AN EDITORIAL

Wright in Racine: The Arcitect's Vision for One American City by Mark Hertzberg.

We are disappointed that our friend and Wright-trained Taliesin Fellow and architect has his name attached to this publication, for it has misleading and false information that I do not believe Edgar Tafel would condone had he known beforehand of its appearance in the publication.

In this recently published book under the authorship of Mark Hertzberg, there is a claim that the Mitchell House, S.039 in the second printing of The Architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright, a complete catalog, 3rd edition, is not by Frank Lloyd Wright.

Mr. Hertzberg is a reporter for a newspaper in Racine, Wisconsin with, apparently, based upon his writing, no training in architectural history or in the standards by which attribution of a work of architecture or art is determined.

He notes that Inland Architect says the Mitchell House is by Cecil Corwin and this proves that the Mitchell house is by Corwin. Then are the works known as by Frank Lloyd Wright and called "bootlegged" or "moonlighted," but whose plans are signed by Cecil Corwin, Corwin's or Wright's. By Hertzberg's standards they are by Corwin. Everyone else agrees that they are by Wright.

The plan of the Mitchell house is schematically the same as the Frederick Bagley house, S.028, in Hinsdale, Illinois, which is listed in the same issue of Inland Architect directly next the listing for the Mitchell house. Hertzberg fails to notice this identity. This author drew from measurements the only authorized plan of the Mitchell House and can thus vouch for the relationship. Has Hertzberg made any effort to visit the house in Hinsdale?

Read the entry in the second printing of The Architecture of Frank Lloyd Wright (you can identify the second printing by the back cover notice stating that it includes the Mitchell House) for some of the reasons it is attributed to Wright.

What else of Corwin's does Hertzberg know from first hand knowledge? What does he know of Corwin's own style and idiosyncrasies, the signatures that identify the artist in his works? What other Corwin houses has he visited?

Yes, there are elements of Corwin in the finished Mitchell design, including the "eye" in the gambrel roof, yet the Frederick Bagley house has one, too. Maybe that makes it a Corwin design? There is Corwin's vertical boarding in the dining room, and his use of maple in the reception room. The principle room, the living room and its inglenook, plus the entry, are Wright, as is the entire layout of all four floors.

Does Hertzberg wish to deny the original claim by one of the best restoration architects in America, John Eifler, a specialist in Wright and Sullivan, that the work is essentially by Wright. Even if Hertzberg does not trust this author, he should listen to such others as are more expert than he is in the field.

We thought yellow journalism was a thing of the long ago past; apparently not.

----WAStorrer