since my architecture school days I wondered why the profession had steered away from apprenticeships a long time ago, as a path to becoming an architect. Surely I'm not the only one who felt like my true education in architecture happened as a young intern. Over my many years in architecture, I have worked with many non-registered professionals who were very capable architects, but did not have the accredited school, diploma or license to be called an architect. We are all very conscious and serious about the health, safety and welfare of the users of the buildings that we design; we are reminded of that every day in the profession, I don't know that an accredited school is required to instruct us of that.
This is a sad state of affairs, all I’ll say is that the Foundation is being deliberately disengenuous.
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.