New England architect Thomas Norton’s Workspace is an environment that includes three symbolic elements: a drawing from Norton’s past, Norton himself working as an architect, and his computer. This scene represents an entire lifetime of architecture, including where Norton began and where he is today. For Norton, architecture has been a natural career choice and this can be understood when one examines his education, architecture, boat designs and poetry. By observing patterns in his creativity it is possible for one to gain a greater understanding not only of the life of one architect, but of architecture as a whole, and not only of the life of one artist, but the art as a whole. His inclination to work “outside the lines” reminds us that each work of architecture and art that we encounter is more than just an example of a particular style. such works are also representative of the unique qualities of the person, experiences, and ideas by which their creation was influenced.
Thomas Norton’s life began in the United States on August 4, 1922 in Great Neck, Long Island, New York. When he was only 4 years old however, his parents separated and he moved with his mother to switzerland. It was there that Norton received his childhood education. In 1936, he entered Swiss Cantonal High School, a “collège scientifique.” It was a public scientific High School focused on the mechanical and Studio arts and included studies and architectural drafting. Here Norton, at the age of 15, created the signature drawing that still hangs in his workspace today.
One of Norton’s Swiss professors gave students the assignment of creating a composition using drafting tools. Norton completed the assignment with enthusiasm. When it came time for the professor to grade the drawings, however, Norton’s drawing received a grade of 9 out of 10. The professor had deducted a point because he had gone outside the lines. Norton had, however, demonstrated his proficiency in drafting and composition. The drawing shows that he was able to use a compass to create circles of varying sizes. The variation of the sizes of the circles makes the composition of the drawing visually interesting. The number of lines in the bottom right corner of the composition visually balances the size and weight of the circles in the upper left hand corner. These lines also help to draw the viewer’s attention to various portions of the design. Everything in the new composition is balanced and unified. even the tension created by the other two outer circles belongs in the composition.
Norton’s professor Deducted points for a broken rule, a transgression of the expected. Norton neglected a technical guideline, yet still the composition had accomplished its task, it fulfilled its purpose of demonstrating his drafting competency. Clearly, by going outside of the lines Norton acted creatively. For Norton, going outside of the lines was not meant to be a refutation of the guidelines of the project, instead, it was a chance to fulfill the purpose of the drawing in a unique and distinctive way. As one examines the creative works of Thomas Norton, it becomes clear that this distinction exists in all the work that he does. Norton’s drawing is more than just a completion of an assignment, it is a work of art. his teacher may not have thought of the assignment as such, but it seems that Norton did. Even in this early part of his life, Norton saw many of the things around him as art and also thought of any of the work that he did as a chance for Creative expression. Today, this youthful Swiss drawing hangs in Norton’s home office. It dominates the wall directly behind his computer.
Norton made his first formal entrance into the world of architecture in 1945 after having been active in the Second World War as a B-17 bomber co-pilot and pilot. He entered Columbia University’s School of Architecture following a brief stint in the School of Engineering. Norton began his graduate studies in the engineering school and soon discovered that this was not the right profession for him. He met with the dean at Columbia who suggested that he considered studying architecture instead. Norton visited the School of Architecture and immediately knew that architecture was his calling. One could say that such a change of focus is reflective of the attitude which young Norton exhibited and his approach to completing his high school drawing assignment. Apparently, Norman already knew he would finish in a more creative atmosphere and therefore preferred architecture over engineering.
After graduating from Columbia’s Architecture School, Norton landed a job with the well-known architectural firm of Skidmore, Owings, and Merrill which he stayed with from about 1949 to 1952. At this time, Norton considered himself a modernist. As an architect he chose to design buildings which are reflective of the modern style and that were indirectly influenced by the designs of people such as Frank’s Lloyd Wright and Mies van der Rohe. Norton’s preference for the modern style continued and in 1953, he moved to Bedford, New York and started working for an architectural firm named Sherwood, Mills, and Smith in Stamford, Connecticut. While working for Sherwood, Mills, and Smith, Norton designed a building that was to be his own private residence in Bedford, New York. The building clearly has its modern influences. It is even referred to in one sales brochure as “ contemporary at its finest.” The building offers a unique perspective on Thomas Norton’s architecture as it allows the knowledgeable viewer to distinguish between Norton’s version of contemporary design and the designs of those such as the architect Philip Johnson, whose Glass House in New Canann, Connecticut from 1949 bears some striking similarities to Norton’s latest designed Bedford home. Both Norton’s home and Philip Johnson’s Glass House use very straight and simple lines. The houses both have a rectangular shaped footprint and make extensive use of glass and modern materials. Norton’s home, however, incorporates many more clear divisions of space than does Johnson’s. The sense of open space that is present throughout the entire Glass House is also present in Norton’s design for the main living area of the Bedford home, only it is used on a smaller scale.
Norton’s Bedford design is roughly divided into two areas. There is the common family living area and there’s the bedroom area.
The common living area is subdivided into four parts including a living area, a study area, a dining/kitchen area, and an entryway. When examining the plan for the house, one notices that the center portion that includes the living room, study, and entryway are bordered on three sides by glass walls. Both the north and the south walls of the center section are made almost entirely of glass except for the presence of the front doors on the north side. The east side of the room is separated from the dining/kitchen area by only having a short counter past which there is another wall composed of sliding glass doors. The only wall that borders the center section and does not allow a substantial amount of light into the space is the west wall which incorporates the fireplace. Norton has taken Johnson’s Glass House and built around it. The glass walls that allow such large amounts of light and that bring me outdoors in are suitable for the main living areas of the home where perhaps privacy is not as important. In the bedrooms of the home, however, Norton has increased the number of solid walls and thereby provided the necessary privacy for those living in the house. In addition, Norton has used a unique material, black glazed brick, as the material for some of the walls in the house. The use of this material not only creates contrast between the light coming through the glass doors and the wall, but also maintains the modern look of the house by giving the brick a high Sheen and therefore a more polished look than natural brick would give.
An important aspect of Norton’s design for the house is his inclusion of porches and other outdoor living areas which almost completely surround the house. These porches serve as both the means of bringing the outside environment in and also of extending the indoor living space to the outdoors. One could even think of these areas as Norton’s way of once again going “outside the lines.” When examining the plan, one can see that Norton has extended aspects of the plan past the main interior areas on all sides of the home. the north side of the home incorporates the path leading to the entrance of the house. On the south side of the home is the main porch. This is the large area that exists right off the main living area. It is covered and makes it more usable by providing both shade from the hot sun and shelter from the elements. on the west side of the house is a pathway that leads from the main bedroom to an outdoor terrace area that is situated under a tree. Finally, on the east side of the house is another smaller porch that extends just off the dining/kitchen area. Beyond that porch are pathways leading to the garage, guest house, and drive. Norton’s use of porch space distinguishes the way that he integrated the home into the environment from the way in which Johnson integrated his Glass House into the environment. Johnson’s design was a rectangle that was enclosed completely in glass. Norton’s plan is also rectangular when one includes the porches that Norton designed. By including the porches, however, Norton was able to give the illusion of both having stayed inside the borders of the rectangle and transgressing the distinction between interior and exterior.
In his lecture entitled “ If it looks right, it probably is!,” Norton discusses his own preferences in terms of design and aesthetics. he described the design for the Brookhaven Laboratory campus on Long Island that he did while working at the architectural firm of Skidmore, Owings, and Merril (SOM)
“The program called for two narrow buildings, each about 900 ft long. I had drawn them gently curved in opposite directions, creating a sinuous composition that minimized their length. Each was about four stories high. My elevations showed them clad in bottle green glass not unlike our firms recently completed Lever house on Park Avenue in New York City. I thought they looked just right!”
Unfortunately for Norton, Gordon Bunshaft, The firm’s principal design partner, did not agree. He told Norton, “Young man, at Skidmore we don’t do curved buildings! And, we use the primary colors, which are: red, yellow, and blue! Occasionally we use the executive colors: white, black, and gold. And as for green, young man, green is for grass!” Once again Norton had succeeded in doing the unexpected and he had stepped outside the boundaries of technical restriction. His response to this experience is particularly interesting as Norton says, “I had learned my lesson but I was not satisfied.”
If Norton could not satisfy his need for natural looking design while working as an architect for Bunhaft, then where was he to turn? The answer was boat design. Even after having graduated from Columbia University’s School of Architecture and after having worked for a number of years as an architect for employers such as SOM, an Sherwood, Mills, and Smith, Thomas Norton was once again prompted to step “outside the lines.” As Norton terms it, he made a transition from “dry” to “wet architecture.” Turning to line, Norton says, “I toyed with boat designs where most lines occurred, not straight like those in Bunsharft’s world, curved lines that define complex boat volumes, that define hulls that sail fast. My heart responded to those lines as I worked, evenings, at my drafting board.”
Finally in 1968, Norton was able to take his first completed boat design from the drafting board to the real world. He entered a design for a 26 ft yacht he called Tradition into the International Amateur Boat Building Society Design Competition. Not only did Norton win a prize, he also won the interest of a Danish boat builder named Beckmann “Chris” Christensen. Norton, Christensen, and friend Ted Jones were able to make Tradition Become a reality. With a few minor changes, Tradition became Trilogy. Trilogy’s design incorporated smooth and sinuous lines. Just from looking at the diagram of the inboard profile, one can see the influence that nature had on the design for this boat. it is almost as if one were staring at the profile of a graceful fish.
Boat design offered Norton the chance to work with designs for objects that operate in direct harmony with nature. While buildings are needed only to withstand the forces of nature, boats ride the ocean and sailboats are propelled by the wind. While some could argue that the best buildings are those which seem to work in unison with nature, it is not as crucial for the success of a design as it is with a boat. This leads to yet another aspect of boat design which appealed to Thomas nNorton. In designing a boat, the end result could be tested and the success of the design can be objectively determined. Norton says, “Now for wet architecture, particularly for racing boats, there is an objective measure of excellence: Fast boats that win races are good.” At first glance, it may seem odd that this man who has had his work critiqued by so many is looking for his designs to be judged once again. This time, however, the judgment is not coming from any one person. It is instead coming from something higher. It is based on the boat’s acceptance and alliance with nature or possibly even the boat as it is being accepted by some transcendent force attached to nature. In the world of boat design Norton’s use of curved lines was a success and many of his boats won races.
As Norton continued designing, his stylistic preferences regarding architecture changed drastically. While as a young architect Norton favored modern styles of design, as his interest matured he came to admire the work of architects such as Palladio and Thomas Jefferson.These were architects whose classical designs he found more interesting as he developed an interest in history and historical styles. So, while Norton’s earlier design work had been dominated by modern style that he had come out of school favoring, his later designs drew on traditional styles of architecture that had been used by Palladio and Jefferson. His design for the residence of Charles L. Lea, called Ilex Lea and built in 1987 in Cheston-On-Wye, Maryland, used many elements of classical styles of architecture.
One could criticize Norton for his change in stylistic preference, for the lack of forward thinking perhaps, or for designing in a style that is seemingly so traditional that it suggests imitation. Nonetheless, for all its traditional elements, Norton’s design still goes “outside the lines.” The exterior of Ilex Lea features numerous windows and a front door that slightly mimic the Palladian style through the incorporation of a semicircular window used to top off these features. On either side of the front doors are iconic columns which enhance the entrance’s traditional appearance and across the front of the house are two rows of four ( but what would be five if not interrupted by the entryway) windows. While these features are all indicative of a traditional Georgian mansion such as the John Brown House in Providence, Rhode Island, Norton manages to integrate a mannerist “colossal order” entryway into the design that is reminiscent of Palladio’s facade for San Giorgio Maggiore. The brick used to build the house also adds to the historic Georgian look of the house, while the sweeping, carefully landscaped grounds are almost reminiscent of Jefferson’s Monticello. The house may appear to be traditional, but it by no means conforms to the specifications of one particular style.
It is also important to keep in mind the fact that Norton was designing the house for a client whereas in the case of the design for the Bedford, New York home, the client was himself. Therefore, he was more limited in his design choices in an influence that he could have on the resulting building. Even though Norton ‘s style and influence had changed considerably when compared to the designs of his Bedford home discussed earlier, there remains the same sense that the design was able to achieve its purpose while still providing original and interesting solutions to design questions. Because he draws from a variety of classical influences and yet integrates these influences into one unified hole that is well suited to Modern living, Thomas Norton continues to work “outside the lines.”
With respect to his life’s journey, one can clearly see Norton reference faith in his poetry, in general, Norton links verbal and visual arts saying, “Since poetry deals with inner matters barely understood by the author, it is vital that the language be as clear as possible so as to be intelligible to the reader. I sometimes use pictures to further clarify the meaning.” Poetry is one of the most directly personal forms of Art through which Norton expresses himself. One of his most telling poems is the one entitled “Prayer” Written in July 1977, where Norton uses the image of a boat race as a metaphor for his own life. The poem is simple and straightforward in structure. It is only four lines in length:
Lord let me sail the whole race through
pray do not sink me yet;
Then let me cross the finish line
with all my canvas set.
Although the Puma pair is simple, it is profound and serves as a statement of what Thomas Norton wants from his life. in the line “Pray do not sink me yet,” Norton implies that he is not yet ready to have his life end. there is still more that he has to explore and accomplish. When his life finally does come to an end, Norton wants to be ready. This is embedded in the lines where he says “Then let me cross the finish line / With all my canvas set.” Clearly, Norton chose the image of a boat race as a metaphor for life. If the boat race is a metaphor for life, then perhaps the boat is a metaphor for Norton himself. In essence, Norton designed his own person just as he designed some of the boats – such as Trilogy – that he has raced. As in the designs for the boats, however, Norton understands that there is something higher that governs his designs. Perhaps it is Norton’s faith that allows him to recognize both the ability that art has to transcend as well as to be humble. By looking at Thomas Norton’s works one is able to see that all of them follow a pattern.
As previously mentioned, they all seem to embody Norton’s tendency to go “outside the lines” In his creativity. Perhaps this tendency is what drew Norton to architecture in the first place. It could be that Norton perceived some characteristics of architecture that people might often overlook, but that is mentioned by Dell UptonIn his book, Architecture in the United States. Upton says that “[different accounts of architecture in the United States] can serve as imitations of the variety and range of human landscape in the United States, reminders that it cannot be explained by a single theory, accounted for by a single history, or controlled by a single profession or a single vision. It is our common property and we are better for that.” The nature of architecture itself seems to run “outside the lines” Just like Thomas Norton himself. Because of his understanding of his own unique self, Thomas Norton is able to better understand the “outside the lines” qualities of individuals and clients. Upton also says that, “As it has been defined in American architecture, to be an artist is to impose a vision, to subject others to individual genius or inspiration.” Even though Thomas Norton is both architect and artist, he does not impose a vision on others through his architecture. Instead, Norton engages in architecture, boat design, poetry and other forms of art and by doing so, transcends the expected in a way that is entirely his own.
As Norton himself says, “creation is a matter of the heart,” and the heart is individual to every person.
Thoughts in Harmony 