Is There a Psychology to Architecture?

I mention Frank Lloyd Wright on here quite a bit and several people have reached out to me to ask me why. What is it that I see in FLW as the pinnacle of modern design. This made me think about why, and as I am inclined to do I write those thoughts down. There are “hard” answers and “soft” answers in psychology. Hard answers are objective things like “penicillin cures infection” or “The randomized controlled trial shows this technique is the most effective for the most people”. 

Soft answers are more subjective and less testable. When Bessel Van der Kolk says “Neuroscience research shows that the only way we can change the way we feel is by becoming aware of our inner experience and learning to befriend what is going inside ourselves.” that is a very soft answer. We are not able to run a lab test to see what models of therapy help us befriend our inner experience. Instead we need need to to use intuition, nuance, and contextual understanding to feel the spirit, not the letter, of what therapy modalities are doing. Soft sciences are more interesting to me because you are always trying to hit a moving target.  With soft science the work of “getting it right” is never quite done.  When we opened Taproot there were two Brainspotting practitioners in the state of Alabama and now there are almost 50 in our zip code. My guess that the psychotherapy industry was headed in that direction was correct, but the industry will continue to move. 

Design is something that will always be a soft science. We will never build the perfect house or create the definitive couch. Design is a continuous process of trying to hit something just on the other side of the horizon. Wright had a way of seeing and listening that I think made him one of the most effective architects of this or any era, but what exactly was that. It is probably easier to say what Wright was NOT than what he was. Wright was not a good guy. Despite his talent as an architect, Wright was erratic and indefensible as a person. A narcissist, serial adulterer, liar, inveterate overspender and just kind of a bad dude. Many times a person’s biography shows clues as to the makeup of their vices. Wright’s biography shows none. Wright was brilliant and in places prophetically influential and he knew it. He had a massive superiority complex and never integrated his gifts as an artist into any semblance of a coherent or healthy psyche. He did experience tragedy as an adult. That is sad but it was much too late to account for the consistently disordered personality already well documented and developed by that time. 

Wright was also not always a great architect. Some of his buildings just don’t work. Some of his revival periods are too cold and his forays into modernism too alien to the way people actually live. Some of his experimentation never paid off, but when he was on he was really on. So what makes Wright such a mandatory design reference point? Again there are hard answers in hard sciences and soft answers in soft sciences like design. We know, but we don’t always know why we know. We can not describe why timeless design works in an objective way because the origin of good design lies in the intuitive unconscious mind that dwells beneath language.

I had a college professor who told me once that reading works in translation is like making love through a plate glass window. Experiencing architecture through photo and even video can be a similar experience. It is hard to get a read through a camera lens on what Wright’s spaces communicate in person.Wright saw himself as not just a mere architect but a creator of spaces that harmonized with the human spirit. His philosophy elevated architecture to a discipline that embraced the beauty of Natural surroundings and the symbiotic relationship between function, form, and meaning. 

The three key points that Wright’s designs evolve around are the natural spaces his designs inhabit, the material function and purpose of the structure, and the symbolic and spiritual meaning.

Organic Architecture: A Harmony Between Nature and Structure

At the core of Frank Lloyd Wright’s style lay the concept of organic architecture. He believed that buildings should emerge naturally from their surroundings, blending seamlessly with the environment. Wright’s structures sought to enhance the beauty of the site, integrating with the landscape rather than imposing upon it. By employing materials and colors that mirrored the natural world, he established a harmonious connection between built forms and their settings. His designs often featured horizontal lines that mimicked the horizons, organic curves that echoed the surrounding hills, and materials like stone and wood that embraced the textures of nature. Through these elements, Wright aimed to create spaces that felt like a continuation of the natural environment, inviting inhabitants to establish a profound connection with their surroundings.

Function as the Driving Force of Design

For Wright, form followed function, an idea he championed with great fervor. He perceived buildings as functional entities, meticulously designed to serve the needs of their occupants. The spatial arrangement, circulation patterns, and integration of natural light were carefully considered to optimize the user experience. Wright’s approach emphasized the human scale, creating spaces that fostered comfort, efficiency, and a profound sense of harmony. By meticulously studying the daily routines, habits, and interactions of his clients, he ensured that his designs met their specific requirements. This approach allowed him to create spaces that seamlessly integrated with the lives of the inhabitants, promoting a sense of well-being and enhancing their overall quality of life.

Patterns: Meaning and Symbolism

Frank Lloyd Wright believed that architecture should go beyond its utilitarian purpose and engage the viewer on a deeper level. One of his distinctive design elements was the incorporation of patterns with profound meanings and symbolism. By infusing his structures with repetitive motifs, Wright sought to create a sense of continuity and coherence. These patterns often drew inspiration from nature, geometric shapes, or cultural symbols, evoking a dialogue between the built environment and the human spirit. The repetition of patterns throughout a structure created a rhythm and visual harmony, connecting various spaces within a building and establishing a cohesive whole. These patterns not only added aesthetic complexitybut also contributed to the psychological and emotional experience of the inhabitants.

Design as Intersection of Human Spheres and Natural Planes:

One of the things that is interesting about Wright’s spaces is that he didn’t really design them. We think of  an architect as the person who takes out a blank sheet of paper and draws something pretty, but that was not at all what Wright did. Instead he “listened” the 3 elements of what he saw as the purpose of architecture. He tried to find the best way that these conflicting forces could be brought together. He eschewed fads and conventions in design. This is why his process resulted in timeless messages one can still as you standin his spaces. 

Even though Wright was a narcissist he didn’t really take credit for this intuitive design process.  He viewed it as a natural part of our humanity available to anyone who was willing to listen. He taught his process to many students and interns at his Taliliesin school and office. Wright viewed formal education and instruction as an obstacle to this kind of intuition and preferred to teach students his method himself. This profited him immensely as his students and draftsmen were often paid little or nothing even though they designed large parts of his completed works. In some cases Wright even had the students working for him pay HIM to design his buildings. Even though he didn’t take credit for his design process he had no problem taking the  money and credit from others’ work.

An example of Wright’s process can be found in the excerpt from a When you read it you can see how formal education and training would be an obstacle, not an asset, to someone who viewed architecture as a natural outgrowth from the fusion of the natural and human world. 

Assignment from the Taliesin School:

Prepare a geometric study of any Wisconsin wildflower endeavoring to get at the essence of its inherent character. Organize this pattern into a design structured upon a unit system. Strive to establish a grammar which will be an inseparable consequence of the design element and unit system. Grammatical pattern must be consistently of the same source and of the same direction from that source. On a separate overlay, isolate the geometric unit system in linear pattern only. Know the common name of the wildflower and bring a few of the flowers to class.

Every design worth considering as a work of art must have a grammar of its own. “Grammar,” in this sense, means the same thing in any construction – whether it be of words, or of stone or wood. It is the shape-relationship between the various elements that enter into the constitution of the thing. Your work must be consistently grammatical for it to be understood as a work of art.

Grammar may be deduced from some plant form that has appealed to me as certain properties in line and form of the sumac were used in the Dana house in Springfield. The motif is adhered to throughout the building.

All my planning was devised on a properly proportional unit system. I found this would keep all to scale, ensuring consistent proportion throughout the design, which thus became – like tapestry – a consistent fabric woven of interdependent, related units, however various . . . Invariably it appears in Organic architecture as a visible feature in the fabric of the design – insuring unity of proportion. The harmony of texture is thus, with the scale of all parts, within the complete ensemble.

Let us learn to see within, at least far enough to grasp essential patterns in all created things. Method in creation will come freely to him who learns to see in the abstract. Study the geometry that is the idea of every form: a quail, a snail, a shell, a fish. Take for analysis the more simple, obvious things first.

Then take the texture of the trees.

Learn the essential pattern that makes the oak and distinguish it from the essential pattern that makes the pine.

Then make new ones. Try after this, the curling vine, flowing water, curving sand.

Then try the flowers, butterflies, and bees.

A Chrysanthemum is easy.

A rock or rose is difficult. 

And I do not mean to take the obvious surface effects that differentiate each, but to go within to find the essential geometry of pattern that gives character to each. That is the proper study for an architect who would find method and get legitimate “effects.”

Try this method and gradually discipline your power to see. Get patiently to the point where you naturally see this element of pattern in everything.

– Frank Lloyd Wright 

Look at these photos. Look at the way they apply these theories. This is a beautiful expression of organic design.

Applying that kind of cognition to any type of art or life is such a beautiful process. Wright applied it to his architecture but never to his own life.

Frank Lloyd Wright as an Outsider Artist:

Wright believed that true architectural genius came from personal experience, intuition, and an innate understanding of the environment, rather than formal education. One of the reasons Wright considered himself an outsider was his refusal to conform to the academic norms and traditional architectural education. He had a brief stint at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, but he left without completing his degree, feeling that the academic environment stifled his creative freedom.

Wright’s disdain for academia extended beyond his personal experiences. He criticized architectural schools and institutions for promoting an outdated, formulaic approach to design that focused more on aesthetics and historical imitation rather than innovation and functionality. He saw these institutions as inhibiting the development of truly original and meaningful architectural solutions.

Wright  aimed to create buildings that were not only functional but also contributed to the overall well-being and happiness of their occupants. He saw the traditional floor plans and ornamentation of popular styles of the time, like beaux arts, as hindrances to this.  

What we can Learn from Wright: 

Even the modernists that claim to be carrying on Wright’s legacy have discarded the most important parts of his lessons. Most architects and designers of today know that Wright is famous but they seem to have forgotten why.  Architects like Frank Gehry design crazy shapes made possible with 3d rendering that are very hard to build or live in. Wright’s Gugenheim has a non-traditional form but that was merely the byproduct of Wright listening to and fusing the bustling concrete glass city setting with the spiritual purpose and practical needs of an art museum. 

I still remember wincing when I was walking through one of Frank Gehry’s structures. Elements, shape and scale seemed like they had been selected at random. The strange shape of the outside meant that there were reams of wasted, purposeless, useless space in every room. You might have been able to make a case this was some kind of purely aesthetic point if the artist had read the building codes. Legally required handrails and cane bumpers for the visually impaired had been added during construction taking away any visual symmetry and flow. Additionally these code requirements made the building clunky to navigate casually for most pedestrians. 

Gehry’s meandering sheet metal forms felt restrictive and unnatural, nothing like the organic flow and spiraling elevation of Frank Lloyd Wright’s Guggenheim. Looking around you could see visitors conforming to the building, not the other way around.  Even as a work of sculpture Gehry’s building failed. Instead of listening to force in our humanity the architect had self indulgently listened only to himself. 

This is what is so frustrating about the way that others talk about Wright’s legacy. The man was a raging narcissist with a personality disorder a mile long; AND STILL modern architects have managed to make more myopic designs. Weird shapes were never Wright’s point at all. Modern buildings want us to bend our humanity around their designs. Wright’s designs listened to the intersection of the needs of the human, the natural space and the harmony of the joint souls of mankind and the natural world created from the fusion of those elements. Wright’s style was not about throwing away ornamentation or decoration but instead about making sure it was an outgrowth of the practical and spiritual function of the space 

Symbolism in Wright’s Process:

One of my favorite parts of Wright’s designs are the artistic motifs and patterns that ripple across the structure. Sometimes brash and bold, sometimes tiny and intricate, they communicate the character and purpose of the space. Wright made hundreds of these designs and often left their final implementation up  to his draftsman and tradesman in the final construction. He laid out an intuitive design they could follow without a detailed plan. Some of these patterns have meanings and symbolism documented in plans  while others remain a secret that only Wright would know. They are like modern day runes or hieroglyphics across temple walls. 

One prominent symbol found throughout Wright’s architectural repertoire is the triangle. Wright often utilized triangular shapes in his designs, whether in the floor plans, rooflines, or windows. The triangle symbolized unity and balance, reflecting Wright’s belief in the harmony between nature, humanity, and architecture. By incorporating triangles into his designs, Wright sought to create a sense of equilibrium and integration between the built environment and its surroundings.

Another symbol frequently found in Wright’s work is the circle or the spiral. Wright was captivated by the organic curves and flow of natural forms, and he often incorporated circular motifs and spiraling patterns in his designs. The circle represented continuity, infinite possibilities, and the cyclical nature of life. It was a symbol of wholeness and completeness, reflecting Wright’s philosophy of architecture as a holistic experience that engages all the senses and connects individuals to their environment.

Nature itself held deep symbolic meaning for Wright. He believed that architecture should be in harmony with nature rather than dominating it. Wright often integrated natural elements, such as water features, plants, and natural light, into his designs. By bringing nature indoors, he sought to create a sense of tranquility, renewal, and spiritual connection. This integration of nature symbolized a respect for the environment and a desire to establish a harmonious relationship between human-made structures and the natural world.

Wright’s designs also incorporated cultural symbolism. He drew inspiration from various cultures, including the Japanese concept of “ma” or spatial void, as well as Native American architecture and design principles. Wright believed that architecture should reflect the cultural context in which it is built and resonate with the identity of its inhabitants. By incorporating cultural symbolism, he aimed to create a sense of place and belonging, honoring the heritage and traditions of the communities he served.

Why Frank Lloyd Wright’s Process is Hard to replicate:

Wright valued the beauty and craftsmanship of handcrafted elements, and his designs often incorporated them extensively. Whether it was custom furniture, light fixtures, or decorative elements, these handcrafted details added richness and uniqueness to his buildings. Skilled craftsmen with expertise in woodworking, metalwork, and other trades were indispensable in creating these bespoke elements that brought Wright’s designs to life.

Wright also believed in a collaborative approach to design, involving craftsmen in the creative process. He encouraged craftsmen to contribute their expertise, ideas, and problem-solving skills, allowing them to innovate and find solutions that aligned with his overall vision. This approach fostered a sense of ownership and pride among the craftsmen, resulting in a high level of dedication and commitment to their work.

Sadly one of the biggest reasons that we failed to remember Wright’s lessons is economic. The arts and crafts movement in architecture relied on skilled artisans to take initiative in certain elements of the designs. It required craftsmen to use their intuition to create new techniques and exercise autonomy in certain parts of the designs. We have moved to a world where everything is prefabricated and shipped to the site. Buildings look the same and architects are limited in what they can expect from the people who construct their designs. 

Modern architects now often draw crazy shapes in autocad for others to build without even visiting or contemplating the setting for their building. The designer is the expert and does not collaborate with the people who build or work in what they draw. There have been some developments that pushed back on this like the design-build movement, but the industry largely continues to move toward less skilled labor and more inhuman design. 

Learning the Wright lessons:

Intuition is at its root the ability to see very complex patterns within something. The best musicians do that sonically while the best therapists do this through analysis of posture, emotion, family structure and identity. Wright’s architecture was a semi unconscious tuning into the patterns of the natural world, human life and our artistic and spiritual aspirations. When you visit Wright’s spaces you can still hear him listening to patterns that we have forgotten how to hear. 

Wrights’ houses often wrap around the family areas in a kind of hug. Unlike Victorian buildings that communicate power and class towards the street, Wright’s buildings shelter the family from the street like a shell. In Wright’s homes the focus of the house is on the hearth, family room, and central garden. The street facing walls are striped of detail. His houses often have almost hostile bland rock or brick exteriors facing the street. They often include water or rock motes and usually small slits windows. They are a reimagining of the european castle as the center of civilization in an American setting and on a smaller scale. These buildings do not center society around a king or social hierarchy but at a family. The message being that the family is what is valuable, not their social standing. 

If there is anything in Wright’s biography that occurred early enough to provide a psychological explanation for the madness of his personal life it would be the contentious divorce of his parents. It is possible that that early loss of a spiritual, emotional, and familial center in his life informed his career trajectory of re-centering the profession of architecture around the modern reality of those fundamental parts of the human experience. 

Good design is a kind of simulacrum. It is a copy of something unconscious and deep within us that does not come from nature but comes from the reflection of nature within ourselves. Our inability to deal with the outer realities of nature or the inner realities of the way we internalize it inform the way we project that into our art.  Often our artistic center comes from an early childhood pain. This shadow projection becomes where we are excellent professionally but fail interpersonally. It becomes where we excel with unconscious intuition, but fail to actualize our intuition consciously into our personal lives. 

We repeat and recreate our trauma until we face it. I wish I could say that most artists face their trauma but unfortunately most people choose not to go into the scary places. Hell, I wish I could say most therapists face it but we don’t. Timeless art and architecture is inseparable from psychology because it requires us to set our individual ego aside and make contact with something deep inside collective humanity. What Wright saw was beautiful but the way Wright lived was bad. 

 

By infusing his structures with meaningful patterns and symbols taken from natural and human nature, Wright transcended the boundaries of mere functionality, creating spaces that evoke emotion and connect deeply with the human spirit. He saw architecture as the intersection of the human, natural and metaphysical world. His buildings were designed more like altars to hold the interplay of these sacred forces. Architecture does shape our lives and enrich our experiences. Weather we notice it or not architecture helps or harms us. The buildings we inhabit now still talk to us but what they say is problematic. They tell us that we are disposable cogs in a set business transaction and that the most temporary and disposable structures are all we deserve. 

Even a narcissist like Wright refused to make his structures bow to these forces. When Wright designed he listened to the harmony of the intersecting patterns of nature and human life and represented these visually across the spaces he designed. He took broader natural patterns of the landscape and had them ripple across the structure in macro, mezzo and micro scale. When he broke the rules of classical architecture it was in service to supporting the practical function or communicating the broader significance of place, setting and purpose.  We live in a natural world, but we must make it a partially human one. We also serve a higher purpose and should think mindfully about what we want that purpose to be. 

Where we live changes how we live and how well we live together. Architecture used to make our lives art and now it is an afterthought in the process of turning our lives into profit. Our buildings are still altars but they are altars to very dark gods. Grandiosity, competition, hierarchies and greed are what we build temples too. The modern runes and hieroglyphs are advertisements and wall  wraps with cheap sentiments. We need to remember our higher purpose, the natural world and developing our own soul is why we are here. We need to trust intuition, innovation and nature again. When I say that Wright is important these are the lessons I wish our civilization could remember. These patterns are still there if you have the eyes to see them.              

          

“Truth of feature is related to truth of being”

– Frank Lloyd Wright

The post Frank Lloyd Wrong: Why we didn’t take the right lessons from Wright’s legacy appeared first on Taproot Therapy Collective.