Impact of the Wright Brother’s Discovery

Assess whether the impact of the Wright brother’s discovery of flight has affected the world


Indeed the Wright’s discovery of flight in 1903 has powerfully impacted the world in many areas, as it has impacted mostly negatively but there were also positive aspects to it. This is due to the fact of its unethical uses and its contribution to air pollution. These problems are a result of the Wright Brothers creating a revolutionary invention along with future problems at the same time. Furthermore, despite these negative impacts, there are also positive impacts. These include the introduction of easier transportation and the accessibility for cultural exchange. Consequently, by witnessing these effects today, the discovery of flight is ultimately a negative creation for this world.

Get Help With Your Essay
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Essay Writing Service

Initially, shortly after the Wright brothers’ power of discovering flight in 1903, their invention was used by the authority for purposes the brothers hadn’t intended for the aeroplane. The plane was intended to carry passengers around the world.[1] However, 11 years after the Wright brothers built their first functional aircraft, WW1 started, where the use of planes was abused for aircraft bombers mounted with weapons to attack other aircraft. The death toll of WW1 could have decreased if flying wasn’t discovered as ‘Almost as many Camel pilots were killed in accidents as those who died in combat’.[2] As a result, if the Wright brothers hadn’t invented the plane, the amount of people who died in aerial warfare wouldn’t have doubled to be added to the WW1 death toll. Also, by the Wright brothers’ ability of developing the aeroplane, not only were they used in WW1, but they were also used in WW2 in a more extreme practice by the Japanese and eventually by the US for 2 huge bombings in Japan which caused a greater impact than WW1. During WW2, 2800 Japanese kamikaze pilots were deployed killing 4900 other sailors with them.[3] Towards the end of the war, the US used 2 planes, B-29 bomber, to detonate 2 atomic bombs over 2 Japanese cities.[4] Hence, if aeroplanes weren’t invented, the B-29 bombers wouldn’t have been invented as well and thus wouldn’t have detonated the bombs. This shows the vast amount of people aeroplanes killed thus demonstrating aeroplanes’ negative impact towards the world.

However on the other hand, although the plane was used in an unethical way shortly after it was invented, after both wars, the plane was finally used for its initial purpose; to transport people around the world. Subsequently, it was easier to get from place to place. This is evident as nowadays, to get from one place to another, it would take a few hours whereas travelling by any other transport would take longer than the plane. For example in Australia, if a person from Sydney needed to get to Perth, flying would be significantly quicker as it would take a few hours other than a few days in a car. This also factors in the cost of the plane ticket but the cost would be only slightly higher because travelling by car would need multiple stops for accommodation and fuel. However, comparing the time it takes between the plane and car, the plane trip is quicker than the car.[5] According to a historian Richard Ned Lebow, professor of international political theory, says, “one important consequence of both world wars greatly accelerated science and technology. During these world wars, if militaries around the world didn’t use aeroplanes, safe and efficient airline travels we see today would have been delayed several decades”.[6] Therefore, the discovery of flight has impacted the world positively in a way of making transportation easier.

Furthermore, the Wright brothers invented the plane as well as a contributor to future crises which could eventually cause Earth to become uninhabitable for humans. As a result, the Wright brothers had the power to create the plane which releases greenhouse gases that would affect the environment negatively. Ever since 1903, each time the plane that was running, it was always emitting heat gases into the atmosphere, destroying the ozone bit by bit. This is evident as a European study predicts a 43% rise in greenhouse gases from planes within two decades, due to increased air traffic.[7] Since technology is developing every day, planes are developing which means more greenhouse gases are emitted into the atmosphere. For example, a round-trip between New York and California emits 20% of the carbon dioxide a single car does in one whole year so flying is one of many reasons why the planet is warming up extremely in short amounts of time.[8] In future years, there would be an increase in aircraft in the world and sooner or later, the Earth will reach a limit where vegetation in the world can’t get rid of the gases and all life on Earth would perish. This is why the Wright brothers invention of the plane is going to limit Earth’s survival. If the plane wasn’t invented, the world would have at least a few more decades to figure out a solution and eliminate all greenhouse gases from Earth. This is because 20,000 planes are currently fit to fly and if they were non-existent, a significant amount of greenhouse gases from planes today would be reduced each year.[9] This shows that the Wright brother’s invention could lead Earth to its demise.

Lastly, in contrast to the Wright brother’s invention going to destroy all life on life, cultural exchange with the use of aeroplanes allows individuals to enjoy life through cultural exchange. Air travel allows tourists to travel to parts of the world that allow them to experience how other countries behave and can draw differences between where they come from. As a result of an opportunity for air travel, cultural exchange is presented when people migrate to other countries to better their lifestyles through the use of planes. Without planes, those who want or need to migrate would have to go on boats and the time boats take to travel is always unpredictable thus delaying cultural exchange around the world. For example in Australia, more asylum seekers are coming to Australia by planes than boats, which allows for cultural exchange because of the invention of the plane.[10] This means that the development of air travel has allowed asylum seekers to access other countries others thus exchanging their culture in Australia. Air travel allows the importance of cultural exchange to be practised as stereotypes of different cultures can be debunked as tourists see other point of views. There is a stereotype about Pakistanis being terrorists but unless they have met a Pakastani citizen, they can’t make a critical judgement about them.[11] Without planes, stereotypes about different countries and cultures would be held on longer or even for the rest of an individual’s life as they would most likely not travel to another country. Therefore, planes help with the exchange of cultures around the world.

Consequently, although there are many negative and positive impacts of aeroplanes, the negative impacts of the aeroplanes towards the world outweigh the positive impacts of aeroplanes. This is because of the unethical uses of the plane and the greenhouse gases it produces. Therefore, the Wright Brothers discovery of flight impacted the world negatively.


Frost, S 16 August 2012, ‘Pros & Cons of Air Travel’, USA TODAY, viewed 18 July 2019,>.

In this website, the  information I got out of it was the pros and cons of air travel which include, time, convenience, airport hassles and cost. The website told me the advantages of taking a plane to other states or countries than a car. Editors 18 November 2009, ‘Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki’, History, viewed 18 July 2019,>.

In this website, the information I got out of it was the location of the two bombs dropped the two cities in Japan towards the end of WW2. It provides the death count of when the bombs hit Japan and the US’ reason for detonating the bombs.

Hutchens, G and Martin, S 18 February 2019, ‘More asylum seekers come to Australia by plane than boat’, The West Australian, viewed 18 July 2019,>.

This is a recent Australian news article on the internet about the events of recent asylum seeker activities. I learnt the present method of how asylum seekers are coming to Australia nowadays; by aeroplanes.

Laliberte M 19 November 2018, ‘Here’s How Many Planes Are in the Sky Right Now’, Reader’s Digest, viewed 18 July 2019,>.

In this news article, it tells me about the amount of planes that are actively running. This links to the point I am making about how much greenhouse gases a single plane makes and in the article, it tells your that bout 20 000 planes are actively running. This shows that a lot of greenhouse gases are being released due to the amount of planes in the world.

Myers, C 15 November 2016,  ‘11 Fascinating Details About the Lives of Kamikaze Pilots’, Ranker, viewed 18 July 2019,>.

This website provides the statistics of the kamikaze pilots which include the amount of pilots deployed and how many people they killed along with them. It also provides facts about being a kamikaze pilot but I didn’t need it as it didn’t link to my point.

Nelsen, A 29 January 2016, ‘Air pollution from Europe’s planes set to rise by nearly half’, The Guardian, viewed 18 July 2019,>. 

This article is about European planes which predicts the rise in planes along with the amount of greenhouse gases it will emit upon the world. It provides statistics of how much the increase in plane traffic will also increase the amount of greenhouse gases.

Niiler, E 25 June 2014, ‘What If World War I Never Happened?’, Seeker, viewed 18 July 2018,>.

In this website, the information inside while I reading this it about the scenario that ‘what if WW1 didn’t happen’. The consequences of the WW1 not happening included if the world would not be as it is now as WW1 boosted the technology of the world. Technology that would have been delayed includes flight only carrying a few people at a time and having safe flight travels.

Schlossberg, T 27 July 2017, ‘Flying Is Bad For The Planet. You Can Help Make It Better’, New York TImes, viewed 18 July 2019,>.

This article told me about why travelling by plane is bad and what options you can use other than taking the plane but if not taking the plane can’t be helped, the article suggests ways to reduce the carbon dioxide emitted by planes. These include not flying at all or listening to the flight attendants.

Smith, B 6 September 2018, ‘Almost as many pilots died flying this World War I plane in training as in combat’, Smithsonian Insider, viewed 18 July 2019,>.

The information on this website is about the ace fighters from WW1. This tells me about the death toll of the ace fighters were almost as many as those in combat. It sows that planes were very hard to manovre during WW1

Tariq, A 2 April 2018, ‘Why Cultural Exchanges Are Important’, ProperGaanda, viewed 19 July 2019,>.

This website explains to me why the cultural exchange is important. This links to my response because the aeroplanes allow the opportunity for others around the world to experience cultural exchange when they travel to other countries.

Walker, J 15 August 2016, ‘The Next Step in Aviation: The Wright Brothers Carry the First Passenger 1908’, The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, viewed 18 July 2019,>.

This blog shows evidence that the Wright brothers’ initial intentions of the plane was to carry passengers around the world. I used this in my response to prove that the plane was used in unethical reasons and not to it initial purpose shortly after it was created.

[1] Joel Walker,‘The Next Step in Aviation: The Wright Brothers Carry the First Passenger 1908’ The U.S. National Archives and Records Administration, (15 August, 2016),, accessed 18 July 2019.

[2] Brendan L. Smith, ‘Almost as many pilots died flying this World War I plane in training as in combat’ Smithsonian Insider, (6 September, 2018),, accessed 18 July 2019.

[3] Christopher Myers, ‘11 Fascinating Details About the Lives of Kamikaze Pilots’ Ranker, (15 November, 2016),, accessed 18 July 2019.

[4] Editors, ‘Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki’ History, (18 November, 2009),, accessed 18 July 2019

[5] Shelley Frost, ‘Pros & Cons of Air Travel’ USA TODAY, (16 August, 2012),, accessed 18 July 2019.

[6] Eric Niiler, ‘What If World War I Never Happened?’ Seeker, (25 June, 2014),, accessed 18 July 2019.

[7] Arthur Nelsen, ‘Air pollution from Europe’s planes set to rise by nearly half’ The Guardian, (29 January, 2016),, accessed 18 July 2019.

[8] Tatiana Schlossberg, ‘Flying Is Bad For The Planet. You Can Help Make It Better’ New York TImes, (27 July, 2017),, accessed 18 July 2019.

[9] Marissa Laliberte, ‘Here’s How Many Planes Are in the Sky Right Now’ Reader’s Digest, (19 November, 2018),, accessed 18 July 2019.

[10] Gareth Hutchens and Sarah Martin, ‘More asylum seekers come to Australia by plane than boat’ The West Australian, (18 February, 2019),, accessed 18 July 2019.

[11] Ayesha Tariq, ‘Why Cultural Exchanges Are Important’ ProperGaanda, (2 April, 2018),, accessed 19 July 2019.

Frank Lloyd Wright: Literary and Architectural Legacy

There is a depth in each building that surpasses the visible physical characteristics of its structure. The philosophy that derives the experiences created within is an essential element in understanding each building or structure. It is this philosophy that differentiates an architect from another. And it was the organic philosophy in architecture that lifted Frank Lloyd wright’s status to be called the greatest American Architect of all times. Through the study of his various writings, this paper explores his philosophy and analyses it in light of his design process and some of his constructed works.
The Principles of the Organic:
“It was Lao Tze, five hundred years before Jesus who declared, that the reality of the building consisted not of the walls and roof but inhered in the space within, the space to be lived in”.[1]
For Frank Lloyd Wright, the center line of organic architecture was “form and function are one.” They become one, they are integral. He conceived this integrity, from within outward, as the modern architect’s guide and opportunity. “Out of the ground and into the light” was an opportunity. The nature of material was also an opportunities. All three opportunities were limitations but they were also a condition of success. Human nature was one of these materials, as well, served by the building and serving it.[2]
In his various writings Frank Lloyd Wright explained the principles guiding and driving his organic architecture. He believed that the knowledge of the relations between form and function was essential for the practice of architecture and could only be achieved by studying nature and its principles.[3]
From the simplicity inhered in nature he deducted certain ideals for organic architecture. First, that a building should contain as few rooms as possible. The ensemble of these rooms should be considered for comfort, utility and go hand in hand with beauty. Second, the openings should be integral features of the structure and form, providing it with natural ornamentation, instead of rich looking decoration. He also argued that the appliances, furniture and fixtures should be should incorporated in the general scheme of the structure. [4]

Get Help With Your Essay
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Essay Writing Service

For Wright simplicity was not in itself an end but it was a means to an end. The reticence in ornamentation in these structures is mainly for two reasons: first, they are the expression of an idea that ornamentation should constitutional, a matter of the nature of the structure, beginning with the ground plan. Second, because buildings perform their functions in relation to human life within, to develop and maintain the harmony of a true chord, broad simple surfaces and highly conventionalized forms are inevitable. According to him, these ideas take the building out of school and marry them to the ground, make them intimate expressions or revelations of the exteriors; individualize them regardless of previous notions of style.[5]
Nature’s principles also formulated other ideals in organic architecture. Frank Lloyd Wright maintained that the individuality of a person should be reflected in the style of the house he inhabits, therefore there should be as many styles of houses as there are kinds of people. He also asserted that a building should grow easily from its site and be shaped to harmonize with its surroundings, making it quiet, substantial and organic. The use of colors was also an important aspect, for they had to fit to live with the natural forms they do. Therefore he encouraged the use of soft, warm tones of earth and autumn leaves in preference to the blues, purples or greens and greys. Bringing out the nature of material was an essential ideal to organic architecture, describing them as friendly and beautiful. He believed that following the prevalent traditions leads to structures that become soon out of fashion, stale and profitable, insisting that each house should have character of its own.[6] Therefore organic principles grew out of nature and its principles; however there are other aspects that have partially led to its growth.
Rejection of Classical and Renaissance Architecture:
“I deliberately chose to break with traditions in order to be more true to tradition than current conventions and ideals in architecture would permit.” [7]
The principles of organic architecture, though they seemingly developed out of nature’s principles were also partially born from Wright’s critique of previous classical and renaissance styles. In the First evening of his London lectures in 1939,Wright declared that the classic was “more of a mask for life to wear rather than an expression of life itself.” [8]He strongly critiqued the view of architecture as a fashionable aesthetic, arguing that modern architecture rejects all grando-mania, every building that would stand in a military fashion. [9]He encouraged architectsto abandon the cherishing of preconceived form fixed upon them, and to exhale to the laws of common sense to determine from them the form and material of the building in light of its purpose, resulting in a differentiation between the different forms of the building due to their varying function, asserting that Form and Function are one.[10]
Wright criticized the tall interiors that were divided into box like compartments, where the architecture mainly involved “healing over the edges of the curious collection of holes that had to be cut in the walls for light and air to permit the occupant to get in or out”. [11]
Wright observed that, in nature, the individuality of its attributes are seldom scarified. Unlike the classical buildings in which an order is establishes, for example a colonnade, then walls are added between them, reducing them to pilasters, with the result that every form is outraged, the whole an abominable mutation.
The Approach to Design:
“All architecture must begin there where they stand”[12]
Out of the principles of the organic, Frank Lloyd Wright maintained a design process throughout his career that he describes in his book the Future of Architecture. He strongly believed in building from within outward. To achieve this vision he started by determining which consideration came first in the design process. The first determinant was the ground. By this he meant the nature of site, soil and climate. The next consideration was the choice of available materials taking into account the financial cost. The third was the choice of means of power for construction. Man, machine or both? He believed that what rendered his buildings as creative was this process of from within outward, giving life the whole, and giving life to the structure by adopting the ideal of form and function are one, or organic.[13]
Wright believed that the character of the site is the beginning of any building which aspires to architecture. He argued that architects ought to accept the fact that the ground already has form.  This to him was a gift from nature to be cherished and accepted.[14] Therefore, in designing his domestic architecture he was careful about considering and incorporating certain elements. First was free association with the ground. Second, sunlight, vista and a spaciousness that conforms to a modern sense of demanded space.  The third element was privacy. Fourth was a free pattern for the arrangement of rooms to be occupied by the families. He argued that as families vary so must the houses. However, he affirmed that these requirements should be incorporated in the architecture of the building in an integral harmony of proportion to the human figure, so that the building protects and cherishes the individual’s vital necessities and fine sentiments.[15]
The Logic behind the Plan:
“I have great faith that if the thing rightfully put together in true organic senses with proportions actually right the picturesque will take care of itself”.[16]
Frank Lloyd Wright believed that all the forms in his plans are complete in themselves and frequently do duty at the same time from within and without as attributes of the whole. There was a tendency towards a greater individuality of the parts emphasized by more and more complete articulation. Moreover, the ground plans were the actual projection of a carefully considered whole.  The architecture wasn’t thrown up as an artistic exercise, a matter of elevation from a preconceived ground plan. The schemes were conceived in three dimensions as organic entities. Wright ventured to let the picturesque perspective fall how it will. With a sense of the incidental perspectives, he believed the design will develop. [17]
In the Future of Architecture and in an article in the architectural record he describes the logic behind the plans in his architecture. He mentions the most important factors in designing the plan which are materials, building methods, scale, articulation, expression or style. The logical norm for the scale of the building was the human scale. He believed that the unit of size of the building varies with the purpose and material of it, therefore he adopted a unit system for the plan, establishing a certain standardization. By adopting the human scale, he trusted nature to give the proper values to a proper whole. Materials also affected scale. He used the most natural material suiting the purpose. Using wood led to a slender plan, light in texture narrow in spacing. A stone or brick plan was heavy, black in masses and wider in spacing. In cast block building, the scale was done to be adequate to the sense of block, box and slab and there was more freedom in spacing.[18]
In his domestic architecture, he designed that house with a garden that arranges itself about and within it so that the individual can enjoy the sun and view while keeping privacy. He gave priority to the living room, given its status as the room common to all, adding a fireplace to it. The modern industrial developments allowed him to make the kitchen a part of the living room relating it to another part of the same. He occasionally added an extra space for reading or studying. By creating this association between living and dining he ensured the convenience and the privacy of the members of the family. Wright gave importance to the bathrooms making them large enough to accommodate for dressing rooms, closets for linen, occasionally a wardrobe with perhaps a couch in each. He made the bedrooms adjacent to the bathroom unit, designing them to be small, airy and easily accessible from the living room. [19] His logic is derived from the ideal of form and function are one.
The inspiration of his ideal grew from nature, not its form but its principles. In nature, an organism is a living one when all is part to the whole and whole is to the part.  Wright argued that this correlation which is found any plant or animal is a fundamental principle in organic architecture. He also maintained that any building should come to terms with the living human spirit.[20] Considering the individuality of the owner in the design process, led to certain puzzlement regarding the notion of style.
The Question of Style:
“Styles once developed soon become yardsticks for the blind, crushes for the lame, and resources for the impotent”.[21]
Frank Lloyd Wright asserted that he had enough types and forms my work to characterize the work of an architect but certainly not enough to characterize an architecture. To him there was no worse of an “imposition than to have some individual deliberately fix the outward forms of his concept of beauty upon the future of a free people or even a growing city”.[22]
The form may differ, he asserted, but in every case the motif is adhered to throughout so that it is not too much to say that each building aesthetically is cut from one piece of goods and consistently hangs together with an integrity impossible otherwise. In a fine art sense the designs grew as natural plants grow, the individuality of each is integral and is as complete as skill, time, strength, and circumstances would permit. The method in itself does not necessarily produce a beautiful building, but it does provide a framework as a basic which has an organic integrity.[23]
Wright believed that style came as a byproduct of the process he maintained in his design. The way an architect achieves an integrity in his design came, first, by studying nature’s material to find the properties most suited for the purpose, then, by using organic architecture as guide, to unite these qualities to serve that purpose.[24]
In his plan Wright did use a form of standardization, a unit of size for the building. However, he warned against the tendency in the human mind to standardize. He viewed standardization as a mere tool, though indispensable, should be used to the extent that it leave the architect free to destroy it at will, to the extent only that it does not become a style, or an inflexible rule-is it desirable to the architect. It is desirable only to the extent that it is capable of new forms and remains the servant of those forms. He believed that standardization should be allowed to work, but never to master the process that yields the form.[25]
In his various designs Wright took into consideration the individuality of the occupant and his needs. Wright responded to the critics who suspected that individuality of the owner and occupant of the building is sacrificed to that of the architect who imposes his own upon everyone alike, by saying “An architect worthy of the name has individuality, it is true, his work will and should reflect it and his buildings will bear a family resemblance one to another. The individuality of the owner is first manifest in his choice of his architect, the individual to whom he entrusts his characterization. He sympathizes with his work; its expression suits him and this furnishes the common ground upon which client and architect may come together. Then, the architect with his ready technique, he conscientiously works for the client, idealizes his clients character and taste and makes him feel the building is his as it really to such an extent that he can truly say that he would rather have his own house than any other he has ever seen”[26]
In order to fully understand wright’s methodology, it is essential to look at how his principles have formed his designs and buildings. Looking at the Prairie house style and Taliesin, the examples show how Wright succeeded in maintaining his philosophy, while providing diversity of forms.
Prairie Houses:
In his book An American Architecture, Wright describes his love and fascination with prairie, along with the elements of the prairie that guided his designs.
I loved the prairie as great simplicity. And I saw that a little of height on the prairie was enough to look like much more. The natural tendency of every ill- considered thing on the prairie is to detach itself and stick out like a sore thumb in surrounding by nature perfectly quiet. All unnecessary heights have for that reason and the human scale, (other reasons, economic too) been eliminated. More intimate relation with outdoor environment and far-reaching vista is sought to balance the desired lessening of height.[27]
The Prairie style was an attempt by Wright to create an architecture that suited the American lifestyle and landscape. Strongly horizontal plan of house with a low sheltering roof, bands of art glass windows, stucco walls with wood banding, and outreaching garden walls had many of the features that characterized this version of Wright’s organic architecture.[28]
The Little house on Lake Minnetonka (figure1) is an example of how organic architecture is reflected in the house. The living room is the dominant space in the house. Mrs. Little was an accomplished musician and wanted the room to double as recital space. The height of the ceiling adds to the room’s grandeur. Flanked by two long walls with more than a dozen art glass windows on two levels, the room has the lightness of an outdoor pavilion. Clear glass was used in the leaded panels so that the views, the lake to one side and the forest to another, would not be obstructed. The delicate designs of lines and triangles, concentrated on the outer edges of the window, reach across several panels, creating a larger composition than on just the one window. The art glass skylight, an intricate checkerboard of tiny squares and triangles, are framed by heavy wood moldings.[29]
Wright focused on using an appropriate kind of furniture. The rectilinear Prairie Style furniture with the sturdy oak shapes of tables, cabinets, and chairs adapted easily to the houses scale. The vertical spindles of the radiator covers are repeated in the base of the print table and seem to capture the rhythm of the wood marking strips across the ceiling. The strong horizontality of the entire house and the room itself pulls the scale back down to a more human level.[30]
The Taliesin:
“No house should be a hill or anything or anything. It should be of the hill. Hill and house should live together, each happier for the other.”[31]
This is Wright famous quote regarding the Taliesin in Wisconsin (figure2). In studying Wright’s architecture it seems interesting to look at building he designed for him personally. This specific house is consistent, rich and appropriate in its management of prospect and refuge. It is also a gentler, more intimate, and more freely composed house than any others of wright’s works.[32]
In designing domestic architecture Wright regarded the house as refuge from two generalized and impersonal threats. One is climate the other is the social intrusion by the community.[33] When Wright built the Taliesin, he considered these two universal threats along with two personal threats, one external from his feeling of societal hostility for leaving his wife, the other internal from an inner sense of disorientation and confusion. [34] This attests to the individuality in his design.
He built the Taliesin encircling the side of the hill, with its back to wall, making it seem as if it was of the hill. However this placement and his famous quotation about this house don’t apply to previous prairie houses like the Hardy, Little, Ennis and Morris houses. Perhaps this placement was more related to the nature of the site, since in Taliesin the hill was inappropriate, partly because of Wright’s sense of it sanctity, but partly because he needed to have his the therefore, its back against the wall, for which purpose the hilltop could not work. Therefore he chose the hillside around which the living spaces were arranged.[35]
The dominant image was that of roofs which emerged randomly from the hillside vegetation, with a repetition of gentled shingled spaces, taking the slopes of the hills as their slopes. The deep overhanging eaves were all at uniform level, forming a continuous eave line.[36]
Wright argued on many occasions that he was trying to destroy the box, by which he meant the self-contained room of traditional domestic architecture. He used the open plans in the prairie houses. However in Taliesin, in spite of the fluid disposition of the rooms, there is no sense of an open plan, rich and complex but a box nevertheless. Unlike prairie, this living space did not open through articulating devices to any contiguous space, nor did any other rooms. This was appropriate at Taliesin where containment was deliberately sought and consistency developed in so many other ways.  Also, the terrace did not extend from either range of windows that released the view. It lay rather behind the scenes. Probably this issue was a provision of view downward to the valley from the living room. This view would have been frustrated by a terrace, especially by one with a solid plastered rail.[37]
The way Wright treated Taliesin in its particularity, attests to his claim that he didn’t adopt a style. The particularity of the site, the nature of materials, individuality and function were the determinants of the form of the building.
Wright’s philosophy revolved around the organic. He articulated his philosophy clearly in his various writings that totaled to more than one and half million words. He defined the word organic as an entity, part-to whole- as whole- is to part, intrinsic.[38] The ideal of the organic was form and function are one. This ideal guided his design process, the logic behind his revolutionary open plans and is reflected in his different works. And despite the differences in his works, he managed to maintain an organic integrity in his designs.
Image index:

Figure 1 [39]

Hildebrand, Grant. The Wright Space: Pattern and Meaning in Frank Lloyd Wright’s Houses. Seattle: U of Washington, 1991.
Lind, Carla. The Wright Style. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992.
Klinkowitz, Jerome. Frank Lloyd Wright and His Manner of Thought. Madison, Wisconsin: U of Wisconsin, 2014.
Wright, Frank Lloyd. The Future of Architecture. New York: Horizon, 1953.
Wright, Frank Lloyd, and Andrew Devane. In the Cause of Architecture, Frank Lloyd Wright: Essays. New York: Architectural Record, 1975.
Wright, Frank Lloyd, and Donald D. Walker. An American Architecture. New York: Horizon, 1955.

Modernist Design Styles in Architecture: Frank Lloyd Wright

Modernism appeared in the 20th century. Modernism is simple and with no decoration design style. Although this style was appear early 20th century and have different designers or architect have many spread. But still have too little modern architecture build in early 20th century. After World War II, they become many company and agency. And make this style be the top. Here have some architect is more famous. Walter Gropius, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, Le Corbusier and Frank Lloyd Wright.

Get Help With Your Essay
If you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!
Essay Writing Service

Frank Lloyd Wright is one of the famous architect in early 20th century. He is a American Institute of Architects, interior designer, Writer and Educators. His design project is over thousand and finish about five hundred. And he believes that design should achieve harmony between humans and the environment. And it become Organic architecture. For example, Fallingwater is the famous on the world. This design can prove his idea. Also this design is one of the best architect on the American. More than 70 years of his career at Architects. He design different architecture. It including Office, Church, Skyscrapers, Hotel and Museum. Also he design some furniture and stained glass. In his life he write over 20 book and article. And he is the famous speakers. In 1991, American Institute of Architects call Wright “The best Architect”.
He designed different architecture. And his design was famous. For example, Robie House, Imerial Hotel, Fallingwater, Taliesin West, The Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, Price Tower and Jonson Wax Headquarters. Also his idea was affected many designer. Someone said how Wright work change American architecture, but someone said “How didn’t Frank Lloyd Wright change architecture in America I think is really the way to say it because it is hard to imagine what American architecture would be like or even probably world architecture without Frank Lloyd Wright.
About the Organic architecture, he has a famous works. It called Fallingwater. Fallingwater build in 1934-1937. In 1991, members of the American institute of Architects named the house the “ best all-time work of American architecture” and in 2007 , it was ranked twenty-ninth on the list of Amercian’s Favorite Architecture according to the AIA. About the design, the shape of the building look natural, casual, stretch. Also The main room of the building with an outdoor terrace, platforms and roads, intertwined, also obtained with the surrounding natural landscape with the effect of fusion. About the material, White concrete and stone let this design look merge in the environment. And this design is very special. Because the platform is above the waterfall, this design in that time is intensely. And this design was influence many architect. Also it cause the new design style. About the Taliesin West design, he thinks it has been linked with the desert. So he use local stone and concrete. Also the natural lighting is the main role. Because he believes the natural lighting can let inside the building connect to the outside.
His idea has affected some architect. For example Neville Gruzman, Kendrick Bangs Kellogg, Alvar Aalto, Nari Gandhi and Bruce Goff.
All of them have build Organic architecture. Such as Neville Gruzman. Hills House and Gruzman House is the famous organic architecture. Also Hills House is the work is thought of as a two 20th century houses: “Fallingwater” and “Farnsworth House”. And Gruzman House is use materials such as dark stained timbers and natural brick. His architect is conform Wright method.
About Bruce Goff, he said that his hero is Wright and Sullivan. Then he started to contact the original design. Bavinger House is significant example of organic architecture. The house has no interior wall; instead there are a series of platforms at different height, with curtains that can be drawn for privacy. The design use many natural night, make the inside area connect to the outside.
Kendrick Bangs Kellogg is an innovator of organic architecture. In 1955, he met Wright and the brief meeting provided an inspiration. His design is not fit neatly into the same with Wright, Bruce Goff or other organic architects. His building are studies of layered, segmented and unfolding space. And he design Onion house. It is a landmark of organic architecture. The design use employs translucent arching roof panels. Since with no outside walls, the division between interior and exterior consists of screen or stained glass.
But someone maybe doesn’t know what organic architect is. So Wright explains that, it is term meant from nature, organic architecture was indeed a natural architecture. And now we finally understand what organic architect is. And he think good building is not one that hurts the landscape, but one which makes the landscape more beautiful than it was before the building was built. So he wants clean lines and simplicity. And disliked intricate detail and fussiness of the architectural styles.
In addition to organic architect, Wright steel has affected other architect. For example John S. Van Bergen. And his style is Prairie style homes. About the Prairie style. In 1909, Wright developed what known as the Prairie Style. Typical Prairie style home is distinguished by horizontal lines on the exterior, emphasized by a low-pitched hipped roof. But Wright use different color, and let the ceiling heights and hallway widths to alternately compress and expand the sense of space. His design went beyond the building to the finest details of the interior space, include furniture, art glass and other interior design. And the famous prairie style architect is Robie House. It was designed in 1908.
Frank Lloyd Wright’s designs of home and building have inspired generations of architects, including most of what is called “modern architecture.” His influence is international—many other countries have considered Frank Lloyd Wright’s designs as a major template of their contemporary styles. More than 30 states in the United States possess Frank Lloyd Wright structures and most architectural critics agree with that every state in the country has buildings that reflect Wright’s style.
Nowadays, when human want to develop something else, and they will destroy the natural. So they must remember that Wright has said the human beings and nature can conexist. And it is important, even he is gone, but his architectural theory still affected other designer. But someone think he was arrogant man. Because he want to let his own considerable on his clients. For example, Fallingwater. The design is special and innovative. But despite there may be dangers he still carry out his out his design. I think his behavior is correct. Because if one’s creativity is easily affected by the others, then that one is not a qualified designer.
Plagiarism: 24%

Fran Lloyd Wright: Biography and Architecture Style

Fran Lloyd Wright (1867-1959), a great morden architect from the US. His design leads us to a new perspective of builind and living. He believes in sincere and simple design concept. The aspects of his design ideas are the organic buildings, prairie style and the incorpration of fuctional and form. The main fucouse of his design is always base on the natural ansd real that the building need to respect by the surrounding enviornment. Wright designed everything from private houses to commercial spaces, from architecture to furniture, and urban design as well. He had his own personal characteristic and expression that make his work a big difference from the mainstream of design at the time.
Herbert F. Johnson House, “Wingspread” (1937, Wisconsin)
The Wingspread house which was a commission of Herbert F. Johnson, the presidence of S.C. Johnson Et Son Company in 1937, when Wirght was underway of the construction to begin on the Fallingwater House. The house was completed in 1939, and it was built on a very opened prairie surround with woods and ravines at Wind Point. In the early 20th century, Wright’s works were mostly related to the nature by developing the relationship between human and nature, integrating the building and nature, also the use of natural materials. The Wingspread House, as Wright called it “ the last of Prairie houses”. Based on Prairie-style, in order to have a natural flow of the space, we often see large open plans for public areas, such as living room or dining room. Up to today, it is considered as one of the Wright’s most beautiful and expensive houses.
A house in the open prairie, the design of the Wingspread House is about embrace nature. Just like the name of this house, an idea of windmill comes to the overall shape of the house. Indeed, the shape is also like something grows from the earth, and perfectly blends to the natural as well as the use of nature materials. Private spaces set to different wings that extended from the central of the building where is designed for the family activities. The mezzanine and changes of levels brings more sense of human scale of this large space. This irregular shape even though is not organic, but still bring a very unusual way of design residential house, which is like the natural will always over our imagination. In order to emphasize the interaction of each family number, the concept of this house is also allowed them to communicate in diffierent levels. Wright also considered a lot of the kids which to design the space both functional and playful.
The overall floor space is 14,000 sq.ft. The center of the house where the entrance hall, family room, living room, music room, library and dining room are located. The master bedroom, children’s bedrooms, guests’ room and servants’ room are placed in four different wings where they all have their own private space. Instead of partition, a tall stone chimney is designed as a feature element from floor to ceiling with four fireplaces build at ground floor, and one on the mazzanine level. This also divides the main area into different function zones. Also, a spiral staircase is set in a playful way on side of the indoor chimney for kids to go up to the roof. A high dome ceiling with three rolls of sky light gives more natural lights and sense of spacious. The master bedroom wing is for Mr. and Mrs. Johnson and their daughter. It has three bedrooms and a sitting room. And each bedroom has a bathroom. This wing is at the mezzanine level, and the rest three wings are at the ground floor. The children’s wing has three bedrooms and three bathrooms, and it is connected to the outside terrace with a swimming pool, and a playroom as well. The kitchen is set on the servant wing, with three maids’ room, one shared bathroom and sitting room. Also the guest’s wing is connected to the access of a garage for five cars.
The use of natural material often sees in Wright’s project. The Wright House as well bring the brick work from the out side of the house to the interior to apply the 30 foots chimney, which also give a sense of masculine and power to emphasize as it is the feature of the main area. The oversize concrete squares for the flooring in the living room is about to keep the temperature at a comfort level by the radiant heating. Also, after the construction, Johnson Was designed specific product to give a low gloss finish for the flooring. The build-in wood furnitures bring a harmony of the space and also neutralize the roughness of the brick. Windows surround the most of the house, as well as the rows of skylight in the main area to give as much as the natural light. Wright said that, “ This house, while resembling the Coonley House, is much more blood, masculine and direct in form and treatment-excuted in more permanent materials. The house has a heavy footing course of Kasota sandstone, the best brickwork I have seen in my life- and the materials of construction throughout are everywhere substantial…”
Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum (1943, New York)
In 1943, Wright got a commission from Baroness Hilla von Rebay to build a new museum to collect Solomon R. Guggenheim’s non-objective painting. Guggenheim required designing the museum that is unlike any other. The museum is one of Wright’s famous projects, and also known as his longest project that took about 16 years until opened to the public in 1959, six month after he passed away. During the long process of this project, Wright had many chanllenges of design the museum, in terms of the WWII, economic crisis in the late 40s, and building code requirements. It is located at the Fifth Avenue in Manhattan and next to the east face of the famous Central Park where is also the downtown area of New York City. Even Wrights had to modify and redesign many versions of this museum within the 16 years, but the final result is still something marvelous. His design language brings out the simplicity and naturality. Wright always tries to design things unusual, so the Guggenheim Museum is also become to an impressive mark in Manhattan. 
“I am so full of ideas for our museum that I am likely to blow up or commit suicide unless I can let them out on paper.” Wright wrote to Rebay shows that he has all his passion and ambitious about the museum project in 1943. He provided six complete perspective drawing that implied architectural, structural, electrical and mechanical. Wright defined that, “ A museum should be one extended expansive well proportioned floor space from bottom to top – a wheel chair going around and up and down, throughout.” This idea also shows that he is not only design an object itself, but also considering with a humanist approach and then bring it to the design. The shape of the building is described as an “inverted ziggurat”. The exterior concrete bands grow slightly larger at each higher level that gives a feeling of powerful. As well as the interoir space offsets the curved wall from exterior and continued ramp from the first floor to the top to feel natural and smooth. The ramp gives visitors freedom to walk around the whole building without any staircases. It stands in a high contrast to the surrounding traditional building. The organic shapes and the sense of simplicity make it like a natural product. The building itself is actually like an artwork, a sculpture than leading people want to go inside and explore. Although, there are still some different opinions concern about overpower design of the building that may compete for attention to the exhibit.
The interior of this museum is very expressive with a central well from the first floor to the sixth level that provide a large open hollow design with a 97 feet glass dome for skylight. The entrance is located in the ground floor with the vestibule and waiting room. In the basement, it provides the lecture room with a mezzanine below the central court. The main gallery stars from the first floor where is above the ground floor, and there is also a library. To go to the upper level, the ramp continues up to the sixth floor that the rotation ends without a full revolution. There are toilets and elevator on each level, also a triangular stairwell on the side as an emergency exit. Offices and workrooms are on the second floor. At the top floor, it has an outdoor balcony, and also the director’s office.
Frank Loyd Wright’s design concept of organic architecture also applies to some details. The glass dome is designed in to different geometric shapes, which are triangles, ovals, arches, circles and squares. The skylights not only appear from the top ceiling. From the exterior view, concrete bands seem like floating on top of each other, and they actually have skylights along the circle on every top of each level. In this case, we can see how Wright tried to repect the use of natural lights. Indeed, the triangle recessed lights and staircases are also nutrualise the overall organic shape. A feature pond built at the ground floor that can be noticed from every level above. However, the curved interior wall is controversial from some artists who complained about the placement of their painting. But this does not sinfluence the love and praise of the visitors for it. To compare with the expansive main gallary, the entrance is relative low, small and conceal. That gives visitor a contrast leading suddenly into an open space.
Every period of his time, from naturalism, organicim, prairie style to mordenism, he had also caused new influences and impacets on the world’s architecture. Frank Lloyd Wright provided an exploration and important referencefor the future design.