Like any diligent blog owners, we like to follow our referrer logs to see what fine folks are checking us out. Earlier this week, doing this caused us to question our very existence. Okay, not our existence so much as our house’s existence. Okay, not really our house’s… sorry. We’ll get to the point.
This Space For Rent used us as an example of a house that would not be considered a "True Craftsman" (scroll down, the entry is "Three Stickley Houses" from Monday, July 17). In our house-building tunnel vision, we weren’t even aware of the True Craftsman concept. We are now.
What’s a True Craftsman? Simple. It’s a house built from the plans that Gustav Stickley published in The Craftsman magazine. See this.
What’s not a True Craftsman? Every other Arts and Crafts house in America.
Why does anyone care? Authenticity and rarity. The vast majority of Arts and Crafts or Craftsman-style houses in America were built from Sears kits and other Stickley imitators. There’s nothing wrong with that–they are nice homes, they brought beautiful living to those with lower incomes, and they have produced some of the loveliest neighborhoods out there. But, for the purists, it’s the difference between a Prada handbag and a handbag you buy from some guy on the street that says "Prada." Both bags look nice and hold your stuff, but in the end only one is the "real thing" and Those Who Care will always know the difference.
In the True Craftsman sense, the "real things" are the homes that were built directly from Stickley’s plans, not those merely inspired by them. There’s only a few of those. How many? We’re not sure, and we couldn’t find an answer out there in internet-land. If you are a true Stickley geek and you have an idea, please feel free to share.
All of the discussion around this seems to focus on houses built in the same period as the design. We don’t know how the True Craftsman people would react to a new house being built from Stickley’s design. We have made changes to the plans, which may disqualify us. But, then, this house also had changes, and it’s considered true. We’re following Stickley’s philosophies as much as we are able, including using building materials found on the site, paying attention to texture, details, built-ins, and making as much use of the space as we can. And would it matter that we didn’t have full plans, but just the little drawings from the magazine? We don’t know that either.
Where does all this leave us and our little house? Um…dunno? Is that an answer?
We’re not architecture geeks. We picked this house because it was a beautiful example of a simple family home and it fit both our needs and our aesthetic. And, yes, we thought a modern update of a Stickley was a pretty darn neat idea. But True Craftsman? That’s a lot of pressure. We’re not sure what Those Who Care would think of us.
But we’re okay with that. Those people seem wound pretty tight.
7 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 20, 2006 at 7:08 am
lisa
actually, there’s a lot of debate about this. a stickley-planned house makes it a stickley house, but it doesn’t make it the exclusively true craftsman. some people argue that the only true craftsman homes are those built from sears kits. others argue that craftsman homes follow the craftsman aesthetic. there are a lot of good books on the subject; the one i find most elucidating is the well-regarded field guide to american houses by virginia and lee mcalester. it’s been around for decades and is often used as a college textbook on the subject (architectural history and such). instead of taking up your comment space with their explanation, i’ll post something on my blog–how’s that
anyway, your plans look beautiful–you shouldn’t worry about being thought a fake by anyone. living the craftsman principles is what stickley and anyone in the movement would have wanted, according to everything i’ve read 
July 20, 2006 at 9:42 am
jm
I agree with Lisa. The craftsman principles seemed to matter most to Stickley from what I’ve read. I’m sure he would be pleased that, decades later, his influence on the world of house and garden would still be desirable.
July 20, 2006 at 9:55 am
Cherie
But I think what the True Craftsman folks would say is the term “Craftsman” has become meaningless. Their point, as I understand it, is that this term should only be applied to houses built from Stickley’s plans, specifically the plans published in the Craftsman magazine. They don’t care about philosophy or style or influence. Were they Stickley’s plans or not?
That’s the definition that we are using here, for argument’s sake. Using that lens, is our house a True Craftsman, or not?
July 20, 2006 at 1:49 pm
David Parsons
If you want to get directly to the the article in question without having to wade through politics and railroad pictures, try: http://weblog.pell.portland.or.us/~orc/2006/07/17/000/index.html
In my opinion, your house is just as much of a True Craftsman(tm) as the Gilliland house (and the N-C-O house, for that matter) is; the only difference between your design and the Gilliland design is your architect waited 100 years before revising the plans.
Are you planning on naming your house?
July 20, 2006 at 2:35 pm
Dennis
Can there really be the perfect clone of anything as envisaged by the Craftsman Magazine?
If you insist on perfection then no compromise must be allowed.
If you insist on perfection then no one can decide where the line is drawen.
If you insist on perfection then the definition of a True Craftsman cannot be confined to obvious aspects like visual design, but must also include all the latent aspects of the build.
This creates an absurdity.
This means that many things that have evolved over the years should also not be allowed.
No power tools to build with. No TV / Cable point, no security alarms, plumbing, electrical and structural material as per the period.
Methinks not.
July 20, 2006 at 3:04 pm
Cherie
But, David, what if we like politics and railroad pictures? (Thanks for the direct link; I was being lazy last night.)
No names for the house as yet. We’re not really the “house naming” type, but then again, it could be fun.
Maybe we’ll open the floor for suggestions at a later date.
May 4, 2007 at 11:14 pm
Jim Heuer
Hi folks, I’m the webmaster for the Irvington Home Tour website that was the source of the links to the Gilliland House and the Nicolai-Cake-Olson House (in fact I happen to live in the NCO house). Your house projects looks really great — why not get inspired by Stickley’s ideas and go for it in a new home… The Craftsman ideals appeal to a lot of folks in these electronicized days for their solid grounding in basic human values. It doesn’t really make a lot of difference if the house follows the plans in a copy of The Craftsman or is just “inspired” by the ideals.
There were a lot of people writing in those early years of the 20th Century trying to figure out what a “modern” house needed to be like in an era of telephones, electric lighting, and public transit mobility that were transforming American society in ways far more dramatic than did the automobile and computer of later generations. That Stickley and his contemporaries succeeded so well is evident as we still look to build homes embodying their concepts.
All best in your project!