There’s a hot topic in the press right now. It’s all about how your internet postings may become a source of embarrassment later on in life and should take steps to sanitize your internet trail.
I remember reading a quote by the playwright Moss Hart. He said, “A bad review is better than no review at all.”
Most of us will not create a living legacy. Not a great book, a museum masterpiece, a grand piece of architecture, a memorable poem, a musical opus, or any other tangible legacy.
The sum of your postings will be your legacy. Are you really worried about what you leave behind? Will you be embarrassed when you are cold in the grave?
Consider this:
A tarnished legacy is better than no legacy at all.
Showing posts with label architecture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label architecture. Show all posts
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Graycliff
Yesterday, we toured Graycliff, a Frank Lloyd Wright designed summer cottage on Lake Erie.
It seems large on the outside, but small on the inside. But, then again, it's a summer retreat and doesn't have to be large.
The building is in a state of disrepair and is undergoing restoration. To me the restoration represents a contradiction. Everything is being taken back as closely as possible to the way it was in 1928, when the house was built. This is in keeping with standard historical restoration practices.
My problem is this. Frank Lloyd Wright was an advocate of using the latest technology in his designs. In the spirit of his design philosophy, upgrades should be made using modern materials that maintain the integrity of the design, rather than the integrity of the materials.
This is not going to happen, but it's a thought.
Outside of the boundaries is a cinder block building that houses the gift shop and offices. I asked the tour guide if it would be stuccoed to match the house. He couldn't understand why they would do that. I said, "To maintain the design integrity of the grounds." He seemed to think that was an absurd idea and that it wouldn't happen.
I seem to by the odd man out here.
It seems large on the outside, but small on the inside. But, then again, it's a summer retreat and doesn't have to be large.
The building is in a state of disrepair and is undergoing restoration. To me the restoration represents a contradiction. Everything is being taken back as closely as possible to the way it was in 1928, when the house was built. This is in keeping with standard historical restoration practices.
My problem is this. Frank Lloyd Wright was an advocate of using the latest technology in his designs. In the spirit of his design philosophy, upgrades should be made using modern materials that maintain the integrity of the design, rather than the integrity of the materials.
This is not going to happen, but it's a thought.
Outside of the boundaries is a cinder block building that houses the gift shop and offices. I asked the tour guide if it would be stuccoed to match the house. He couldn't understand why they would do that. I said, "To maintain the design integrity of the grounds." He seemed to think that was an absurd idea and that it wouldn't happen.
I seem to by the odd man out here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
