Is it possible for contemporary historians to evaluate accurately the work of Frank Lloyd Wright? It must be realized than an accurate evaluation of the work of any creative genius presupposes much more than a mere opinion on the part of the evaluator. An architect who blandly asserts that history is no more than a dusty trail of dates, may stack many bricks but will probably be unable to provide a home for the evolving spirit of mankind. Similarly, a historian who believes that architecture is limited to the physical qualities of stone and wood is often the one who provides grounds for the assertion that history is no more than a stack of dates. It is one thing for the historian to record chronologically the construction dates of "significant" buildings; it is quite another to evaluate accurately their social, structural, and esthetic contributions. This does not mean that a historian must court architecture from the narrow confines of a drawing board. To do so would place the student before the master, as it were, for the architect is but one student in the vast classroom of history. What is meant is that the historian must be equipped to view architecture as one of the arts.
Mathias, Frank F.
"A Historian Looks at Frank Lloyd Wright and the Nature of Architecture,"
University of Dayton Review: Vol. 12:
3, Article 10.
Available at: https://ecommons.udayton.edu/udr/vol12/iss3/10