Viewing page 14 of 19

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

[[top margin]]This is the 2nd 1/2 First half is very much your version with speech stuff taken out & begins right [[strikethrough]] to t [[/strikethrough]] with the definition. Marked with line is still unedited. Dotted line 1/2 edited. [[/top margin]]

There seem to be six easily discernible branches of modern architecture. They divide into two main groups. In one group we have the individualists that have been referred to by many names such as "Romantic", "Handicraft", "Humanists". The other group of trends contains these branches that have been referred to as "Classic", "Art in industry", and that deplorable name, the "International Style". Let us examine each of the sis forces that seem to exist today. 

1. The first strong influence on the architecture of our time emanates from the great lone genius, Frank Lloyd Wright. His tremendous contribution goes back to the very beginnings of modern architecture when he contributed many of the fundamental concepts upon which this whole movement was built. Today, once more, with our growing maturity, we are recognizing a new significance in his work - its spiritual quality. His form is a very personal one and [[strikethrough]] from it may not grow [[/strikethrough]] a lasting school may not grow from it, because this form seems already anachronistic in the hands of others. [[strikethrough]] but [[/strikethrough]] However, the spiritual quality that permeates his work is a lesson for us to try to understand and will probably remain his greatest gift to modern architecture. 

11. Influenced in certain respects by the work of Wright, particularly in his reverence for nature and the materials it provides, is a strong group of individualists in America who try to search for their own form in architecture by an [[strikethrough]] stron greater [[/strikethrough]] ardent responsiveness to the problems imposed by local or regional conditions and traditions. [[strikethrough]] They have [[/strikethrough]] Keeping their ears close to the ground and remaining sensitive to [[strikethrough]] the [[/strikethrough]] humanistic problems, they search[[strikethrough]] ing[[/strikethrough]] for individual solutions. They treat architecture as the handicraft which, in some ways it still is; particularly when the problem is the [[strikethrough]] invidi [[/strikethrough]] individual house. Within sectors of this group there is today a tendency towards unchecked emotionalism that in its lack of esthetic and structural disciplines has little future for architecture. What may turn out to be the lasting qualities in this group are to be found within the broad lines set by Wurster, Belluschi, and a few others.