Frank Lloyd Wright

I've been doing research for my Art Theory course, on the topic of modernist architecture. I'm reading through a large number of journal articles on Frank Lloyd Wrights architecture, and he did have a lot of things to say about art in general that seem to make a lot of sense to me in a way. In an academic sense the concepts that he conveys through his writing, and that is embodied in his architecture, speak to me in a way that I haven't found many others to. A particular example is an excerpt is this one: "Consistency in grammar is therefore the property -solely- of a well developed artist-architect. Without that property of the arist-architect not much can be done about your abode as a work of Art. Grammar is no property for the usual owner or the occupant of the house. But the man who designs the house must inevitably speak a consistent thought-language in his design. It properly may be and should be a language of his own if appropriate. If he has no language, so no grammar, of his own, he must adopt one; he will speak some language or other whether he so chooses to or not." (Wright F.L, 1954 The Natural House, pages 182-183) This excerpt is the first written example this concept I have found so far (maybe I'm just not as literate as I thought I was). I interpreted this as applying to all art, as opposed to being useful merely to the "artist-architect". Using consistent "thought-language" in an art piece is important and a concept that I think is often overlooked when comparing a seemingly well structured piece and a not well structured piece. Often I have found myself admiring pieces that have consistent thought-language and grammar throughout. A couple of artists and pieces that I feel follow this very structurally sound model of creative design through thought language are Boards of Canada (in particular Geogaddi and The Campfire Headphase), Venetian Snares (Rossz Csillag Alatt Szuletett and Detrimentalist), Anthony Fransisco Sheppard (Two Against One and Blockhead - The Music Scene), and Naoto Hattori (in particular his symbolic/communicative work). I find this kind of expression a very satisfying model to use to consider the quality of art, or at least whether I have a purely physiological reaction to the piece or whether I have an aesthetic attraction to the artwork/artform itself. Another property that I have noticed of these structured and consistent pieces is that their aesthetic form and their function are blended. When this happens, and is accompanied by consistent grammar, it seems to have a synergistic effect on the piece. I notice now that FLW was the a major proponent in the adoption of this concept (form and function are one) and have now completed a circle back to my original point. I will end here.