Volltext Seite (XML)
66 THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT’S JOURNAL. [March 1,1S6S. Elizabethian style was considered to make the picturesque, and rather more, because English Elizabethian was considered to be more than picturesque—to be, indeed, fastastic. It was on this ground that the fashion of Gothic architecture arose. It was the study of the picturesque, and the desire for the picturesque which led to the study of the Gothic remains, and the revival of that style of art. The objects on which the early Gothicists first set their attention are now considered comparatively hum ble and insignificant. But remember that the revival of Gothic depended upon the revival of the picturesque. At the present moment I need scarcely tell you that this tendency to produce the picturesque in Gothic is occasionally rather remarkable in its results. Were we to say that the more piquant designers of the Gothic school verge upon the fantastic, we should only be using very moderate language. So much for fashion. But' observe that the idea under lying all this development, has always been the same, namely picture-worthiness, piquancy. “ Architecture worth painting ” is the definition as it seems to me of the phrase, “pic turesque architecture.” I need only refer to the chateaux the continent—many of them are eminently picturesque as com pared with our own -works. The Scotch castle also, not always a convenient abode any more than the English castle—is still worth painting. There is a piquancy about it -which renders it eminently picturesque in almost every example. Again there is the Gothic church. It is only necessary to say what every one must say whether of Gothic predilections or not, that all churches are certainly picturesque. This brings me to the great fact, that mediaeval architecture is all picturesque. Radically and primarily it is the picturesque which gives spirit to all mediaeval architecture. When we trace mediaevalism to its source, the prin ciple is discovered that it is northern and western architecture ■which is picturesque as distinguished from oriental and southern. The architecture of the north of Russia, of the shores of the Baltic, as well as of England, is necessarily picturesque, irre spective of medievalism. Having then laid down my ground in the picturesque let me now shew the architecturesque in architecture. This I should designate to be something which is architectural and nothing but architectural. The picturesque is something which is picture-worthy, but the architecturesque is something which is architecture and nothing else. Take the Parthenon as an illustration. It is a building regarding which there can be no claim for picturesque design. Situated on a picturesque site, it would in the hands of any northern or western people have been made something very different from what it is. The very suggestiveness of the site would have induced them to make it picturesque and in harmony with its surroundings. But to show how thoroughly the Greeks were architecturesque and not picturesque in their building, there it stands without one element of the picturesque in its design! Such a building I call purely architecturesque. Again, look at the interior of the Egyptian temples. We might say the exterior also, but let us confine ourselves to the consideration of the interiors, because nature is there shut out. We find that everything is excluded from these interiors but architecture, architecturally treated. All painting and sculpture are kept in strict subordination to the architecture. I am referring of course to the stiffness of Egyptian sculptures and paintings, to the absence of natural development, and to the peculiar con ventionalism which always marks Egyptian work as eminently and specially adapted to Egyptian architecture. As another illustration let me instance the Pantheon at Rome. This again is eminently architectural and nothing else. There is not only no attempt to produce a pictorial or other effect, but it is impossible to discover any idea in the whole building which is other than an architectural sentiment. The Pompeian house also illustrates my position. The paintings on the walls are of that conventional form which I think is only capable of being described by the phrase architecturesque. This leads us to the conclusion that classic work, and indeed oriental work generally, may be described as architecturesque. The question thus arises regarding the essential difference between classic and mediaeval work. Is it not that mediaeval work is essentially and primarily picturesque, while classic is essentially and primarily architec turesque only ? For many years I myself have been persuaded of this proposition, that all classic architecture forms one school of art, and all mediaeval another,—that mediaeval architecture was essentially picturesque, and that classic art was something •else, which I called “ classic,” but which I now call “ architectu resque.” If we agree to call it so, we shall have an idea formu lated, and will thus discern the precise essential difference between those equally wonderful styles, the classic and me dieval. If I have succeeded in conveying the precise idea which I have in my mind it becomes our duty next to pursue this idea from architecture into other matters, into those kindred arts more or less connected with architecture. Let us first con sider painting ? We have already considered what is picturesque architecture, and if I have succeeded in developing my opinion I can now ask what is architecturesque painting. The idea implies the subordination to architectural principles, forms, and purposes of all painting applied to architecture. Therefore I may at once say that architectural decoration, produced by the painter may be suitable to architecture or may be very unsuit able ; in other words, the painting which is architecturesque ■will be successful, but with other treatment will be quite the reverse. Two or three months ago a very interesting paper was read at the Institute by a painter, Mr. Scott. He had executed certain decorative works at two mansion houses in the northern part of the country. His decoration had consisted of figure sub jects which -were exceedingly well devised, and executed. He was able to shew us in one case the original cartoon from which he had painted his pictures, and in the other case he exhibited to us coloured copies. It happened that one of these works was applied to the interior hall of a classic Italian mansion, the apartment being about the size of this room, and surrounded by arcaded galleries on all sides. A series of arches were thus on every side of the room. There was a certain space between the crown of the arch and the entablature. Upon this space he had to paint a series of designs illustrating one of the border ballads. They were very charming. But some of us objected to one feature of the designs. In some cases these works seemed to take the form of a panorama passing behind the open arches. That is to say the designs extended from one to another of the spaces between the arches, so as to give the impression that the arches were so many circular holes cut out of the painting. Some objected to this while others defended it on the authority of Giotto. The question of course was, were these paintings treated archi- tectually or not. I now put it this way, were they treated architecturesquely or not ? Were the figures adapted to the form of the architecture, so as to be in harmony with archi tectural purposes ? Where they were so treated everybody was satisfied, but in the other cases many maintained a different opinion. The same gentleman exhibited to us another work which consisted in figure subjects painted on the walls of a circular staircase. The subjects were designed in circular panels. They were exceedingly well executed in that kind, but a very odd principle came into view. Seeing that his figures were going upstairs, the question arose how should he treat them, absolute horizontally and absolute perpendicularity wont go upstairs. Well Mr. Scott sometimes treated his subject in an architecturesque method, but at other times his landscape seemed to slide, and there was not that adaptation of his art to architecture which correct principles demand. Passing from painting to sculpture, the idea is precisely simi lar. That is to say, when sculpture is not a principle but an adjunct to architecture, it becomes necessary that it should be adapted—conventionalized if you will—to architectural pur poses. If such sculptures were designed otherwise, they would be at variance with the building when statuary is used in a con structive capacity, as for instance, when a series of statues occupy the place of a series of columns, this subordination is especially necessary. Such statuary should not be picturesque, but archi tecturesque. If such statuary is designed in a picturesque atti tude, it may be very good statuary, but it will be wrong as an architectural adjunct. Again, when a figure is used as a bracket, it is absolutely essential that in its pose it should be subordinate, strictly and stringently to architectural forms. It is in its position simply meant to be a bracket, it should take pretty much the same form as an ordinary architectural bracket would have in its place. Sculpture, even when not structural, must be treated in the same manner if it is any degree an architectural adjunct. A figure in a niche, for instance, must not be picturesque. The statues at Temple Bar are very fine as works of art, but are un suitable to their situation as parts of an architectural design. The still veiled statue of Sir Robert Peel at Parliament Square, occupies a somewhat peculiar position between two gateways,