A comment I read recently on the internet got me thinking about the nature of art and architecture.  (Those who criticize the internet as a wasteland must use a different internet than I do.)  The commenter, a fan of Frank Lloyd Wright, wrote that aside from pretty details there is nothing to the work of Charles and Henry Greene, the turn of the 20th century architects in Pasadena.  He was also quite critical of their architecture for a lack of innovation.  One could certainly address his claim directly by illustrating the important contributions and innovations of Greene & Greene.  To do so, however, would be to miss an opportunity to address a larger issue.

Greene & Greene Architecture the Gamble House at Night image via David MathiasImplicit in this commenter’s statement is the idea that only innovation can qualify architecture as worthy.  Not to put too fine a point on it, I think that is ridiculous.  Let me be clear, innovation is most certainly crucial to the field of architecture as it is to many human endeavors.  That does not mean, however, that innovation is crucial to every building.  An individual building can also be considered successful architecture because it is artfully designed, well executed, and sublimely suited to its purpose.

In Impressions of Japanese Architecture, Ralph Adams Cram writes of the impulse to innovate that is so present in Western societies but is much less so in Japan.  In a way, Greek and Japanese art are closely akin: each represents the exquisite perfecting in every minutest detail of a primary conception neither notably exalted nor highly evolved, yet the result is, in plain words, final perfection.  Byzantium, Italy, France, Spain, England each struck out dazzling flashes of transcendent genius; each was supreme as a radiant, almost divine conception, but none, not even the thirteenth century Gothic, not fifteenth century Italian painting, was suffered to develop to its highest point: each was abandoned when it was hardly more than sketched in….

There is art in achieving perfection.  That is, I think, one of the great achievements of Charles and Henry Greene – the perfecting in every minutest detail of the architectural form they synthesized.  In a 1985 interview, Chicago architect L. Morgan Yost, a disciple of Frank Lloyd Wright was asked what message the work of Greene & Greene held for him.  The message of perfection of course, which is unattainable.  They did.  If anybody ever attained perfection, they did.  They had tremendous ability in form, materials and putting things together.  It’s an architecture that has to be seen and felt, including their furniture.  They were able at that time to do a house for a wealthy family that would be completely right down to the last table cover and throw, all the furnishings.  It was amazing to see such complete perfection.

Greene & Greene the Gamble House Living Room image via David MathiasUse of the word synthesized in the previous paragraph is not accidental.  No architecture is created in a vacuum, everyone is influenced by what has come before (some negatively, perhaps).  In the case of Greene & Greene, the primary influences were the Arts and Crafts movement, Japanese imperial and temple architecture, and the unique environment and climate of Southern California.  From these varied starting points, they created a new and native architecture in the words of the AIA special citation awarded them in 1953.

Critical to the perfection of their work was an incredible level of design unification.  Their gestalt philosophy, particularly in the larger commissions, was likely unsurpassed.  Interiors are unified with exteriors; furniture is all but indistinguishable from interior woodwork.  Lighting fixtures and art glass coordinate with furniture and interiors.  Every element is complementary to every other.  This is achievable because the various parts were designed as a single project rather than pieced together after the fact.  M.H. Baillie Scott wrote eloquently about this aspect of the design:

For it is not enough that furniture should possess intrinsic beauty, unless it also possesses this further quality of exquisite appropriateness to its position and to its use.  It should appear almost to be a piece of the room in which it is placed and in absolute harmony with its surroundings.

It is in this respect that the various kinds of fixed furnishings become of especial value in the effect of a room, filling the gap between the house and its furniture, and thus giving an appearance of unity and harmony.  The fixed seats to the inglenook, the mantel-pieces and bedroom fitments, all appear as part of the structure itself and so form a connecting link between the movable furniture and the house.

Scott goes on to say that, The furniture should appear to grow out of the requirements of the room, to represent the finishing touches of a scheme which had its inception when the first stone of the house was laid….  One only needs to look briefly at the Blacker living rooms or the Thorsen or Gamble dining rooms to understand that this is precisely what the Greene’s did and that the result is, as Morgan Yost described, perfection.  Innovation or no, that’s a result many architects would dearly love to achieve.

*******

Note from the hosts:  BMoxie is honored to have our first (I think) real live, in the flesh, author (as in book writer).  David Mathias is the force behind Greene & Greene Furniture: Poems of Wood and Light. You may find out more about the book here: http://www.wood-and-light.com/.  David may also be found on twitter as @woodandlight.

David — Thank you very much for your thoughtful contribution. jb