In the world of architecture, there have always been trends. But in architecture, much like many other mediums that synthesize art and science, the best of the field can be found in work that transcends the notion of a fad. When thinking of the people who drove this work, it is natural to come up with a long list of people, two of whom particularly stand out: Frank Lloyd Wright, the American innovator, and Richard Neutra, the Austrian perfectionist. Both were respected architects, and an uninformed onlooker may be keen to lump these two into the same box. However, to do that would be to invalidate both the men and their respective works.
There is an ideological rift between Wright and Neutra, one that is evident most prominently in the way they choose to highlight the natural world. While Wright wanted to get man as close to nature as possible inside the home, Neutra wanted one to venture outside and actually experience it. To see these ideologies at work, one can look at Fallingwater as a primary source for Wright, and the VDL Studio and Residences as a primary source for Neutra.
To begin, one has to start with Frank Lloyd Wright, the most famous architect in America, and arguably, the modern age. In 1957, two years before his death, Wright told an interviewer that “If I had another 15 years to work, I could rebuild this country.” Wright was, at this point, at the end of his rope, and yet, the man still had a fiery passion for his work. The reason for this flame was, of course, the conviction behind what he was doing. Had he not believed at all in his vision, and subsequently, his philosophy, he would’ve given up architecture years ago.
These philosophical tenets of Wright’s manifested most intensely in his architectural style and practice. He was attracted to truth, and more so, finding that truth in the natural world. This meant using natural materials, and if he could, only natural materials. The buildings he would create would not look as if they had gone through the periods of globalization and industrialization that he believed plagued the modern world. Instead, they would look organic, hand crafted, artisan. Enough with the age of machines and futurism, Wright proclaimed. It was time to bring man back to nature.
Giving your clients a roof over their head was something any architect could do. For Wright, there was a desire to create honest buildings. The honest building, to Wright, was one that provides it’s tenets with a healthy life. Sunshine, an emphasis on family, and simplicity were tantamount to Wright and his vision of the American Home. To create a place where life could be lived naturally was the end goal, with a sense of intimacy and thoughtfulness. The ultimate embodiment of this was done near the end of Wright’s career: a structure named Fallingwater, in rural Southwestern Pennsylvania.
Fallingwater was built in 1935, and stands as Wright’s most iconic and beautiful work. It was created to be the weekend home of the Kaufmann’s, a wealthy Pittsburgh family who discovered Wright after the patriarch read his autobiography. The house itself is a testament to Wright’s philosophy, as it is constructed from materials found on the actual property itself, which include native elements such as sandstone, concrete, and wood. This locality of materials was paramount to Wright, who believed that if one could not find a material in a certain place, then one did not need it to begin with. The way Wright went about building it was also very much in line with his radical tendencies. While the Kaufman’s stated that they wanted the house to sit across the waterfall found on the property, Wright ignored this and subsequently built it to stand on top of the waterfall instead. This is quintessential Wright- doing it your own way because you believe it will be better. The house itself is the poster child for organic architecture, the nucleus of Wright’s approach to building. A symbol of seamlessly integrating nature with architecture, Fallingwater’s design was an amalgamation of everything Wright wanted a building to be, and nothing he didn’t.
The main house was completed in 1938, with the guest house being completed in 1939. When one arrives at the site where Fallingwater is located, they are greeted by a pathway to the house itself, one that is just as rural and natural as Wright would’ve wanted. At first glance, it is difficult to try and describe the structure itself- although it fits deftly within the natural landscape it was created in, Fallingwater has a presence to it, one that is striking and inspiring. There is a heft to the house, one that brings a substantial amount of importance to the house. Characterized by strong, defined lines on both a vertical and horizontal axi, Fallingwater is a geometric complexity.
The interior follows the same design language, highlighting the lines and angles that give the home it’s almost mathematical form. Yet, even though this congruous quality is apparent, many have likened Fallingwater to examples of Japanese architecture, where imperfection and the natural world are critical concepts. The interiors reflect this as well- they are much more earthy and organic than the insides of Neutra's designs, the beginning of an ideological shift between the two.
The concept of imperfection was also a big facet of Fallingwater. While the lines play an important part in defining the structure, there is a sort of imperfection to it, in the placement of the stones, the shape of the thing, that give it an organic feeling. That Fallingwater had this imperfection to it was a nod to Wright’s obsession to creating honest buildings. Only nature can make perfection, and the houses we live in can only strive to mimic that, to try and be one with that natural harmony.
Fallingwater was Wright’s biggest statement that proclaimed how man belonged in nature, even in the modern context of living in a home. The materials, the location, and the structure of Fallingwater exclaimed Wright’s ideology from the rooftops, and the entire structure is a testament to that. Wright wanted us to live in tune with nature, to not forget our original roots. Richard Neutra was similar in his process, but the ideas were actually quite different from the ones Wright presented. Neutra wanted to embrace the natural world, absolutely. But he would do it in a way that was a complete contrast to Wright’s.
There is an irony here, of course. Richard Neutra actually worked for Frank Lloyd Wright for a time- born in Austria in 1892 to Jewish parents, Neutra immigrated to the United States after World War One. Before he was a lieutenant in the artillery division of the Austrian Army, Neutra had done extensive studying on architecture and design in Vienna, Italy, Switzerland, and vast regions of the Balkans. He had a great deal of knowledge, along with a modernist mindset that he brought to California, when he immigrated there in 1923. Neutra is described as having an International Style of architecture, which scholars say he picked up while travelling in Switzerland. What made Neutra so distinct however was his decision to develop that International Style and have it fit the lifestyle and climate of California- seeing the nature around him and deciding to embrace it rather than build around it. After settling in Southern California, but working all over the state, Neutra saw the sunshine and natural greenery of the area as elements he could highlight in his architecture.
Neutra’s aesthetic is one that defies trends. He, like Wright, saw no historical context to hold his works back, and instead embraced his vision of modernism. This vision included numerous glass walls, bright interiors, and a Bauhaus-esque utilitarianism that desired to cater to every need a client would ever want. In Notes To A Young Architect, Nuetra says plainly ‘that life is ancient, and must be recognized as the most practical thing in the world and thus preserved by all means. Designers... have the most responsible job to keep co-nationals...from the annual waiting list of psychiatric waiting rooms..’
Nuetra saw architecture not just as a practice, but as a necessary medium to keep man from going insane. And the most effective way of curbing this insanity? By highlighting the persistent nature around man. Neutra's building’s beg people to go out and take in the world, whereas Wright might be seen as simply the man who brings the natural world to you, inside a cozy, albeit expensive home.
Neutra was notoriously a perfectionist, creating detailed surveys and questionnaires for his clients. Whereas Wright would firmly believe he knew what was best, and often forged ahead without consulting a client, Neutra was firmly the opposite. Knowing what someone wanted inside and out, truly assessing their needs and budget- that is how Neutra believed he could begin building great homes.
As Nuetra states evidently in Notes To A Young Architect: ‘What an arbitrary restriction to say that architecture is only a visual art.’
Indeed, Richard was concerned with creating homes that served a purpose, one that was cemented in connecting man to nature. Although, simply because they were highly practical, did not mean that they were not exceptionally stylish.
The structures Neutra built were minimalist, but not in a cold, machine-like way. There was a warmth to them, one that permeated both the exterior and interior, making extensive use of wood, glass, and the natural landscape around the property. While Wright’s buildings have a tremendous presence to them, Neutra instead chose to keep things subtle. They don’t exactly fit in with the rest of the architecture of the time, sure, but they blend in with their surroundings so well one almost doesn't seem to really notice. There is a sense of weightlessness to the buildings Neutra creates, one that is a stark contrast to the awe-inspiring designs Wright constructed, like Fallingwater.
The VDL Studio was a testament of both Neutra's aesthetics and philosophy. Built originally in 1932 and then again in 1964 after a fire, it was the home of Neutra himself, named after Cees Van der Leeuw, who Neutra had received a loan from to begin building. Nuetra started a family in the house, and it became a home as rapidly as it was beginning to find its legs as a studio. The intent behind VDL was to be a contrast to the Lovell Health House, arguably the most famous building in Neutra's career. There, the affluent nature of his client allowed him to fully realize his modernist vision, one that emphasized well being through a connection to nature. Neutra wanted to create that same vision, but on a more affordable level, for an average Los Angeles resident.
Small details are designed to invite one out to go and be in nature. With small rooms and subtly built in furniture, the VDL was the opposite of Fallingwater. It was not grandiose, nor was it meant to make a sweeping statement. It was designed to have a temporal quality to it, for a person to actually go outside, instead of something like Fallingwater, whose allure came from the bulky heftiness which made the resident want to stay indoors. There were 12 doors in the VDL- wherever one was, Nuetra thought, they should be able to go outside and see the natural world and take in a breath of fresh air.. The clash in ideology between the two men was whether how much weight to give their buildings, especially in terms of how they fit with nature- Wright with a cozy heaviness and Nuetra with a slender lightness.
The unblemished white walls are meant to blend in, not take away, from the natural flora around the house. The staircases are open and almost dreamlike, with the steps being like floating stones to step on. The many, many glass windows and walls are meant to let in as much natural light as possible. The interiors are filled with muted colors. All the wood is a light blonde, and the furniture inside it various shades of pastel. There is a very simple yet dedicated aesthetic to the house, and it seems as if even the inside of the VDL is meant to do everything it can to not clash with the natural world.
When diving deeper into the ideological rift between the two, one can look to blueprints and plans as well. Wright wanted to have nature permeate from the walls of his buildings, for it to engulf his designs in a way that was unmissable once one was in there. It’s why he built Fallingwater on top of a waterfall, in the rural southeast of Pennsylvania, as opposed to an urban enclave in Los Angeles, as Richard did. Just as well, Neutra used his International Style, crossed with a California minimalism, to get the resident of his buildings to actually go outside. Whereas Wright wanted to simulate nature in his structures, Nuetra scoffed, instead saying that there could be no simulation or substitute to the real thing. All of Neutra's buildings, and especially his VDL Studio, beckoned people to go outside.
Another ideological fissure was the notion of accessibility. There is a message behind the two structures examined. With Fallingwater, this message is, when it comes to the question of nature and accessibility, that one has to retreat into the wilderness, isolating themselves away from the rest of the world. Not only that, but to fully facilitate oneself in the nature world, while not living like a savage, will take an generous amount from one’s purse strings. With the VDL Studio, Nuetra cemented that we can still be in tune with the natural world while living as an urbanite. One does not need an abundant amount of funds nor a bountiful income to embrace nature. Just as well, they don’t need to actually retreat back into the wilderness to experience some outdoors time. This rift of accessibility, one that underscores man’s connection to nature, continues today in some ways. While the VDL Studio today is open, free to the public, and operated by architecture students, Fallingwater is a by appointment only experience, with tours ranging anywhere from 30 to 1,500 dollars.
There was also the question of innovation when talking about these two titans of their field. While Wright inarguably created great works, he used materials and building processes that had been done time and time again. Nuetra on the other hand was keen to experiment with new materials, and in fact, manufacturers in the US would often send him emerging materials, for free, because they themselves had no idea what to do with it. In Notes To A Young Architect, Nuetra stated that ‘above all, I fortified and familiarized myself passionately with current research and progressive information...it helped me understand much better my own clinical experience with people.’ Nuetra embraced the future, even if one of his greatest desires was to focus on nature, a core image of the past.
Two titans of their field- Frank Lloyd Wright on one side, and Richard Neutra on the other. While being adjacent in their desires, there are core differences to be found within both their work and their ideologies. Wright sought to use organic architecture to bring nature as close as possible inside the home. Neutra, on the other hand, used his International Style, crossed with an inherent utilitarianism, to get one to go outside and actually immerse themselves in the natural world.
There were other ideological differences as well, in terms of accessibility, innovation, and aesthetic. All together, one can begin to piece together that while perhaps the two wanted the same thing, they took radically different paths to get there, a reflection of their respective outlooks on life. Without these nuances, both the men and their works would be invalidated in a crucial way, one that would actually hide a part of the beauty found there.