Volltext Seite (XML)
Marell 1,1SCS.) THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT’S JOURNAL. 67 separated by a short length of railing. There are no gates in the gateways, but the continuation of the railing is carried between the gate bars. The statue is set down in front of this Tailing. Seen from behind, it will have the appearance of being in a cage. Seen from the front, the architectural critic will wonder why the railing should run behind the statue, and will ask why the railing has not been diverted, so as to make the statue appear to be in connection with the building. The effect of the present arrangement will be, that the statue will appear “ stood down,” as common people would say. I think it will present a very poor appearance when it is unveiled. I am not disparaging the figure as a piece of statuary, I merely refer to it as illustrating my position with reference to the architecturesque. As another example, let us take the carving of natural ob jects, foliage for instance. And a more charming description of art, whether for its own purposes or for architectural purposes, I cannot conceive. Whatever may be said about the inferiority of English art generally, the superiority of English natural carving is undoubted. Now we know that before natural foliage can be applied to architectural purposes, it must in some degree be con ventionalized, not only to fit it for the position which it has to occupy in the building, but also to satisfy the critical mind that the carving is not mere imitation of vegetable leaves. It. ought to be apparent that it is stone work based upon natural work. Good carving of foliage does not seem to be amere imitation which might be painted green and passed of as real leaves. This leads us to remember how deliberately foliage was always con ventionalized by the ancients. It was never used by them in a naturalistic way ; the very forms were altered, and the object was converted into an ornament and not used as foliage at all. Nothing can be more striking than the manner in which the ancients used the architectural principle than in this matter, whereas in mediaeval architecture we fine natural foliage largely used with very trifling adaptations. Here again we have the difference between the classic and the mediaeval spirit very prominently displayed. On the subject of decorative art, I need scarcely say that if the decorator as a separate artist is admitted into a building to supplement the architect’s work, he ought to confine himself strictly within architectural limits But observe that the decorator’s work is not architecture, it is not architectural, it is not architictonic, but I certainly think it is and ought to be architecturesque—that expression most clearly conveying the idea of adaptation of the decorator’s work to architectural features. The other day I stepped into the studio of Mr. Owen Jones, whose work in decorative art is of world wide celebrity. He shewed me the drawings for an entire house which is to be decorated in a most elaborate man ner—the carpets, walls, and ceiling, all harmonizing with each other. The whole thing constituted one of the most exquisite examples of design. Well now, what was the spirit which was actuating him in designing these decorations ? It was evidently this very principle of the adaptation of all these decorative works to architectural purposes. When we go a little further and look at the question of furniture, we see the point of this even more forcibly. All the world knows that a cabinet maker systematically objects to the architect’s design for fur niture. Now you may depend that whenever an objection is made by any class of tradesmen against the demands of the architect, it is an invariable sign that the architect is wrong. The reason of the cabinet-maker’s objection is this, that the ar chitect in designing the furniture has kepthimself very anxiously to architectural principle, failing to perceive the demands of the cabinet-making principles. In short he treats the furni ture architecturally when he ought to treat it architectures- quely. It must be assumed that if furniture is to be adapted to the architecture of the house, it must be adapted by the architect. On this point all are agreed. But I think I have said enough to shew that he must not attempt to treat furni ture as if it were _ architecture. He must be satisfied with treating it as furniture, throwing over it however the mantle of the architecturesque. I have only one or two other illustrations to give. The question of the interior plan is one in which the principle I am enun ciating comes very frequently into view. In designing an effective interior, one is apt to think that it is a question of architecture and of architecture only. As a matter of experience, I have found that it was more a matter of domestic arrange ments to be architecturally treated, and less a matter of archi tecture solely. The first consideration of the plan being obvi ously convenience, it is not the architectural but the architectur esque which brings the interior arrangements into harmony with the structure. In exterior disposition the case is much more prominently notable. Let me allude to landscape gardening. There are two styles of gardening; one we call the Italian, the other the English style. The Italian sprang up in the fifteenth or six teenth century. The English has sprung up and partially superseded the Italian style within a comparatively recent period. The English is otherwise called the natural style. Formality is avoided ; a graceful irregularity is attempted to be produced ; the ordinary effects of the landscape are retained as elements of beauty, whereas in the Italian style, or, as it is called, architectural gardening, the plans are based upon regular architectural forms throughout. Symmetry and system are aimed at in every form of architectural strictness. Both styles are very fine, but they are essentially and entirely different. It is the rule in connection with a mansion of large size, to introduce both styles in separate portions of the ground. The garden attached to the drawing-room facade of the house is laid out with the regularity of the Italian style. The grounds on the other side of the house—the park, shrubbery, &c., are treated in the English style. Here we see again the essential difference between the classic and the picturesque; the differ ence between the architecturesque of the Italian garden and the picturesque of the English. The Houses of Parliament, in respect of site, afford, I think, a very fair instance of the importance of the application of this principle. That building is one about which there has been a great deal of controversy, and about which there will probably be a great deal more. I do not mean with respect to the question of authorship, which is comparatively immaterial, but with re spect to its artistic value. But there is one thing which is unquestionable—it is an exquisitely graceful design. If not academically good or sound, it has been treated by Sir Charles Barry in that peculiar way which was characteristic of his mind. It is a Gothic building, constructed, as much as he dared to do, on classic principles. People complain of uni formity and of the undue repetition of detail. However that may be, it has to be remembered that in the general design of the building the architect intended the building to be in har mony with the river shore, which is perfectly regular at that point. He therefore treated the building in accordance with the site, and built that unbroken line of terrace which with the lamps form such a beautiful feature in the river front. So also with Westminster Bridge. It was designed, more or less, for adaptation to the Houses of Parliament. It is regular in its general appearance ; it is not architecturally but archi- tecturesquely treated as a matter of site and approach. It is not treated as a thing by itself, but as an adjunct to the Houses of Parliament. The Thames Embankment has its interests for us in this precise way. As far as regards the formation of a new road, or as regards the sanitary question, this work has no special in terest to architects as such. But when we think of the thing in connection with the buildings which must be formed upon it, you will see that it has a special and deep interest to us pro fessionally. It is obvious that the straight lines of the embank ment gives the river an architecturesque character. May not the effect of this be that the buildings to be erected on the embank ment will have a similar character, and that the picturesque form will be superseded ? In the Parisian streets we see the architecturesque principle in full development. Whatever may be said of the architecture of the Boulevards, there can be no doubt that for the archi tecturesque treatment of site, Paris is perfection. Contrast the streets of Paris with those mediaeval streets the revival of which has been advocated. It is said let us give up straight lines, let us plan so that people may be constantly turning corners and coming upon something suddenly. It would be monstrously inconvenient for traffic, but it would be ex tremely charming to have towns treated in this manner. I mention mediaeval streets merely as a foil to the Paris system. I will only point out, in conclusion, the immense importance which this subject really does possess. If the principle of the architecturesque be as I have described, how is it neglected in London ! There is scarcely a public building which is even decently in harmony with its surroundings. Everything is sordid, altogether devoid of the charm which attaches to liberal