whenever someone tries to faithfully deliver on some other artist's vision
"Trying" is not a meaningful bar to clear. Love or care doesn't matter, either. According to the article, the foundation says that the building is simply not built to Wright's spec, which is an objective measure.
The owners don't outright deny this, using a handful of of qualifiers in response: "true to Wright's plan, intent and spirit while also ensuring that the home would meet current building regulations."
Saying your house was designed by a famous architect, especially one the stature of Wright brings a value and prestige that is worth claiming, like any other brand. On the flip side, if you own the brand, it is worth protecting from knock offs.
That said, building code changes over time, and even if Wright's original design met building code at the time it was designed, it likely doesn't meet current building regulations. I.e. it would be illegal to build exactly to the original design, or at least if you did it would be illegal to use the building.
Unhinged comment. Is the Parthenon not architecture because it’s not ADA-accessible? If someone installs an elevator does it become architecture again?
"Trying" is not a meaningful bar to clear. Love or care doesn't matter, either. According to the article, the foundation says that the building is simply not built to Wright's spec, which is an objective measure.
The owners don't outright deny this, using a handful of of qualifiers in response: "true to Wright's plan, intent and spirit while also ensuring that the home would meet current building regulations."
Saying your house was designed by a famous architect, especially one the stature of Wright brings a value and prestige that is worth claiming, like any other brand. On the flip side, if you own the brand, it is worth protecting from knock offs.