RoR: Forum

I am pleading ignorance with regard to what the philosophy of "Organic Architecture" is supposed to be! However, what philosophy I do recognise is unpalatable.

For example: "And, inquiring more deeply, he discovered that in truth it was not simply a matter of form expressing function, but the vital idea was this: That the function created or organised its form"...."Corollary the First: ‘That every problem contains its own solution, and the task lies in the accurate statement of the nature of the problem.’"

This is very much like Plato's (and Socrates’?) idea of innate knowledge and the perfect world of ideas. No wonder all this leads into the realm of eastern mysticism with Frank Lloyd Wright’s “Taoist” philosophy that Peter mentioned in a previous article.

Sullivan and Wright were obviously quite mixed up in their philosophical theories, but fortunately not in the practise of their craft.

Post 1

Wednesday, April 28, 2004 - 4:21pm

Hi Marcus,

I have to say, I do enjoy your challenging questions. :-) Let me answer three of them in 'dialectic form' (just to please the good Doctor Diabolical).

1) I also have to agree that, yes, the philosophy of both Sullivan and Wright was a mess. But not as much of a mess as you seem to think. And in any case, the best artists don't express their explicit philosophy so much as they express themselves, what you might call their implicit philosophy. In this sense both were eminently healthy. They were hardly Objectivists of course - who was in 1880? - but though both were certainly heavily influenced by Romantic German philosophy, they were i n many ways very Aristotelian. In late nineteenth-century Mid-West America, both influences seem to have been in the air; most working Americans (as opposed to the academics) were eminently reality-focused, and Aristotelian common sense was still common. And most thinking Mid-Westerners hated the philosophical crap coming from the Eastern seaboard universities. {Remember, for better or worse, that it was in Chicago that the philosophy of pragmatism was born.]

So, you certainly can call them philosophically mixed up, but neither Wright nor Sullivan could be accused of Platonism! Both were too exuberantly hard-headed for that brand of idealism. The idealism they were after was on this earth, and of it - this was the way they read their philosophers, and this was what they expressed in their art. For an example of that art, look at the Mile-High Skyscraper of Wright's that Jeff has posted on SOLOHQ: that was the idealism that Wright espoused! And what a great expression of Sullivan's philosophy of the tall building, as designed by his protege: a skyscraper - a proud and soaring thing - one mile high! With nuclear-powered elevators!

Anyway ... the phrase you quote, I would suggest, is more closely Aristotelian than Platonist. It is identity in action; in other words, it is an expression of the Law of Causality: that a thing acts according to its nature. That much is true whether you're looking at the metaphysical (in which case, 'the thing' has no choice about so acting) or the man-made (in which case the artist should take care that he honestly expresses the essence of 'the thing.') That's really what Sullivan is saying: that the outward appearance of anything man-made should, as in nature, honestly express what that man-made thing is about. (You can see that same idea in Carlyle's Sartor Resartus - a philosophy of clothing - and if you like in Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.) :-)

2) Taoism? Crikey, Frank was hardly a Taoist. [Do you by any chance know the joke about Costas the Goat-fucker? Punch line from Costas: "I fucked just one goat!] "The essence of the cup is the space contained within." Isn't that true? That was what Frank was quoting from Lao Tse because he thought it clearly and colourfully expressed the essence of architecture, that "the essence of the building is the space contained within." Frank was of course pissed that someone had thought of that revolutionary idea before he had done; in quoting Lao Tse he was simply paying homage to the guy who came up with the idea two thousand years before he had. In Frank's exalted ego, that made Lao Tse nearly as brilliant as he was himself. :-)

[For those who've missed Marcus' reference he's referring to an earlier article of mine, archived at: www.solohq.com/Articles/Cresswell/What_Is_Architecture.shtml . I think that's the one? Marcus? ]

3) Yep, Frank liked using parables and metaphors to make his point; after all, it is a good way to make a point. :-) Fact is, Frank quoted the most known parable-teller to explain what he meant by Organic Architecture - "The Kingdom of God is within" - but that doesn't make him a Christian either. :-) Neither does it make his point awfully clear (he was after all an architect and not a writer; but do remember he was writing for a nineteenth-century audience)
What he meant was the same thing Sullivan meant by the phrase you plucked out and by his earlier quote from Lao Tse was this: that in each architectural 'problem' there is a solution there to be found; that the essence of the solution is in how the space is contained, and for what; that the expression of a building comes from the solution, expressing both the essence and - therefore - the purpose of the building; that each project has its own unique context and unique essence, and the job of the architect is to find and express that; that to do this is to work as nature works, and to do so is to do 'God's work' in the best, most secular sense of that phrase.

Bear in mind too that he would have said it with a twinkle in his eye, and an eye to getting new clients through the door: neither Wright nor Sullivan wrote for academia; both wrote to express Henry Hobson Richardson's first law of architecture: "Get the job!" :-)

Both Wright and Sullivan were fond of the flowery phrase. Their writing can be difficult for a twentieth- or twenty-first century audience to penetrate. The job is worth it though, if one is to understand the magnificent works of art they created: not their writing, but their buildings.

Post 2

Thursday, April 29, 2004 - 3:10am

Thank you Peter for your response. I am quite honoured that you almost wrote a second article in response.

Peter: [For those who've missed Marcus' reference he's referring to an earlier article of mine, archived at: www.solohq.com/Articles/Cresswell/What_Is_Architecture.shtml . I think that's the one? Marcus? ]

Yes that is the one.

As to my reply regarding their philosophy and life work. I think you summed it quite well your self when you wrote:

"Both Wright and Sullivan were fond of the flowery phrase. Their writing can be difficult for a twentieth- or twenty-first century audience to penetrate. The job is worth it though, if one is to understand the magnificent works of art they created: not their writing, but their buildings."

A further related question that hopefully you will know the answer to. Why did Ayn Rand suddenly break off her correspondence with Wright? Reading her letters: she first admired him, then he read the Fountainhead and admired her, then Ayn Rand and her husband stayed at Wright's house, then Wright designed her future house, and then nothing from Ayn Rand......silence. And Frank Lloyd Wright seems to be baffled by it himself too. What's the story?

Post 3

Friday, April 30, 2004 - 5:59am

A superb article, Peter.

In relation to the discussion about Sullivan's philosophy, the thing I noticed at first was his attempt to lead the reader to a grasp of his 'Idea' through induction. Perhaps it's no surprise that the spirit that comes through in those quotes is one of a real love for this world. A keeness to study the world around you and a love for that world come hand in hand. He seems to be very much the Aristotelian in that sense.

Post 4

Friday, April 30, 2004 - 2:38pm

Thanks, Marcus and Cameron. As for the 'second article,' as you can see I am keenly interested in the subject. :-)

Marcus asks what's the story with Rand & Wright? I really don't know, but here's perhaps two relevant points:
1) Ayn Rand had no site for the house Wright designed for her, as she had no idea where she wanted to live. Wright made an exception for her, and designed a house for a generic site. Rand eventually decided to make her home in Manhattan, and obviously didn't need the house - so she had no further dealings with him professionally at that stage.
2) Ayn Rand and her husband visited Taliesin East (Wright's Wisconson house) and apparently were somewhat shocked at what she thought was the 'feudal nature' of the setup with Wright's apprentices. These apprentices paid for the privilege of going to work for Wright - and work they did. Perhaps AR was just jealous that her young fans wouldn't do likewise with her? :-)

Cameron:
I agree with you. Whatever Sullivan's 'baying at the moon,' as Wright called it humorously, Sullivan's work and energy were very much focussed on this-worldly things.

Post 5

Saturday, May 26, 2012 - 2:29pm

This came up as a random item recently, and I finally read the book. Glad I did; inspiring on its own, and serves Objectivists with insight into the creation of The Fountainhead.

Speaking of Objectivists, this thread feels incomplete without mentioning Rand's take on final causation. Marcus had noticed a "Platonic element" in Sullivan's ideas regarding form and function, to which Peter replied is actually Aristotelian:

"Anyway ... the phrase you quote, I would suggest, is more closely Aristotelian than Platonist. It is identity in action; in other words, it is an expression of the Law of Causality: that a thing acts according to its nature. That much is true whether you're looking at the metaphysical (in which case, 'the thing' has no choice about so acting) or the man-made (in which case the artist should take care that he honestly expresses the essence of 'the thing.') That's really what Sullivan is saying: that the outward appearance of anything man-made should, as in nature, honestly express what that man-made thing is about."

"Since 'form follows function' was a big part of The Fountainhead, let's see where Rand went with Aristotle and final causation: n order to make the choices required to achieve his goals, a man needs the constant, automatized awareness of the principle which the anti-concept “duty” has all but obliterated in his mind: the principle of causality—specifically, of Aristotelian final causation (which, in fact, applies only to a conscious being), i.e., the process by which an end determines the means, i.e., the process of choosing a goal and taking the actions necessary to achieve it." - “Causality Versus Duty,”

And in The Art of Fiction, she's presented as saying:

"Here I call your attention to Aristotle's concepts of efficient and final causation.

"Efficient causation means that an event is determined by an antecedent cause...

"Final causation means that the end result of a certain chain of causes determines those causes. Aristotle gave this example: A tree is the final cause of the seed from which that tree will grow. From one perspective, the seed is the efficient cause of the tree: first there is the seed, and as a result, the tree grows. But from the perspective of final causation, Aristotle said, the future tree determines the nature of the seed and of the development it has to follow in order to end up as that tree.

"This, by the way, is one of my major differences from Aristotle. It is wrong to assume what in philosophy is known as teleology-namely, that a purpose set in advance in nature determines physical phenomena. The concept of the future tree determining the nature of the seed is impossible; it is the kind of concept that leads to mysticism and religion. Most religions have a teleological explanation of the universe; God made the universe, so its purpose determines the nature of the entities in it.

"But the concept of final causation, properly delimited, is valid. Final causation applies only to the work of a conscious entity-specifically a rational one-because only a thinking consciousness can choose a purpose ahead of its existence and then select the means to achieve it.

"In the realm of human action, everything has to be directed by final causation. If men allow themselves to be moved by efficient causation-if they act like determined beings, propelled by some immediate cause outside themselves-that is totally improper."

"Any purposeful activity follows the same progression....By the process of final causation, he makes nature perform the necessary processes of efficient causation, he puts together certain parts in a certain scientific order..."

-"Theme and Plot"

So there's the basis of Marcus's "Platonic" suspicion, and Rand's disagreement with Aristotle, but with the justification of final causation as utilized by Sullivan and Wright.

Post 6

Saturday, May 26, 2012 - 3:05pm

I think the reason Wright and Rand lost touch is simply that she was too busy with her magnum opus to keep the friendship going. She got back in contact with him years later, sending an advance copy of "Atlas Shrugged" and getting a friendly note in return. (Just the same I wonder about someone who numbered Wright, Hazlitt and von Mises among her friends and chose instead to hang with Branden and Peikoff.) She cannot have earned any points with him by deciding not to build the house.

In their ideas about form and matter Aristotle and Wright are in one respect exact opposites. Aristotle said that what something is determines (or at least delimits) what it could be made of; a saw can't be made of wood or a house of loose sand, and an animal can't be of anything but flesh, bone, vein and its other components. Wright said that what a building is made of determines what it properly can be; if you choose brick you'll get a different house than what might have come about if you'd conceived it in frame and stucco.

Finally I think she is unduly hard on Aristotle's teleology. Her characterization owes more to his medieval admirers and to modern materialists / positivists than to Aristotle himself. What an entity is delimits what it can do; if this seed is not the kind that could give rise to a tomato plant, it isn't a tomato seed. This is a huge topic and I can't cite particular passages at the moment, but it's the message I got from reading him, and I have no problem with it. Anyone who wants to follow up should check out the writings of Alan Gotthelf and James Lennox, Objectivists who have made careers studying this.
(Edited by Peter Reidy on 5/27, 12:10pm)

Post 7

Saturday, May 26, 2012 - 8:24pm

Peter wrote: "Finally I think she is unduly hard on Aristotle's teleology. Her characterization owes more to his medieval admirers and to modern materialists / positivists than to Aristotle himself. What an entity is delimits what it can do; if this seed is not the kind that could give rise to a tomato plant, it isn't a tomato seed. This is a huge topic and I can't cite particular passages at the moment, but it's the message I got from reading him, and I see no problem with it. Anyone who wants to follow up should check out the writings of Alan Gotthelf and James Lennox, Objectivists who have made careers studying this."

Aristotle's "Four Causes" (Wiki)

"Understanding Aristotle's Teleology" Allan Gotthelf

Philosophical Issues in Aristotle's Biology Gotthelf and Lennox

(Edited by Joe Maurone on 5/26, 8:32pm)

Post 8

Sunday, May 27, 2012 - 10:10am