Volltext Seite (XML)
THE ARCHITECTURESQUE* By Professor Kerb. When I speak of the architecturesque, I am well aware that I am using a word which will be considered entirely new. There is this advantage, however, in the peculiar form of the word, that its structure well expresses my meaning. The word picturesque is that upon which this word is based, and my argu ment need go no further than to show that it is necessary or desirable to have some word in connection with architecture which shall be as useful as this word picturesque is in connection with painting. It is clearly competent to say that we have words already which convey the idea; but it would be impos sible to say that the word “ architectural ” serves the same pur poses in connection with architecture which the word “ pictures que ” serves in connection with painting. The word “ archi tectural ” goes no further than the artistic element in architec tural forms, whether as ordinarily received or otherwise. Again, the word “ architectonic ” goes no further than the idea that architectural forms shall be subjected to structural propriety. Neither of these words carries with it any thing of the peculiar idea, with respect to architecture, which “picturesque” conveys with respect to painting. The adoption of the term “ pictures que,” comparatively a recent act in this country, was, in reality, something more than a mere adoption of a phrase—-it was the formulation of an idea. The Italian word “ pittoresco" had been for centuries in use, signifying picture-like, painter-like. Then the word had been adopted by the French—pittoresque—signi fying the same idea. It was only in the present century that the word came to be publicly used in England. Still the idea no doubt was previously and thoroughly well understood before the adoption of the term. Nevertheless it is plain that our adoption of the term formulated an idea which was not capable of being expressed previously, except by periphrasis, and which was, perhaps, therefore quite undisclosed for want of a definite phrase which should carry from one intelligent mind to another intelligent mind the precise notion here directly suggested. I may go further, and state that it was purposely and intention ally to define and fix this idea, which is now so commonly known amongst us, that the term “ picturesque ” was introduced, and this is what I mean, therefore, when I say that the introduction of this word formulated a most valuable and essential idea. My opinion is that the term “architecturesque ” would be similarly useful in formulating an equally valuable and important idea which may be said to exist in the mind, but which I may ven ture to say does not receive that degree of public regard which it would obtain if it were formulated by a popular phrase. Let me discuss, for a moment, the meaning of the term “ pictures que.” It signifies worthy of being painted. It is a certain piquancy in objects capable of being painted, by which they are made worthy of application to the painter’s art. A few ex amples may be suggested. It is scarcely necessary to suggest them, for the idea is so thoroughly understood that examples are merely for gratuitous illustration. Suppose a landscape. The spectator is standing on a hill top. His attention is directed to the vale'beneath, in which are square-trimmed ploughed fields, straight hedgerows, a brook, perhaps, and a farmhouse, with its adjacent buildings. There is every evidence of material pros perity. The spectator is asked if this is not a pleasing and sug gestive landscape ? “ Yes,” he ■will reply, “ it is suggestive of material wealth and comfort.” You look forward from such a landscape as that to a long succession of abundant crops and well-provided tables. But if the painter is asked if that land scape is picturesque, he will say, “ No, for my purposes it is utterly worthless. I care nothing for trimmed fields and large harvests, comfortable farmhouse and buildings ; what I want is something altogether different.” He turns round to another view, where he sees mountain scenery, crag upon crag, light and shade playing arfiid the outlines of a barren, dready landscape, perhaps, but it is a landscape which lights up his eye, and makes his fingers itch to paint it. Barren and worthless from a mate rial aspect, it is to the painter the finest scenery that can be desired. This illustration is commonplace enough, but it enables us to understand the point on which we are dwelling. Take the case, again, of the features of a man. Look at the “ portrait of a gentleman” hanging, year after year, on the academy walls. A very pleasant face, a very comfortable smiling countenance. * Delivered before the Architectural Association. It is the face of an eminently respectable man. Still it is a face worthy of painting only for the sake of its owner, but not for the purposes of the painter. But look at another face, seamed with the furrows of care, or lighted up with fantastic wildness, and with the whole appearance bearing a distracted air. The painter will at once say, “the face is picturesque ; this is the face which I long to delineate.” The character of the man would make no difference to the painter. The painter would say, “ the temper, the character of the man is nothing to me ; this is a face which I desire to paint.” Or, again, the painter will look at a building, something which is piquant in style—pitchforked together, so to speak—a build ing which has its outlines broken, and just as the painter prefers the face which is seamed and furrowed, so he will desire in a building something of a corresponding character, and will pre fer a building such as I have descrided to another plain and commonplace edifice, which might be more commodious, but could not be called picturesque. We have next to reflect upon the method by which a painter is able to impart this picturesque appearance into that which, in reality, does not possess any picturesque form. A landscape which is dreary and uninteresting to him, as presented by nature, he can render picturesque by introducing certain effects of light and shade, by putting in certain common objects in the foreground, or certain effects in the sky. By these or other tricks of his art (if you may call them so), the painter may throw into his landscape any picturesque effect which he may desire. It is the same with the human features. If in painting the portrait of a gentleman he desires to make it picturesque, he has to study the attitude of the figure, arrange the folds of the .drapery, and so on, and he will attain his object. This picture-essence, therefore, which we call the picturesque, is obviously not a mere name, but a perfect and positive entity. It is independent of mere associations, certainly independent of the phraseology which may be used iu explaining it. It is the entity of the painter's art, upon the existence of which he de pends. What I have now to advance is this, Why cannot we suppose and maintain that a similar entity exists in connection with other arts 1 I see not why there should be any doubt on the subject. Why should not such an entity be discovered in connection with architecture ? If this be so, let me attempt to define what I call “the architecturesque.” It is that essence of form and disposition which, speaking vaguely at first, may be said to make architecture what it is. Now, what is architec ture 1 Our old definition in this Association, twenty years ago, was, “ Architecture is the art of the beautiful in building.” I do not know that we have hit upon a better definition yet. We do not ignore buildings ; we do not hesitate to execute it in the fulness of this idea. But building is not architecture ; archi tecture is not building. Architecture is the fine art of the beau tiful in building. As all architecture must be based upon build ing, I think it follows that there is something which has to be superadded to building, in order to convert building into archi tecture. This element is what I am endeavouring to suggest to your minds. If there be an essence by the application of which, to bricks and mortar, fine art is the result, then I go on to say that in other matters besides those which are directly architec tural—in those arts which are applied to architecture—the same principle holds good. This same essence, which I call the architecturesque, may be adapted beneficially to produce uni formity and harmony of idea in the application of those arts which are regarded as the handmaidens of architecture. I may illustrate my meaning by considering what is the pic turesque in architecture ? We thoroughly understand the idea of the picturesque in painting, and we fairly understand the picturesque in architecture. Now, if you will dwell for a moment on the picturesque in architecture, we shall be able to develop the kindred idea of the architecturesque. The pictures que in painting is piquancy. The picturesque in architecture is piquancy still. There have been various modes, fashions, and manners in painting ; but this principle, this idea of piquancy, has prevailed as being the peculiarity of the pictures que, though not in a uniform degree, or in a uniform manner of development. When classic architecture was more in vogue than it now is, some of you will remember that the picturesque school desired to go no further in their peculiar walk than thepro- duction of those villas of the rural Italian style which frequently make such a prominent appearance in Italian paintings. We think differently now. I remember that not long ago the- 17