Frank just didn't like chairs...  

FLW
FLW had contempt for pretty much everyone but himself, especially clients, and much of his furniture seems to be his attempt to make others feel the contempt first hand.

.
Fortunately, that is only partly true; Wright was fond of his clients (they allowed him to realize his dreams, after all). Others had sometimes to bear the brunt of his rather defensive offenses, as you suggest.
He himself chided his inability to make comfortable chairs -- but the form of this one (perhaps we should sit on it before judging its comfort ?) is a perfect blend of Arts & Crafts and de Stijl -- a decade or more before the birth of that second movement !

Let's face it, FLW did not kn...
Let's face it, FLW did not know how to design comfortable and attractive looking chairs, just that simple.

Got to disagree on this one,...
Got to disagree on this one, although I know FLW could not be more SOOOO LAST OCTOBER in the modernist world. The chair you show is without question one of his best, and one of the best designed in the last 102 years. The only dining chair I like better is a somewhat similar chair for Taliesin III in Spring Green, circa 1944 (look it up on Architonic). Pure and simple Memphis, 40 years ahead of time, from the genius of modern design.

Yes. I find
this to be one of the most "anonymous" of Wright's early designs (it's safe to say that none of his later work is "anonymous"); perhaps it's like an abstraction of a (somewhat later) Stickley chair. . .?

Frank was no furniture...
Frank was no furniture designer and he was as many creative people are...very often hard to take.His furniture is NO great addition to furniture design...

Aww. . .
almost every good architect has contributed something in the way of furniture, it seems to me. While the list of indifferent-to-bad pieces is greater than that of his unpleasant buildings, there are a few unique goodies: early dining tables, made for a few of the Prairie Houses, with their corner lamp-piers embracing the gathered eaters, are worthy. In fact, his tables are probably his best furniture pieces. The brutal metal desk-and-task-chair combo of the lost Larkin Building, and the racy red-and-chrome (?) Johnson Wax desk (forget the tippy accompanying chair !) are other wonders.
I respect that it's not your taste, of course. . .

Holy crap azurechicken what...
Holy crap azurechicken what are you talking about? The vitality of Wright was impressed on everything he produced, and the majority of it, which was a lot, is beyond succuessful at worst; at best, out of this world. In the spirit of modern day televised poker, whether it was Fallingwater or a dining chair, he was "all in", the first and foremost designer of our time.

I'm not one to agree that if ...
I'm not one to agree that if you're a master at architecture, then you must be a master at other creative discipline. This lovefest for FLW as a brilliant furniture designer is a total joke to me, clearly the chairs he designed are not on par with other great furniture pieces of the our time. They are not elegant, clever, inventive, comfortable in any way, shape or form. People are fabricating a false sense of significance for his furniture designs because his name is Frank Lloyd Wright. He might have tried but his creative juices didn't flow in the river of furniture.

Dear GUY ,
You said it,they feel Frank is creative equally in all areas...just NOT true ...And the campy idea of Franks round chairs in a round house etc...very silly.

No lovefest here, just an...
No lovefest here, just an opinion, and I hope at least a little bit more thoughtful than has been suggested. And the criticism of a synthesis of design for an actual space as 'campy', I just don't get. The furniture, for example, that Wright designed for the Unitarian Church is at once remarkable and dependent on its surroundings - the bench would be hideous in your living room in front of the big screen, no question, but that has absolutely nothing and everything to do with the quality of that design. The furniture, as well as the architecture, in this case, is at the very least, as they say in Lake Wobegon, a little bit above average.

OK shoot me now...
Personally I don't really like FLW interiors. All of it, not just the furniture. As an example, I was shocked when I toured Falling Water at how tiny and cramped the interiors felt. Granted I'm 6 fet tall, but the space just felt claustrophobic. I know about FLW's 'human scale' concept, but his idea of 'human scale' is was totally at the low end of the bell curve! Add to that his design sensibility of rigidly linear forms and you don't get a feeling of comfort, that's for sure. Genius he may have been but he sure wan't in touch with his softer side!

Haven't stepped foot in...
Haven't stepped foot in Fallingwater, but I don't think your are in danger at all Olive. From what I have heard, your response is fairly consistent with others. Many of the houses at least for me have that feeling as well, and I think one of the reasons for that is use of materials - heavy woods, especially oak, with medium to dark stain, do much to promote the claustrophobic feeling. And built-in furniture, no matter how well designed, is for many an inhibiting psychological factor too (nice corner window, but no way in hell are you ever going to move that bookcase).

.
The camp part is a ref to his say octagon chairs(back,seats) in a octagonal house etc... often with a matching motif in the drapes!It seems so trite to me.I admire Koenig, Ellwood,house as a stage/container.His houses give me the feel of a lizard under a rock...