Two structures on the same Woods Hole, MA, property show distinct approaches to context. This cottage, while also a studied, taut composition, was designed to coexist within a row of vernacular cottages.
This one commands an expanse of the sea and successfully introduces a progressive design into the setting.
The Woodbury County Courthouse, built in Sioux City, IA, between 1915 and 1917, shows the firm’s comprehensive approach to architecture, ornament and art.
George Grant Elmslie adorned the living room of the Purcell-Cutts House (1915) in Minneapolis, MN, with metal pendant lights he designed.
|
A Little Light on the Prairie Purcell and Elmslie: Prairie Progressive Architects
by David Gebhard
Gibbs Smith, Publisher, Layton, UT; 2006
192 pp.; hardcover; b&w and color illus.; $30
ISBN 1-4236-0005-3
Reviewed by Paul Muller
Louis Sullivan and Frank Lloyd Wright are correctly celebrated as the founders of the Prairie School movement. Their genius and force of personality, which was critical to the creation of the movement, had the unfortunate consequence of overshadowing significant contributions of other architects. A new book by David Gebhard fills this gap by presenting the first comprehensive work on the architecture of William Gray Purcell and George Grant Elmslie.
Gebhard brings to life the sense of possibility that existed within the Chicago architectural community at the turn of the 20th century. This was a group that believed they were creating new architectural forms in support of a better society. They spoke of honesty in architecture and sought a new expression of the relationship between society and nature. They viewed their architecture as a social force that could be an essential, life-sustaining aspect of a new democratic culture. Going to work must have been fun.
William Purcell and George Elmslie were at the center of this unique burst of American creative thought and were deeply committed to the emerging principles of organic architecture. Throughout their careers, they were working out how to directly apply them in their architecture. The book makes a valuable contribution to the history of the Prairie School by providing both a window to the working methods of the partners and by publishing so many of the firm’s lesser-known projects.
Along with portraying the extensive range of the firm’s work, Gebhard also presents Purcell and Elmslie as highly committed, independent thinkers, working from the same “first principles” that inspired Wright and Sullivan. This is not surprising considering that they worked under Sullivan and alongside Wright. They were living within the same cultural milieu of progressive social ideals, with its optimism and sense of possibility. These architects shared many of the same beliefs and were engaged in the ongoing debates about art, nature and democracy that fueled the Chicago-based Prairie School movement.
There is an excellent discussion on the role of ornament in the architecture of Sullivan and Elmslie not found in other writings on the period. Indeed, Sullivan’s adage that “form follows function” may qualify as the most misinterpreted statement in modern architectural theory. While it was cited by Modernists in their successful efforts to banish ornament, Sullivan’s concept of the function of architecture included much more than the structural and programmatic aspects of a building. He believed the function of architecture was to promote “democracy” and foster an organic culture. The ornament on his buildings was created to fulfill this function. Purcell and Elmslie worked within this context and not only agreed with the master but also drew much of Sullivan’s terra cotta while working in his office. Elmslie later published a well-reasoned essay on the integral role of ornament in response to criticism by Lewis Mumford.
As this book richly demonstrates, Purcell and Elmslie continued to develop their architectural concepts throughout their careers with both public and private buildings. Their commitment to progressive architecture was at the core of their approach. Gebhard points out how they lost a number of major commissions when their “advanced designs” were too extreme for conservative clients. Several church designs illustrated in the book would have been important landmarks had the congregations been open to the creative approach of Purcell and Elmslie.
The book has sections on the background of each partner, tracing the origins of their education and early work experience. Elmslie, for example, was exposed to a progressive form of intellectual freedom in his early education in Scotland. He came to Chicago at an early age and entered the office of Louis Sullivan where he shared an office with Wright. Within the firm of Purcell and Elmslie, Architects, he was responsible for much of the architectural design work and all of the ornamental designs. Purcell’s Midwestern roots are traced from progressive schools in Oak Park, IL, to academic architectural education at Cornell University.
As the firm of Purcell and Elmslie, the partners propelled Prairie-style design into public buildings more effectively than most of their peers. Gebhard includes a number of excellent photographs of Woodbury County Courthouse in Sioux City, IA. While this is the best known of their civic designs, it is nice to see the full range of their civic work. The drawings of unbuilt civic and commercial projects are very interesting and provide a fresh set of designs from the period. The public projects also apparently paid the bills and allowed them to pursue their primary interest: residential design. They continually sought to design inexpensive houses that incorporated new technology.
Perhaps their best known residential design is the Bradley house in Woods Hole, MA. The house commands its site on a peninsula with a dramatic and innovative form. A gardener’s cottage designed for the same property shows the firm’s understanding of context. Because the cottage is on a less independent site, the firm created a design in what would now be labeled a contextual vernacular style. I have admired the Bradley House in Woods Hole and often wondered about the house with its distinctive, striking form. I learned from the book that this cottage is part of the Purcell and Elmslie-designed estate. Their understanding that the context of the cottage required a different approach than the main house shows an aesthetic sophistication that runs throughout their work.
The working relationship between Purcell and Elmslie is thoroughly described and provides some of the most interesting reading in the book. Gebhard had access to extensive archival material and had conversations with Purcell between 1951 and 1964. By drawing on these sources, the author is able to present a nuanced view of the way these strong-willed men worked together for so many decades. It is interesting to learn that the Purcell house in Portland, OR, was a collaborative effort and occurred years after they had dissolved Purcell and Elmslie.
Gebhard does an excellent job of presenting the case for the significance of the firm by using extensive archival research, the buildings and personal interviews. His succinct overview of the origins of the Prairie movement in the introduction is excellent. He covers an enormous amount of background without oversimplifying the complex themes at the core of the movement.
The one area where the book overreaches is in its attempt to evaluate the impact of Purcell and Elmslie on the history of architecture. While they unquestionably produced an important body of work, Gebhard’s claim that “[…] Wright was never able to achieve as complete a synthesis during his Prairie period as did Purcell and Elmslie” is not only unsupported by arguments in the book, but also seems unlikely.
A catalog of major projects is included in the back of the book. While there is not a great deal of detail about the projects in this list, the book’s notes include website references to the Northwest Architectural Archives at the University of Minnesota, which provides access to the complete catalog, and an organization called Organica (www.organica.org), a resource that purports to facilitate research into the philosophy and works of organic understanding.
Gebhard, an architectural historian who taught at the University of California Santa Barbara, notes in his introduction that “Several of their works are monuments to be included in the great works of American architecture while the majority of their buildings are noteworthy for their essential aesthetic quality.” The book makes his point beautifully and is relevant for anyone interested in the architecture of the Prairie School movement.
Wright’s respect for the men was demonstrated when he asked them to manage his firm in 1909 during his retreat to Europe. Gebhard includes a telling note from Elmslie to Purcell in which he reminds his partner of how difficult Wright could be in business matters. They were also concerned about being too closely identified with Wright at a time when they were developing their own architectural direction and reputation. Their concern about being overshadowed by Wright was on target. It is fortunate that David Gebhard has cast a little light upon their excellent work. 
Paul Muller is a principal with Muller Architects, Inc., of Cincinnati, OH. Much of the firm’s residential work is within the Prairie and Arts and Crafts styles. Currently the firm is designing seaside houses in Maine and on the island of Martha’s Vineyard.
«BACK TO MARCH 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS
|
|
