I'm not being contrary for the sake of being contrary when I say that he means that he would be willing to die in order to be pampered momentarily.
I mean, if I have luxuries--which could be things like expensive, lavish foods and Art Deco furniture and clothing made from rich fabrics and so forth--and yet I don't have necessities, such as air and water, then I will live for maybe 5 minutes (without air) or 5 days (without water). This is a literal interpretation.
What Wright was saying was not literal, but I can't help but read it that way, because it is only those who have not lived without certain necessities that can blithely wave them away as if they were nothing. Had Frank Lloyd Wright gone without food for 10 days, for example, his attitude might have been different.
Never mind that he was a talented man, a pioneer architect, and all that sort of stuff. Hurray for him and everything. But, dude, come down to earth.
I get a chip on my shoulder. This quote is much like Marie Antoinette saying, "Then let them eat cake." It shows a complete ignorance to what physical suffering is--and a total lack of disrespect to people who aren't lavished with "fine" things.
2006-07-24 07:38:12
·
answer #1
·
answered by Gestalt 6
·
1⤊
4⤋
Frank Lloyd Wright’s quote is actually a take on an earlier statement. Before FLW was born, J.L. Motley implored: "Give us the luxuries of life, and we will dispense with its necessaries."
More importantly, the quotation highlights how FLW lived his life. For example, there was a winter toward the end of the depression, when funds were so low that his house was close to the freezing point. Providentially, a client turned up with an important commission, and a check covering a sizable retainer. FLW used the money to buy a harpsichord instead of coal. He has always considered living—in the fullest possible sense of that misused word—more important than the deferments and substitutes so urgently recommended by contemporary society.
In other words: Who needs running water at home if there's a shower at the club?
Many of the responses imply that FLW was wealthy and led a carefree life. This is not the case. He spent money almost as soon as he received it, and almost always seemed to be in debt. He also survived great personal turmoil. His focus was on living well, not just getting by. He can inspire us with his work, and with how he lived his life.
2006-07-25 05:42:46
·
answer #2
·
answered by CRSHULTZ 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well, I can't---for the life of me----see how I could possibly cook and eat a mink coat. Nor, could I see how my children would possibly be warm in the winter time going to school in just a diamond bracelet. So, No. The necessities are just that---necessary for life. Luxuries are not necessary for life or happiness or joy.
I raised my children and foster children to always know that I promise to always give them what they need, and maybe sometimes a few things they want.
I think that's what's wrong with our young people. They cannot distinguish between "needs" and "wants".
2006-07-24 07:35:40
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Personally I have no thoughts on what he was thinking. However, for me, being homeless and all, the necessities are actually a luxury of life for me. So in other words, yes, I am willing.
2006-07-24 07:52:42
·
answer #4
·
answered by Basic 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
It means he's a dumbass. If I have a duvet I don't need food. It's one of those things where the person tries to pass off plain stupidity as esoteric wisdom. Gee, it makes no sense on the surface so I must be dumb! No, Mr. Wright, I see through your feeble facade of intellect. Stick to building stuff, I say!
2006-07-25 10:17:55
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I believe for some the necessities are luxuries and for others luxuries are necessary.
So a bar of soap can both be a luxury and a necessity.
2006-07-24 11:33:45
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
That quote was written in the 30's when life was more simple. My take on it is: The simple things in life like love, laughter, friendships, sunsets, etc. most of us take then for granted. Most of us live ife on Auto-pilot like drones instead of taking time to enjoy the pure beauty of life.
That's just my take....and yes I would gladly give up my material attachements for true pure happiness.
2006-07-24 07:44:10
·
answer #7
·
answered by Renee 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
They mean...once you have a Dyson , nothing else matter or is needed..
It cleans the carpet...the dirty dishes...bare floors...gets rid of unsightly body hair...clips your nails...careful as not to break the rotating brush....and helps in many other household chores....
Great for cleaning babies bottoms...
What more of a luxury do you need?
2006-07-24 12:29:32
·
answer #8
·
answered by Einstein 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
He's better at designing buildings than Philosophy.
2006-07-25 16:57:24
·
answer #9
·
answered by reignydey 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
If I had known you were going to ask this question I would have brought some sandwiches.
2006-07-25 18:53:07
·
answer #10
·
answered by Walsingham 2
·
0⤊
0⤋