In 1933, with mounting pressure from the Nazi Party to end the making and teaching of “degenerate art,” the allied art institution known as the Bauhaus was forced to close. During its 14 years in operation, the Bauhaus faced constant opposition by German conservative politics of the time that accused the faculty and students of being radicals and viewed the school’s pedagogy of uniting art, craft, and industry as an attack on national cultural traditions. Yet, despite such hostility, the school managed to survive two forced relocations, the leadership of three different directors, and still set off the most important and ubiquitous artistic movement of the past century. As a kindred American institution, the School of Architecture at Taliesin (SOAT), currently faces a similar fate of closure, one must wonder what the shuttering of the Bauhaus can teach us today.
Around the same time the Bauhaus was closing, a small apprenticeship school in the United States called Taliesin was founded on a similar philosophical foundation. Established by Frank Lloyd Wright in 1932, Taliesin offered students the unique opportunity to live and work with Wright while learning art and architecture through his mentorship. Like the Bauhaus, Taliesin shunned a traditional education structure in favor of hands-on learning and sought to unify the arts under architecture design education. Unlike the Bauhaus, Taliesin was not subjected to the same political pressures and has remained in operation where today it is a degree-granting institution offering accredited Masters in Architecture degrees.
In January of this year, SoAT sent shock waves through the architecture community with the sudden announcement it would close at the end of this academic season due to ongoing operational disagreements with the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation – an organization Wright created in 1940 to protect his work and legacy. A few weeks later, after overwhelming public support to keep the school open, SoAT reversed its earlier decision to cease operations, but the Foundation has continued to refuse renegotiation of an expiring Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) which outlines all relations between the two – including the School’s lease of the campuses in Arizona and Wisconsin. Adding to the confusion, the Foundation remains adamant on developing a non-accredited education program they would own and operate in-lieu of the more robust and highly regarded National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB)-certified program SoAT currently offers.
While the Bauhaus philosophy was able to transcend a specific building or location; Wright’s principles instead ask students to be immersed in nature and to learn and abstract directly from his architecture.
Unlike the Bauhaus, SoAT was built around the work and philosophy of a single individual. Though Wright’s architecture is widely praised, his principles have long been viewed as idiosyncratic, overly personal, and thus never caught on in a usable way that differentiated followers from copyists. Where the more universal Bauhaus philosophy became the standard bearer of the 20th century Modern architecture movement, Wright’s philosophy has been relegated to a small enclave of architects and designers - most of whom are former apprentices and students of Taliesin. That is why SoAT’s “learn by doing” mantra is unique in architectural education; it is structured around learning Wright by inhabiting Wright. While the Bauhaus philosophy was able to transcend a specific building or location; Wright’s principles instead ask students to be immersed in nature and to learn and abstract directly from his architecture.
The hubris of the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation is in their disregard for how SoAT’s accreditation propels Wright’s ideas and gives access to an otherwise unreachable field: the architecture profession. Afterall, the posthumous proliferation of the Bauhaus principles was not merely due to their designed simplicity but rather their adoption by architects and other architectural institutions around the world. These ideas survived because they continued to be taught and practiced around the world. Without SoAT acting as a conduit to the profession and disseminating the Wright philosophy, the Foundation not only ignores the reality of accreditation and licensure in architecture but further marginalizes Wright’s influence as merely biographical or devotional figure - not as an innovative and relevant designer whose teachings and influence continue to have far-reaching impacts.
The hubris of the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation is in their disregard for how SoAT’s accreditation propels Wright’s ideas and gives access to an otherwise unreachable field: the architecture profession.
Though Stuart Graff, president and CEO of the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation, has stated that a non-accredited program will continue at Taliesin, education was never meant to be second to tourism at these campuses. Since Wright’s establishment of his Fellowship school, Taliesin and Taliesin West were always primarily meant to be used to train architects. From the amount of acreage he purchased for Taliesin West, to the scale and proportions of the drafting studios and dining rooms, the architecture of these campuses is a living document of Frank Lloyd Wright’s intent for an educational community. The decision by Mr. Graff and his board to discontinue SoAT’s MoU and create a non-accredited program under the umbrella of the Foundation, suggests a devalorizing of architectural design education and the School’s “learn by doing” pedagogy in favor of limiting the future and reach of Wright’s legacy. This consolidation may give the Foundation a sense of unity and strength within their own organization but certainly not within the purview architecture community.
This is an embarrassing episode for the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation and one that can be easily remedied by removing Mr. Graff from his position and working to make Taliesin whole again. The creation of both the school and the Foundation was always to be centered around Frank Lloyd Wright’s intent, principles, and legacy - not Mr. Graff’s. As legal heir to Frank Lloyd Wright’s physical and intellectual properties, the Foundation has a responsibility to preserve the integrity of not only the Taliesin campuses but the principles expounded by Wright throughout his lifetime. This begins by the Foundation’s Board of Trustees renewing the MoU and working with SoAT’s leadership to keep the school open for future generations.
The decision by Mr. Graff and his board to discontinue SoAT’s MoU and create a non-accredited program under the umbrella of the Foundation, suggests a devalorizing of architectural design education and the School’s “learn by doing” pedagogy in favor of limiting the future and reach of Wright’s legacy.
Learning from the example of the Bauhaus provides a valuable lesson to the current situation at Taliesin: principles and ideologies can outlive narrow-minded and misguided opposition in the worst of times. The establishment of Wright’s architecture school was built on an idea about community, learning through life experiences, and finding design inspiration from the world around us. That is the true heart of Taliesin. The Foundation may own Frank Lloyd Wright’s homes, but they do not own that heart; that has always belonged to the school and fellowship of former and current apprentices, students, and faculty. It is time for the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation to realize this and help to rebuild Fellowship at Taliesin.
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.
7 Comments
Foundation CEO Stuart Graff is a snake in a suit and has his board members in lock step behind him. Since his reign of terror began, he has threatened the school with lawsuits, belittled the students, and bullied the staff while the foundation board members sit quietly with blinders on and cotton in their ears. He will destroy FLW’s legacy and move on somewhere else with nothing on his conscience.
all I had to read to know everything is wrong or misguided by accounting spreadsheet monkees:
"....education was never meant to be second to tourism at these campuses..."
You need FLW to come back and express himself
Christ driving the money-changers from the Temple - Theodoor Rombouts
Part of the issue seems to be how they've deified FLW when in reality there's a healthy amount of kitsch in his late work. I don't know that any architect is worth having a school devoted to their thinking considering how talent is so widely distributed and even so can be hit or miss. He was really talented no doubt, but also an incredible self promoter. Here's one of his early works before he became a modern Michelangelo. Not bad, but hardly upper tier for that time.
And here's a contemporary of his during this period that nobody's heard of
.
Wright's legacy is big enough for both these organizations to continue to do great work. There is much to be gained from a close study of Wrights design principles, and his writings. An education in his design approach would be a magnificent concentration in any respectable College of Architecture anywhere in the world.
"...the Foundation remains adamant on developing a non-accredited education program they would own and operate in-lieu of the more robust and highly regarded National Architectural Accrediting Board (NAAB)-certified program SoAT currently offers."
Because it must be either/or, not both? What is it exactly that is stopping an expansion of the educational program to develop and provide a "non-accredited education program" in addition to the legally useful education?
Maybe there's not enough space there for both? If only there were... a profession... whose sole purpose was to capture open, unused, space and convert it by means of... I dunno, building...maybe? ...to turn that raw, useless, natural condition, into, what could we even call it? Programmed, dedicated, claimed space in the world. We could call it: A Building! I'm a Genius!
I know - it's a crazy idea... but hear me out - I'm sure you could find someone - somewhere - who has expertise in building, and could help them do this. Sure, they're out in the desert, in the middle of nowhere, but there must be a stone lying around that they could throw, in any direction and hit someone with. And after that person says, "Ow." They could ask that person to design a damn building. Geez.
But then if there were all those pesky students there, you couldn't turn the place into a hotel and conference center. And... there's a giftshop and online catalog! Sure, tourism. But the tourism will consist of, "Hey look, here's where people USED TO study and practice Architecture."
And, Tourism? in plague times? That's the business model? Hey, maybe put in a dock and you could pull up one of those Carnival Cruise ships? Like Venice. Yeah? Sure, it's in the desert... for now. This is about the future People!!
Ross is wearing leather pants! Ross is wearing leather pants!!!!
Ugh.
"Because it must be either/or, not both? What is it exactly that is stopping an expansion of the educational program to develop and provide a "non-accredited education program" in addition to the legally useful education?"
This is a really good point. My opinion/understanding of this comes down to convenience, money, and control. In 2010, the HLC changed their by-laws to require all accredited institutions to be financially independent from any larger organization that does not have education as it's primary mission or whose missions extend beyond academics. Once the School was forced to adopt these changes in 2017 (which the Foundation originally voted to forgo accreditation), the School became a separate entity and the Foundation lost majority control of the inner-workings of the program.
Financially, the Foundation and these campuses make more money as tourist attractions and through licensing of the Wright brand. But think about it from a donor standpoint. Having the School as a separate entity theoretically creates competition for the Foundation to receive donations (as eluded to here by previous CEO of the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation Sean Malone). I am in no way in the loop on the financial situation of either of these organizations (besides what is published as public information) but I have to imagine that long-standing donors will not, or possibly cannot, donate to both of these organizations. If they are allowed, I doubt they would double their yearly contribution to supplement both. My understanding of HLC accreditation is that it allows for organizations to file for educational property tax exemption status. If the School loses HLC accreditation, I imagine the campuses can no longer file for this status (as I've pointed out, the Foundation's primary mission is not education). I've heard grumblings of this in public school board meetings but again, all just my own opinion.
What seems to get lost in a lot of the writings on this topic is that SoAT provides a one-of-a-kind education structure to study architecture. In my opinion, it's not about whether you like Frank Lloyd Wright or think a school should be dedicated to him. It is one of the only places in the world that students can earn an accredited Master of Architecture degree in a non-traditional structure. While the rest of architecture training has become more and more homogenized, SoAT has long provided a counter format. As an architect who attended the school between 2009/2010 and later received an M.Arch elsewhere, I personally see immense potential to maintain a program that works outside the norm and I very much appreciate my own experience of having gone to Taliesin.
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.