See inside The Atlas of Ancient Rome

CarandiniThe Atlas of Ancient Rome, edited by Andrea Carandini, is a gorgeous, authoritative archeological survey of Rome from prehistory to the early medieval period. Transport yourself to antiquity with full-color maps, drawings, photos, and 3D reconstructions of the Eternal City, featuring descriptions of the fourteen regions of Rome and the urban history of each in unprecedented detail. Included are profiles and reconstructions of more than 500 major monuments and works of art, such as the Sanctuary of Vesta, the domus Augusti, and the Mausoleum of Augustus. This two-volume, slipcased edition examines the city’s topography and political-administrative divisions, trade and economic production, and social landscape and infrastructure using the most current archaeological findings and the latest mapping technologies. Take a look at a sampling of some of the detailed images from the book.

Frank Lloyd Wright turns 150

Frank Lloyd Wright, the influential American architect, interior designer, thinker, and educator, was born 150 years ago today. A leader of the Prairie School movement, Wright was a prolific practitioner of what he called “organic architecture”, which emphasized creating structures in harmony with humanity and its environment. Fallingwater, completed in 1939 in Pennsylvania and stretching over a thirty-foot waterfall, embodied this philosophy perfectly. Now a National Historic Landmark that has seen more than 4.5 million visitors, the house is only one of the more than 1,000 structures Wright designed across the span of a long career, 532 of which saw completion. His creations can be seen across America, from Wisconsin, to Arizona, to New York City, and his uncompleted designs range from a mile high tower he envisioned for Chicago to an opera house in Baghdad:

Frank Lloyd Wright’s plan for the Baghdad Opera House

The Press has published a number of important and lavishly illustrated books on the visionary architect over the years, including Modern Architecture by Wright himself. Recently, Neil Levine authored a followup study to his first landmark book on Wright. The new volume, The Urbanism of Frank Lloyd Wright, overturns the conventional view of Wright as an architect who deplored the city and whose urban vision was limited to a utopian plan for a network of agrarian communities he called Broadacre City. Rather, Levine reveals Wright’s larger, more varied, interesting, and complex urbanism. Will Wiles of Apollo Magazine hails the new volume enthusiastically: “The Urbanism of Frank Lloyd Wright is a companion to Levine’s landmark study The Architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright, published in 1997, and it is as monumental as might be inferred from the 20-year wait.”

Just out this spring is Wright on Exhibit, by Kathryn Smith, which offers the first history of Frank Lloyd Wright’s exhibitions of his own work—a practice central to his career. Take a peek.

Drawing extensively from his unpublished correspondence, Smith challenges the preconceived notion of Wright as a self-promoter who displayed his work in search of money, clients, and fame. She shows how he was an artist-architect projecting an avant-garde program, an innovator who expanded the palette of installation design as technology evolved, and a social activist driven to revolutionize society through design. Read more in a recent interview with Smith on the PUP blog.

Happy 150th to a visionary whose legacy continues to influence the way we live, build and innovate.

 

 

 

An interview with Andrea Carandini, editor of The Atlas of Ancient Rome

We’re thrilled to announce that The Atlas of Ancient Rome is will be available for purchase next week. Take a moment to watch this interview with the volume editor, Andrea Carandini, in which he discusses why Rome merits its own Atlas, the appeal of the book as an object, and what makes this project unique. And be sure to check out the microsite for more information on this gorgeous tour through centuries of Roman history.

 

Bart Schultz on The Happiness Philosophers

SchultzIn The Happiness Philosophers, Bart Schultz tells the colorful story of the lives and legacies of the founders of utilitarianism—one of the most profoundly influential yet misunderstood and maligned philosophies of the past two centuries. Best known for arguing that “it is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong,” utilitarianism was developed by the radical philosophers, critics, and social reformers William Godwin (the husband of Mary Wollstonecraft and father of Mary Shelley), Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart and Harriet Taylor Mill, and Henry Sidgwick. Schultz recently took the time to answer some questions about his new book.

What do you hope to achieve with this book?

Well, I suppose it represents one of the ways in which I try to “do good better,” as the saying goes.  Among other things, I would like to see it help spark a more critical approach to the so-called “happiness industry,” that vast literature (both popular and academic) on the subject of happiness that far too often lends itself to questionable political (or apolitical) agendas.  The great nineteenth-century utilitarians—Godwin and Bentham, Mill and Sidgwick—developed and deployed their notions of happiness as part of their tireless efforts to advance social reform, e.g. seeking to promote happiness by securing political and social equality for women.  They had their failings, but their energetic reformism was often admirable and their example remains relevant to our political situation today.  Were they around today, they would all be participating in the Women’s Marches, fighting global poverty, and sounding the alarm about global warming.

Many people might not think of utilitarianism in that way, or of academic philosophy as holding that potential.

Yes, but those are views that I am out to challenge.  I hope that my book will inspire people in many different walks of life, academic or not, both to revisit the classical utilitarians and to engage with the wonderful utilitarian philosophizing at work in the world today, as evidenced by the journal Utilitas.  Curiously, although there is a laudable and widespread interest in the work of Peter Singer, particularly the animal liberation and effective altruism movements that he did so much to advance, that interest often fails to extend to the philosophical roots of his utilitarian perspective in the work of Henry Sidgwick, the greatest of the nineteenth century utilitarians.  But if the philosophizing and activism of Singer can so engage people, the work of Sidgwick and the other great utilitarians should be able to inspire them as well.  True, the old, malicious caricatures of the classical utilitarians are still far too common.  In my own experience teaching at the University of Chicago for thirty years, even many of the brightest young students of philosophy harbor views of classical utilitarianism that owe more to the hostile depictions of it by critics than to the classical utilitarian writings themselves.  They have read Michel Foucault on Bentham, but not Bentham; John Rawls on Sidgwick, but not Sidgwick, and so on.

How will your book change that?

By providing fuller portraits of the lives and works of the classical utilitarians taken together.  The philosophizing and the activist life of, say, William Godwin (but the others as well) were genuinely inseparable, and one gets a much better sense of what his philosophy actually meant by looking at how it was realized in his life—for example, in his relationships with the amazing Mary Wollstonecraft and the daughter they had, Mary Shelley, who wrote Frankenstein.  When students meet classical utilitarianism only through one or another stylized argument (often not one that was actually made by the great utilitarians), as in the popular “Trolley cases,” they do not gain a good sense of the resources of the utilitarian perspective, of its potential as a change agent.  Thus, much of what people today champion as a many-sided liberal education—the kind of education that Martha Nussbaum has done so much to articulate and defend—was in fact defended by such figures as Mill and Sidgwick, on utilitarian grounds.  They loved and promoted the humanities, and often criticized the universities for failing to support philosophy, literature, and the arts, as well as for failing to open up educational opportunities for all.  On these topics and others, we still have much to learn from them.

What is your biggest worry or regret about your book?

Naturally, I wish that I could have spent another ten years on it—there is still so much research to do, especially on Bentham.  Also, it breaks my heart that Derek Parfit, who died on January 1st, will not around to read the final published version.  He read various drafts, especially of the chapter on Sidgwick, and was very, very supportive and helpful, as he always has been.  My first major publication was an article contributed to the 1986 Ethics symposium on Reasons and Persons, an article to which he wrote a Reply, and I think that from that time to this I have never published anything without wondering what he would think of it—and fortunately, very often finding out, since he was so generous in his comments.  Some of my more recent work was devoted to On What Matters.  And I was profoundly honored to include him in the book symposium that I edited on Kasia de Lazari-Radek and Peter Singer’s recent book, The Point of View of the Universe.  Readers familiar with Derek’s work will see how parts of my Sidgwick chapter, relating to personal identity and other issues, are addressed to some of the points that he made about Sidgwick.  I once remarked to him that I thought his work was ultimately more about reasons, and mine more about persons, in the full biographical sense.  But really, he was the one who, with J. B. Schneewind, gave me the confidence and courage to pursue my Sidgwick studies, which in turn led to this book.  I am glad to have this opportunity to explain just how much I owe to both of them.

Bart Schultz is senior lecturer in the humanities and director of the Civic Knowledge Project at the University of Chicago. He is the author of The Happiness Philosophers: The Lives and Works of the Great Utilitarians.

Steven and Ben Nadler on Heretics!: An enlightening graphic novel

NadlerThis entertaining and enlightening graphic narrative tells the exciting story of the seventeenth-century thinkers who challenged authority to lay the foundations of modern philosophy and science and help usher in a new world. With masterful storytelling and color illustrations by father-son duo Steven Nadler and Ben Nadler, Heretics! offers a unique introduction to the birth of modern thought in comics form. These contentious and controversial philosophers—from Galileo and Descartes to Spinoza, Locke, Leibniz, and Newton—fundamentally changed the way we look at the world, society, and ourselves. Heretics! tells the story of their ideas, lives, and times in a vivid new way. Read on for a conversation between Steven and Ben about the process of working together on a graphic novel, their favorite illustrations, and what they each learned along the way.

Ben:  So Dad, tell me, what gave you the idea for us to do a graphic book together on modern philosophy?

Steven: Well, my editor at Princeton University Press had asked me to write a big new history of philosophy, perhaps with some illustrations done by you. But I wasn’t sure that was something I wanted to do. However, I was intrigued by the notion of doing something really creative with a history of philosophy in the seventeenth century, my specialty. And then, with you recently graduated from art school, I thought it would be really fun to do something together. And it was! Let me ask you: why did you want to do it?

Nadler

Ben: It was an offer I could not refuse. I was an intern in Seattle just out of RISD, but not really employed as an illustrator. So I was hoping this book would be a good way to get that career started. I was also part-way through a graphic novel that didn’t seem to have an end in sight, so the idea of doing a more collaborative project that had some structure and a deadline was appealing. Plus, it was a chance to bond with my father! What were your expectations going into it?

Steven: I was hoping that we could find an engaging and entertaining way to introduce a broad audience to a really interesting period of philosophy and a fascinating group of philosophers. I want this book to be read not just by professional philosophers and philosophy students, but general readers of all kinds, including high school and college students. It had to be really accessible and tell a good story. The hard part for me, in writing the text, was to avoid two extremes: on the one hand, being too dry and academic, and, on the other hand, being condescending and patronizing. I had to find the right balance between academic writing and simplistic popularizing. What was the hard part for you?

Nadler

Ben:  The hardest part was finding the right visualizations for some of the really abstract, conceptual and heady ideas that you wrote about. It’s one thing to draw biographical comics about philosophers, and another to try to illustrate Leibniz’s concept of “monads.”

Steven: Yes, I do remember your panicked phone call asking me what the hell a monad is.  We had to give a lot of thought to how to depict a monad visually, and I checked in with various colleagues to see if they had any ideas.  Everyone was kind of stumped.  I think you came up with the best solution.  The other tough challenge was how to illustrate a person’s soul (as distinct from their body). Again, I think you did a great job with that visually.  What’s your favorite page or chapter of the book?

Nadler

Ben: The page where the two guys are getting pushed out the window was really tough, I had to spend a whole day trying to get the perspective right. That might be my favorite illustration, because of how much work went into it and seeing the final pay-off. I also tend to like the later pages, after I settled into my drawing habits and improved over the year and a half we worked on the book. I completely re-drew the first twenty pages or so after everything else was finished, just to try to maintain a consistent look. What about you? I’m going to guess it’s God waving goodbye as the earth gets on the school bus.

Steven: Yes, I love that image of God waving goodbye to the world.  And the illustration of the defenestration is wonderful, really bold.  I also like the corpuscle in motion, roller-blading with headphones, in the section on Gassendi, and the image from the Newton chapter showing the earth and the moon being tugged toward each other by gravity as they hold on to the edges of the panel.  In the end, did you enjoy the experience of illustrating philosophy? It’s hard to do, and I think you did a brilliant job—but then again, I’m your father, and a little biased.

Nadler

Ben: Thanks, Dad! I did enjoy it, it was challenging and fun. I learned a lot about what makes a book come together. I especially liked researching and implementing all of the costume design and set pieces for 17th century Europe, it was a really immersive way to learn about western philosophy.

Steven Nadler is the William H. Hay II Professor of Philosophy and Evjue-Bascom Professor in the Humanities at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. His books include Spinoza: A Life, which won the Koret Jewish Book Award, and Rembrandt’s Jews, which was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize. Ben Nadler, a graduate of the Rhode Island School of Design, is an illustrator. They are the author and the illustrator of Heretics! The Wondrous (and Dangerous) Beginnings of Modern Philosophy.

 

Nadler portraits

A peek inside Gillian Wearing and Claude Cahun: Behind the Mask, Another Mask

Gillian Wearing and Claude Cahun: Behind the Mask, Another Mask by Sarah Howgate draws together for the first time the work of French artist Claude Cahun (1894–1954) and British contemporary artist Gillian Wearing (b. 1963). Although they were born almost a century apart, their work shares similar themes—gender, identity, masquerade, and performance. Take a look inside this stunningly illustrated book containing reproductions of more than ninety key works.

Gillian Wearing and Claude Cahun: Behind the Mask, Another Mask by Sarah Howgate from Princeton University Press on Vimeo.

Sarah Howgate is senior curator of contemporary portraits at the National Portrait Gallery, London. She is the coauthor of Lucian Freund Portraits, 21st-Century Portraits and The Portrait Now. Dawn Ades is professor emerita of art history at the University of Essex and the author of Art in Latin America: The Modern Era, 1820–1980, among many other books.

Jack Zipes on The Sorcerer’s Apprentice

The Sorcerer’s ApprenticeZipes by Jack Zipes enlightens and entertains with enduring, spellbinding tales of sorcery. The title might conjure up images of Mickey Mouse from the Disney film Fantasia, or of Harry Potter. But as this anthology reveals, “sorcerer’s apprentice” tales—in which a young person rebels against, or complies with, an authority who holds the keys to magical powers—have been told through the centuries, in many languages and cultures, from classical times to today. This unique and beautifully illustrated book brings together more than fifty sorcerer’s apprentice stories by a plethora of writers, including Ovid, Sir Walter Scott, and the Brothers Grimm. Zipes recently took the time to answer a few questions about his latest book.

What prompted you to collect all the different “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” tales?

JZ: We are still living in the Dark Ages, and consequently, five years ago, I wanted to shed some light on what Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer have called the dialectic of the Enlightenment, and why reason has been obfuscated and overshadowed by superstition, religion, government, and corporate powers in so-called modern “enlightened” times. At one point in my research I came across various versions of “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” that contradicted the popular Disney tale with which I was most familiar. These were stories in which the apprentice defeated a sordid, power-hungry sorcerer and which showed how knowledge could be used for emancipation and enlightenment. From that point on, I could not stop collecting similar tales that are included in the present anthology.

Why are these tales so significant?

JZ: The “Sorcerer’s Apprentice” tales are highly significant because they present magic primarily as a stable value of transformation that allows for self-consciousness and self-fashioning. These unusual tales counter the defamation of magic by religion, science, and the state, and raise the question of the master/slave dialectic that challenges elites and the status quo. In this regard, I have framed this anthology of “Sorcerer’s Apprentice” tales to represent the two major strains of “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” tradition and their historical development. It begins with tales of “The Humiliated Apprentice,” followed by “The Rebellious Apprentice” stories and Krabat tales. The majority of the tales stem from “The Rebellious Apprentice” tale type. This larger number, compared to the smaller amount of “The Humiliated Apprentice” tale type, is not due to my prejudices but simply to the fact that I did not find as many “Humiliated Apprentice” tales in my vast research as I did “Rebellious Apprentice” tales. The disparity speaks for itself, for the rebellion of apprentices of all kinds is a constant in all societies and in all ages.

What is at the basis of the conflict between the sorcerer and his apprentice?

JZ: Our knowledge of ourselves and the world is attained through experiencing “slavery” and knowing what being in slavery entails. This means that we are all involved in what the philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, in Phenomenology of Spirit, calls a dialectical bloody battle to death that underlies all types of “Sorcerer’s Apprentice” tales. In most of the oral tales and many of the literary tales about sorcerer’s apprentices, the narrative perspective is what I call the “slave’s perspective,” a voice and view from below, no matter who the collector, mediator, or publisher of the tale may have been. This view is what makes the tales so striking. Though it may be difficult to explore and explain how people, defined and treated as slaves, contributed to the formation of culture from below, it can be done. The renowned American folklorist Richard Dorson drew important historical connections in his collection Negro Folktales in Michigan in dealing with American master/slave tales told by African-Americans. The“Sorcerer’s Apprentice” tales do not provide a solution to the master/slave conflict; they are not prescriptions or formulas for ending this conflict. What I have tried to demonstrate through collecting tales from various periods, and from different European, Asian, African, and American countries, is how these stories play out essential conflicts whose resolutions determine the nature of what it is to be human and humane.

Why do magic and magical transformation matter so much in people’s lives?

JZ: For a variety of reasons throughout the centuries, people have sought knowledge and power through magic. Tales about the desire for magic, which have evolved from words, fragments, and sentences, are not only wish-fulfillment tales but also blunt expressions of emotions that reveal what the people who tell, write, and listen to the tales lack, and what they want. Most people in the world believe in some kind of magic, whether religious or secular, and want to control “magic,” or “mana,” to escape enslavement and determine the path of their lives. According to the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, all people are stamped by what he calls our habitus—the beliefs, values and customs that mark and shape our thoughts, values, and behavior from birth. To know ourselves and to free ourselves, Bourdieu writes, we must continually confront masters, who, if they do not learn from their slaves, will ultimately have to die in order for the slaves to gain release and freedom.

In what way did Walt Disney warp the tradition of the rebellious apprentice?

JZ: People tend to believe that the ideal, if not definitive, version of “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” is the Disney cinematic and literary tale produced as part of the film Fantasia in 1940. This is a misconception, and our unquestioning acceptance of the Disney version, which reinforces notions of humiliation, has ramifications for the abusive way we treat children. In fact, the transformation of the ancient “Humiliated Apprentice” tales into a “charming” children’s tale is one of the ways in which mass-mediated and commodified children’s literature ideologically warps if not perverts folklore to induct children into authoritarian civilizing processes. On the other hand, the oral traditions of anonymous storytelling that favor the “Rebellious Apprentice” tales oppose the oppression of commodified tales. Stories, storytellers, and writers look for the most fitting and artistic modality they can find to articulate views about life and the world. In the formation of what I call a memetic tradition of folk-tale types and fairy tales, there has always been a communal expression of themes that formed tales relevant to be remembered. Many of the themes are connected to beliefs in magic and magical transformation. Indeed, the pursuit of magic often underlies the patterns of folk and fairy tales. In this regard, the themes found in the “Sorcerer’s Apprentice” tales are organically connected with the customs and beliefs of people who engendered them, and they form never-ending cultural traditions of resistance to the domination of magicians who misuse power. This unique collection of “Sorcerer’s Apprentice” tales sheds light on how young people have rebelled against the oppression and domination of magicians who use magic to control and exploit apprentices. The long history of the“Sorcerer’s Apprentice” tales that date back to Greco-Roman times reflects how rebellion is key to understanding the relevance of the tales which expose the contradictions in the popularity of the Disney commodified version.

Jack Zipes is the editor and translator of The Original Folk and Fairy Tales of the Brothers Grimm. He is professor emeritus of German and comparative literature at the University of Minnesota. Natalie Frank is an American artist currently living and working in New York City. Her work is held in multiple museum collections, including the Whitney Museum of American Art and the Brooklyn Museum. They are the author and illustrator of The Sorcerer’s Apprentice: An Anthology of Magical Tales.

The exhibits of Frank Lloyd Wright

SmithWright organized the majority of more than one hundred exhibitions of his work that were mounted between 1894 and his death in 1959, viewing them as crucial to his self-presentation as his extensive writings. Wright on Exhibit presents the first history of this neglected aspect of the architect’s influential career. Drawing extensively from Wright’s unpublished correspondence, Kathryn Smith shows that he was an artist-architect projecting an avant-garde program, an innovator who expanded the palette of installation design as technology evolved, and a social activist driven to revolutionize society through design. Placing Wright’s exhibitions side by side with his writings, Smith shows how integral these exhibitions were to his vision and sheds light on the broader discourse concerning architecture and modernism during the first half of the twentieth century. Wright on Exhibit features color renderings, photos, and plans—check some of them out here:

Kathryn Smith is an architectural historian who specializes in Frank Lloyd Wright. Her books include Frank Lloyd Wright: American Master; Frank Lloyd Wright, Hollyhock House, and Olive Hill: Buildings and Projects for Aline Barnsdall; and Schindler House. She lives in Santa Monica, California.

Presenting the trailer for Heretics!: The Wondrous (and Dangerous) Beginnings of Modern Philosophy

This entertaining and enlightening graphic narrative tells the exciting story of the seventeenth-century thinkers who challenged authority—sometimes risking excommunication, prison, and even death—to lay the foundations of modern philosophy and science and help usher in a new world. With masterful storytelling and color illustrations, Heretics! offers a unique introduction to the birth of modern thought in comics form—smart, charming, and often funny. A brilliant account of one of the most brilliant periods in philosophy, Heretics! is the story of how a group of brave thinkers used reason and evidence to triumph over the authority of religion, royalty, and antiquity. Watch the trailer here:

 

Heretics!: The Wondrous (and Dangerous) Beginnings of Modern Philosophy by Steven Nadler & Ben Nadler from Princeton University Press on Vimeo.

HereticsSteven Nadler is the William H. Hay II Professor of Philosophy and Evjue-Bascom Professor in the Humanities at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. His books include Spinoza: A Life, which won the Koret Jewish Book Award, and Rembrandt’s Jews, which was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize. He lives in Madison. Ben Nadler is a graduate of the Rhode Island School of Design and an illustrator. He lives in Chicago. Follow him on Instagram at @bennadlercomics.

Wright on Exhibit: Frank Lloyd Wright’s Architectural Exhibitions

More than one hundred exhibitions of Frank Lloyd Wright’s work were mounted between 1894 and his death in 1959. Wright organized the majority of these exhibitions himself and viewed them as important to his self-presentation as his extensive writings. He used them to introduce his new work, appeal to a wide audience, and persuade his detractors. Wright on Exhibit presents the first history of this neglected aspect of the architect’s influential career.

Drawing extensively from Wright’s unpublished correspondence, Kathryn Smith challenges the preconceived notion of Wright as a self-promoter who displayed his work in search of money, clients, and fame. She shows how he was an artist-architect projecting an avant-garde program, an innovator who expanded the palette of installation design as technology evolved, and a social activist driven to revolutionize society through design. While Wright’s earliest exhibitions were largely for other architects, by the 1930s he was creating public installations intended to inspire debate and change public perceptions about architecture. The nature of his exhibitions expanded with the times beyond models, drawings, and photographs to include more immersive tools such as slides, film, and even a full-scale structure built especially for his 1953 retrospective at the Guggenheim Museum. Placing Wright’s exhibitions side by side with his writings, Smith shows how integral these exhibitions were to his vision.

Photograph by Pedro E. Guerrero

Q: What is different about Wright on Exhibit than other books you have written about Wright?

Kathryn Smith: I chose his architectural exhibitions during his lifetime because it was a finite subject that had real clarity and purpose. It provided a great framework to view how Wright favored his own work, how he prepared it in drawings and models, and how he dealt with the press, museums, the public, and contemporary architects. I live in Los Angeles, the location of the Getty Research Library, where Wright’s correspondence of 103,000 letters and documents are on deposit on microfiche. By 2016, I would say that I had read about 15,000 pieces of this correspondence. I knew his voice and his moods. I wanted that to come through to the reader by quoting the correspondence. It was one of my main purposes: to put the reader as much as possible into the moment.

Q: How many exhibitions are in your final count?

KS: My total is 124 exhibitions. There is a gap between 1915 and 1929. But from 1930 forward, there were at least one or more exhibitions–one man shows or surveys–every year until his death where my book stops.
I created two appendices: the list of all of the exhibitions and an illustrated catalogue raisonné of all known models, extant or lost. Even the list of models is staggering. There are 57.

Q: The excerpts from letters are vivid, but how did you illustrate the book?

KS: I was lucky because Wright clearly wanted to document his career. Beginning in 1907, he hired professionals to photograph his installations. I accumulated a good representation of black and white images of all the major exhibitions. But I learned that the shows themselves were rich in color. It was imperative to communicate this richness to the reader. The book has 57 color illustrations, primarily of drawings, and 188 half tones.

Q: Did you make any discoveries that surprised you?

KS: Yes, quite a few. I would say that there is a very vague outline in the mind of many people who have heard of the major exhibitions. They conjure up basically either positive or negative impressions. But that changes dramatically when the factual history is traced. For instance, “Sixty Years of Living Architecture” was conceived in Florence, Italy in 1948 and went through the most torturous three-year period of failed international diplomatic planning. Wright was completely ignorant of this activity. Yet, it finally opened due to the determination, the effort, and the financial support of a few individuals, American and Italian. It is a very compelling story, complete with cliffhangers. Almost all the major exhibitions I wrote about were dramatic with Wright threatening to pull out at the last minute.

 

Sixty Years of Living Architecture, poster, 1952 (Private collection)

Broadacre City exhibition, New York, 1935 (Scott Architectural Archive)

Q: What was the most memorable thing you learned about Wright?

KS: After the openings came the reviews. In some years, especially, before 1948, when there were a number of mixed or negative assessments, he felt downhearted and baffled. In truth, he had a rather thin skin. His most characteristic response was to turn to writing: he lashed out in anger at the critics. What I was struck by was Wright’s vulnerability. There were quite a few instances of negative criticism when he seemed to stand aside, like an outsider, not comprehending why the American people did not embrace him as their champion as he intended. It is true, he became a “starchitect,” in the parlance of our day; but he was looking for recognition of greater depth.

 

Favorite Lines: Troy Jollimore

In honor of National Poetry Month, we’ve asked some of the poets who have published in the Princeton Series of Contemporary Poets to highlight and discuss a single line in their poetry that has special significance. Today Troy Jollimore, author of Syllabus of Errors, talks about inspiration while writing “My Book” (Syllabus of Errors, 29). 

Jollimore“I bought a copy, but it wasn’t mine.” This is the opening line of “My Book,” a poem in my third book, Syllabus of Errors. The line introduces what I take to be the main theme of that poem, the question that animates it, which is: what does it mean to say that something—in particular, a work of art—is “mine”? That is, what is the nature of property, especially when it comes to art? Our society is largely built on notions of property; indeed, property is crucial to the way people in the modern Western world think about rights and other ethical matters. And yet property is a complex and elusive concept, much more so, I think, than we commonly pretend.

“My Book” plays on ambiguities between the everyday meaning of my (in which to own a book is simply to possess a copy of a book, a physical object that one might treat and dispose of as one pleases) and the special meaning of my that attaches not to material ownership but to authorship (which is itself, it seems to me, a kind of ownership, but one that attaches to something other than a particular material object). But just what is this special sense? Authors are often imagined as bearing an especially intimate relationship to their works and, perhaps as a result of this, a special responsibility for their works. They are, to some degree, identified with their works. One feels, in reading the writers one loves, as if one comes to know them. Their thoughts, their minds, the very essence of their lives is there on the page, for all to see. The cliché “my life is an open book” alludes, in part, to this.

My own relationships with “my” books, though—and with my own individual poems as well—has not been so straightforward. I seem to find them as mysterious as do other people, and often wonder just what they are trying to get at. I don’t really know where they have come from; I don’t really understand the process by which they were written; and I am not confident in my ability to repeat that process in the future. The poems seem to have an existence that is largely and indeed fundamentally independent of me, and the prospect of being identified with them, or even being held responsible for them, feels troubling.

For the most part, when I hold one of “my” books in my hand, what I feel is not intimacy but strangeness. The person who has written the poems seems foreign and mostly unknown; as foreign and unknown, perhaps, as any former version of oneself. What do these poems say about me? What do they say to me? What if I decide I am unsatisfied with them, or no longer believe (if I ever did) the ideas they express—do I have, in that case, the right to revise them? Or would this amount to a kind of vandalism, a violation of the rights of their actual author, who is no longer around to assert those rights or complain about their being disrespected? What kind of special authority may I presume, when I am asked, as I was for this blog post, to write about one of “my” works, as if to explain it to the world? If I read Derrida again, or Barthes, would that help me answer these questions?

Perhaps one day I will write a book that really feels like it is mine, and I will be able to hold a copy of that book in my hands without being troubled by these questions. Maybe I’ll call it My Book, and I’ll make “My Book” the first poem in it. For the time being I feel happy with that poem; I like what it seems to say and enjoy how it says it. The thoughts it expresses are thoughts I myself seem to have had. It’s almost as if I wrote it.

My Book

JollimoreTroy Jollimore is the author of two previous collections of poetry, At Lake Scugog (Princeton) and Tom Thomson in Purgatory, which won the National Book Critics Circle Award. His poems have appeared in the New Yorker,McSweeney’s, the Believer, and other publications. He is a professor of philosophy at California State University, Chico.

Kathryn Smith on Frank Lloyd Wright’s architectural exhibitions

SmithMore than one hundred exhibitions of Frank Lloyd Wright’s work were mounted between 1894 and his death in 1959. Wright organized the majority of these exhibitions himself and viewed them as crucial to his self-presentation as his extensive writings. Wright on Exhibit by Kathryn Smith presents the first history of this neglected aspect of the architect’s influential career.

Drawing extensively from Wright’s unpublished correspondence, Smith challenges the preconceived notion of Wright as a self-promoter who displayed his work in search of money, clients, and fame. She shows how he was an artist-architect projecting an avant-garde program, an innovator who expanded the palette of installation design as technology evolved, and a social activist driven to revolutionize society through design. Smith recently took the time to answer a few questions about her new book.

There have been so many books published on Frank Lloyd Wright. Why should we be interested in another one?

KS: In that sense, and in other ways as well, Wright can be compared to Pablo Picasso. Wright is a seminal figure in the history of modern art. Blessed with longevity, his seventy productive years resulted in approximately one thousand built and unbuilt designs. Like Picasso, Wright still captures the general public’s imagination, both with his buildings and his persona. There is always an audience for Wright books, whether they are coffee table books, children’s books, biographies, or historical fiction. However, in the field of scholarly studies, the list is significantly shorter. Although he died in 1959, it was not until 1985 that his papers became available for in-depth research. I chose the subject of Wright’s architectural exhibitions organized during his lifetime—excluding the exhibitions he curated on Asian art—because I wanted to plumb the depths of his unpublished correspondence to create an exhibition history. While there are approximately 103,000 letters, telegrams, and cablegrams in the Wright Archive at the Avery Library at Columbia University, it was also necessary for me to answer many questions by consulting the repositories at New York’s Museum of Modern Art and the Archives of American Art in Washington D.C., among others.

Why did you choose the subject of architectural exhibitions?

KS: Architectural exhibitions—and even architectural exhibitions about architectural exhibitions—have a global currency today. In addition to the well-established Venice Architecture Biennial and the Milan Triennial, there are generally architectural exhibitions going on somewhere in the world every month: in art institutes, world expositions, European and Asian museums, galleries, and architecture schools. The growing list includes Seoul Biennial of Architecture and Urbanism, Chicago Architecture Biennial, and International Bienniale Rotterdam. Shows are mounted in institutions such as the Museum of Modern Art, New York, the Canadian Centre for Architecture, Montreal and the Swedish Centre for Architecture and Design, Stockholm; but also in alternative spaces such as the Storefront for Art and Architecture in Manhattan. There are now organizations dedicated to architectural exhibitions in Zurich, Copenhagen, and New York. Events have been curated in cities in order to experience the urban core as a three-dimensional exhibition in time and space.

While contemporary activity is growing exponentially, scholarship on historic exhibitions of modern architecture is slight in comparison, especially in regard to the United States. An exception is MoMA: Terence Riley, Barry Bergdoll, Wallis Miller, Mary Anne Staniszewski, and Mardges Bacon have written major articles that have contributed to our understanding of many aspects of MoMA’s exhibitions. One major fact I learned in my research was that, although Wright was intimately involved with the majority of his exhibitions during his lifetime, he was just as frustrated at the severe limitations of simulacra—drawings, models, and photographs—as his counterparts are today. One of my discoveries was that as an artist-architect, rather than as a museum curator or critic, his major concern was not to create a chronological narrative. Instead, he was driven to shape public installations of his built and unbuilt work to communicate his ideas about the man-made and natural environment to stimulate public discourse and effect societal change. This point of view resonates today. Wright on Exhibit, which is a framework for evaluating installation practice, provides a cultural and historical context for a burgeoning movement.

We normally think of museum staff and art professionals organizing exhibitions. Did Wright’s exhibitions deviate from that model?

KS: Yes, they did, for the most part. That was one of the revelations of my research. I was really amazed at the origins of his approach in late-nineteenth-century Chicago and how he applied it in various circumstances from the 1930s until his death in 1959—to the shock and chagrin of his collaborators. His formative years from 1894 to 1914 were spent exhibiting with the Chicago Architectural Club, an organization of architects and draftsmen that held an open annual juried exhibition. Wright never became a member, but his major exhibitions in those years were under their sponsorship. From 1902 to 1914, he demanded and received a separate gallery to mount one-man shows, which he curated and designed and for which he wrote and designed catalogs and accompanying booklets. Sometimes the synergy of all this effort would result in publication in a national periodical such as the Architectural Record. This was a pattern that he maintained throughout his career. Sometimes it worked beautifully. Everything came together rather smoothly. On other occasions, there was opposition which erupted into confrontations that became fodder for the local press. In 1914, he was forty-seven years old; by that time his exhibition methodology was fully formed. One of the important facts about Wright is that, like Picasso, he lived to within a few months of his ninety-second birthday and he was at the pinnacle of his reputation at the end in 1959. So you see, his exhibition history continued for another forty-five years. These years constitute almost a separate study.

Is Wright on Exhibit meant to be humorous?

KS: No. Some readers may think so when they read certain passages, but I would say vivid is a better word. Wright was an exceptional letter writer. He also composed extraordinary telegrams and cablegrams, often at the height of a crisis and sometimes several in one day. I think by this point in my career I have read about 15,000 pieces of correspondence in the Wright Archive over the decades. I felt that the wealth of material on this subject—and I mean thousands of letters—demanded that his voice and that of his correspondents be heard. I wanted the reader to enter into the events to correct the stereotypes of Wright and figures such as Philip Johnson, his main contact at MoMA in 1931-32 and between 1947 and 1953. This is another instance that proves there are not enough scholarly books about Wright because clearly these stereotypes have been repeated in popular books and magazines without any knowledge of the primary material. The relationship between Wright and Johnson, and between Wright and MoMA, for that matter, required a completely new investigation and analysis. What I concluded was that what previous generations believed was negative about Wright’s involvement with MoMA was the opposite.

Could you provide an example?

KS: Yes. The first MoMA architectural show in 1932, Modern Architecture: International Exhibition, which is generally referred to misleadingly as the “International Style” exhibition. Certainly, the organizers—Johnson, Henry-Russell Hitchcock, and Alfred H. Barr Jr.—intended to limit the scope to European architects; however, the museum trustees subsequently required equal representation by Americans. The four Europeans had to be matched by four Americans. Wright was left off the list. By 1931-32, he had not built much for a decade and many regarded him as retired at sixty-five years old. But the trustees had widened the parameters of the subject matter to modern architecture and Hitchcock, the eminent historian, included him as the ninth architect. Although Johnson initiated a ten-month period of planning with Wright, the correspondence proves that almost nothing was accomplished until the last sixty days. While many have speculated that Wright did not want to participate in Modern Architecture because he turned his back on Le Corbusier, Mies, and Gropius, this is erroneous. He demanded to be withdrawn at the last minute when he found out that Raymond Hood and Richard Neutra were on the list of nine architects. As to Hood, Wright believed he was a cynical businessman who merely copied fashionable styles of the day for financial profit; Neutra was a more complicated case. At this time, Wright wrote him off as someone who was more of a self-promoter than a genuine original. But Wright remained in the show, which toured America for two years. His inclusion alongside the leaders of the younger generation and, for the most part, Hitchcock’s serious evaluation in Modern Architecture, the museum catalog (a publication, it should be pointed out, which was distinct from the commercially published book, The International Style), reinvigorated Wright. The greatest impact of the 1932 MoMA show was that it was a turning point for him. It was the prologue to the most productive and critically acclaimed era of his career. Six years later, he had a one-building show at MoMA featuring Fallingwater, the country house for Edgar and Lilianne Kaufmann. The whole factual history of Wright and Johnson between 1931 and 1932 is a fascinating one and completely unknown today. By the end of 1932, contrary to common belief, Johnson became Wright’s champion. This is documented in the correspondence and other primary sources contemporary with events. I explain all the circumstances in my book. My view of Johnson changed after I made these discoveries. Johnson left MoMA in 1934, so it was more than a decade before he connected with Wright again.

Wright on Exhibit is generously illustrated, in black and white and color. What was your thinking?

KS: I was very fortunate that Wright often commissioned photographers to document his installations, even as early as 1907; but the documentation was in black and white, while the drawings on display were rich in color; as were most of his models, later in the 1940s and onward. Very early on when I was conceptualizing my book I decided to illustrate drawings and some models in color so the reader would have a more intimate connection with the subject. It was at this point that I singled out in my mind the book designer, Miko McGinty, as the perfect fit for my concept. When the time came, I was very pleased that McGinty and her associates, Rita Jules and Anjali Pala, agreed to work with Princeton University Press on the project. They created the ideal layout. I think the book looks stunning. My hope is that as the reader turns the pages he or she will be able to visualize how lush these exhibitions were for the visitors who experienced them originally.

Wright on Exhibit has two appendices; why did you include them?

KS: From the beginning, I wanted to provide scholars and institutions with a complete catalog of Wright’s exhibitions from 1894 to 1959 (the year of his death) complete with facts such as title, dates, and locations, at the minimum. I was able to exceed that goal by adding names of curators, organizers, and sponsors. The total count is 124 exhibitions. The second appendix came about over the course of my research when I learned that Wright made models primarily for exhibitions rather than as study models (as most architects do today). Since I had images of the models, and from the correspondence, I was able to pinpoint exact dates when certain models were fabricated during Wright’s lifetime. I saw this as a perfect opportunity to create an illustrated catalogue raisonné of all known models, existing and lost. Since the majority of the 57 models are no longer extant, my book will be the only complete visual record of this aspect of Wright’s architectural production. There are various compendiums of the drawings, but this book fills a gap in the scholarship; no catalog exists of the models made under Wright’s supervision. Of particular note, for example, are the two Guggenheim Museum models (the first one was damaged in transit and then replaced by a new more updated version of the design). Both models were extremely complicated because Wright had created one of his most powerful public rooms and he wanted to communicate the intricacies of the interior space. So he designed the models to come apart in sections. Few people realize that today because the model is normally exhibited as a whole. I have provided several images of each model to illustrate Wright’s original intentions. I think the two appendices will make Wright on Exhibit an important reference book for decades to come. As you see, I created the book to appeal to a broad audience and to serve a variety of purposes. In addition to the archival material, I have written the book in clear, easily accessible prose for scholars and students, but also for readers outside academia who are interested in Wright and/or modern architecture, in general.

You have also written about a selection of Wright’s articles and other publications as well as exhibition planning and installation design. How does that fit in with the subject of your book?

KS: That was another discovery I made that was unanticipated. Really, it was a complete surprise. Writing articles and delivering lectures was a part of the culture of Chicago’s nineteenth century progressive architectural world, which revolved around the Chicago Architectural Club. The primary influence was Louis H. Sullivan, who had been Wright’s employer and mentor. Wright was forged in this milieu; he came away with a sense of purpose that went beyond inventing new forms, experimenting with Machine Age materials, and serving a new social class. He believed he was creating a New World that had existed only in the promise of “virgin” America before European settlement. He called his crusade, “In the Cause of Architecture.” And, indeed, it was a cause; one which he held to until the end of his life. Although there were multiple purposes for his exhibitions, which changed depending on the time and the location, in his mind they were always exercises in realizing the cause, which amounted to realizing a “genuine” American architecture by rejecting European styles. His drawings, models, and photographs were on display to communicate that message to the American people. However, when reviews appeared, he frequently found negative criticism baffling. He often believed that he was being misunderstood; as a result, he turned to writing for clarification. Most of his exhibitions, as a result, had a literary component to them; sometimes, the booklet or periodical reprint was available simultaneously with the exhibition; at other times, there was a lag time of one or more years. On many occasions, the exhibition would be accompanied by one or more public lectures by Wright. So the typical Wright exhibition was a product of the architectural and the literary.

With a total of 124 exhibitions, did Wright actually organize all of them?

KS: No, it is more complicated than that. Due to the fact that he owned all of his drawings and models and had a collection of photographs of his built work, it was necessary that Wright participate as lender for most exhibitions. This proved very problematical with institutions such as the Museum of Modern Art when as the date of the opening drew closer, he began to take over all aspects of the organization such as curating and designing the exhibition. In one instance, at MoMA in 1940-41, the show actually had two titles: the one MoMA advertised and the one Wright gave it! After this experience, MoMA got around the problem in the 1940s by taking advantage of the fact that commercial photographers owned images of Wright’s built work. For instance, MoMA bypassed Wright by staging an exhibition of photographs of Taliesin and Taliesin West by Ezra Stoller. But, yes, for the most part he wanted and maintained a great deal of control. I think it will come as a revelation to most people today already knowing how prolific Wright was as an architect, how productive he was as a writer, when they discover how seamlessly he incorporated exhibition production into his practice for sixty-five years. A case in point: while dedicated to the construction of the Guggenheim Museum in 1959, he was in the midst of planning a touring show of his recent work when he died at the age of ninety-one. This aspect of Wright’s career is virtually unknown, but it is a key part of the history of modern architecture.

Kathryn Smith is an architectural historian who specializes in Frank Lloyd Wright. Her books include Frank Lloyd Wright: American Master; Frank Lloyd Wright, Hollyhock House, and Olive Hill: Buildings and Projects for Aline Barnsdall; and Wright on Exhibit: Frank Lloyd Wright’s Architectural Exhibitions. She lives in Santa Monica, California.