martinhouseclr

82 DARWIN D. MARTIN HOUSE // CULTURAL LANDSCAPE REPORT Mahony-drawn aerial perspective looking to the northwest, features similar minor inconsistencies yet manages to express the character displayed by the known and installed landscape design. 193 [Fig. 58] Some of the inconsistencies are likely no more than interpretive editing intended to reveal as much about the architecture as possible (leaving out the site and street trees), while others reflect the same lack of foundation plantings shown in the plan drawing, noticeably along the Summit terrace wall. Yet, the perspective lacks more foundation plantings than the plan, including plantings missing from the front walkway (replaced by what seems to be a narrow planter along the base of an extended parapet wall). 194 Neither the linear grouping of large shrubs extending south from the Barton House or the woody shrubs designed and installed in the outer rings of the Floricycle were shown either. Both of these features, drawn accurately, would have hidden portions of the house. Thus, it is quite possible that many of these plantings were left out so that the viewer could better identify the 193 No artist signature is present, however, the perspective drawing clearly reflects the style of Wright’s assistant at the time, architect Marion Mahony. Mahony’s visual style was unique and is often attributed as an important part of the success of the Wasmuth publication. Mahony married Water Burley Griffin in 1911, and her renderings were influential in securing the Canberra, Australia competition, for which Griffin is well known. 194 The entire at-grade walkway, extending east-west from the driveway to the front entry, seems to be missing from the perspective drawing. Thus implying that the only walkway access to the front door is associated with what is, in constructed reality, the secondary access to Martin’s office. visual relationships of the house, understand the continuation of the ground plane, and thus more clearly read the perspective – which would have been difficult if drawn to reflect the actual designed landscape. 195 The Floricycle is drawn as what appears to be mostly a perennial border, rather than its true condition, being a mixed border with substantial shrubs and trees lining the outer periphery. There are also no deciduous shade trees drawn throughout the entire property, expect for those that stylistically frame the drawing in the foreground and are not intended as a feature of the property design itself. 196 The perspective is also ambiguous as to the substantial grade change that exists between the Jewett Parkway frontage and the Summit Avenue frontage – a feature that, in reality, was purposefully well hidden by the Floricycle. Notably, some of the features that the perspective drawing does include are vine covered architecture of the pergola and substantial vegetative massings at the property peripheries – both the western boundary beyond the driveway and the Barton House’s northern property line. As with much focused architectural rendering, both background peripheries are understandably 195 An alternate explanation would be that Wright misunderstood the ultimate character of the shrubs (unlikely) or that the drawing was based off of early photos in which the shrubs of the Floricycle were too young to distinguish from more mature perennials within this type of drawing. In any case, there is a clear account of selective editing in the drawing. 196 Note that the foreground “framing” vegetation also includes shrub massings and small trees with horizontal branching effect, such as those often described as important in Wilhelm Miller’s later account of “The Prairie Spirit in Landscape Gardening.” absent of any adjoining property and perhaps reflect a heightened association with the “countryside” or a greatly amplified landscape setting. Though the Barton House’s northern boundary is inaccurate toward its relationship with the then-extant neighboring structure, the western boundary beyond the driveway more or less reflects the massing and level of vegetation in the planting plan and known to exist in the era - a dense backdrop of the garden views from the kitchen, the Courtyard gardens, and, perhaps most significantly, from the pergola. As for the vine covered architecture (mostly shown on the pergola in the drawing), considering the quantity and species of vines planted at the base of the structure, it is probably an underestimation that they are not more substantial. Or, more likely, a careful editing intended to not conceal the architecture feature beyond recognition. Clearly, based on this carefully edited drawing, there was vine cover intended to trail up the known trellis wire and along the roof of the pergola. 197 Ultimately, despite the numerous quirks and inconsistencies relative to Wright’s original design and the known period landscape, the Wasmuth plan and perspective drawings gives great indication of the known mix of garden styles, the important relationship (both in plan and perspective) between the architecture and 197 Much has been written or dramatically quoted about Frank Lloyd Wright’s distaste for vines, which, at least concerning the period ending with the publication of the Wasmuth portfolio (1910), seems largely misunderstood. See the CLR section on the background and context of Wright’s landscapes.