The Civil engineer & [and] architect's journal

• Bandzählung: 7.1844
• Erscheinungsdatum: 1844
• Sprache: Englisch
• Signatur: A128
• Vorlage: Universitätsbibliothek Chemnitz
• Digitalisat: Universitätsbibliothek Chemnitz
• Digitalisat: SLUB Dresden
• Rechtehinweis: Public Domain Mark 1.0
• URN: urn:nbn:de:bsz:14-db-id375634746-184400006
• PURL: http://digital.slub-dresden.de/id375634746-18440000
• OAI: oai:de:slub-dresden:db:id-375634746-18440000
• Sammlungen: Projekt: Bestände der Universitätsbibliothek Chemnitz
• Sammlungen: LDP: Bestände der Universitätsbibliothek Chemnitz
• Strukturtyp: Band

• Digitalisat: SLUB Dresden
• Strukturtyp: Ausgabe

1844.] THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT’S JOURNAL 5 houses being comprised within one design, the same general elevation is frequently continued along the entire side of a street or square, consequently, while uniformity is pushed to monotony, the impression of greatness aimed at is lost, it being evident at the very first glance, that such a fapade consists merely of a row of houses put into uni form, therefore, of “speculation” houses—not such as are erected for their own residences by wealthy proprietors. As far as the builder is concerned, such system is convenient enough: a single elevation will serve for the whole job. Its pattern once set, a Pecksniff “ ter race ” or “ place ” may be stretched out as long as—a Chancery suit, and be the external design ever so bad in point of taste, that gives the occupiers of the houses no concern, because they are comparatively but birds of passage. III. It is to be regretted that a little more public spirit and liberality of feeling in the cause of architecture is not shown by those among the noble and opulent, who possess magnificent mansions, worthy of being made known to all, yet are kept, in a manner, almost under lock and key. It is to be presumed that Chatsworth, for instance, and more especially that portion of it which was added by Sir Jeffrv Wyatville, must contain a very great deal not only worth seeing but worth studying—and between the two the difference is considerable; nevertheless, there is nothing to inform us what it really is, neither are we likely to have anything, although it would be a mere bagatelle to such a man as the Duke of Devonshire—perhaps not the cost of a single fete—were he to employ the best artists of the day to make drawings and engravings that should completely illustrate the whole of the edifice. Very probably his Grace would not refuse the privi lege of making drawings for such purpose to any one who might apply for it, and might even promise him subscribers, yet that kind of liberality does not go far—certainly not far enough for the purpose. It is almost in vain to look to the enterprize of trading speculation, whether on the part of publishers or artists, for works of that class, requiring a very great outlay, and promising but a very limited and a very slow sale. They ought not to be left for others to take up—or rather to the mere chance of its being done, but should be engaged in con amore, and with no more idea of profit than a man has when he gives a sumptuous banquet. As little would it matter though the world should set it down to vanity and ostentation: where there are so many other vanities besides, one more or less makes little differ ence in the sum total of them: neither would such kind of vanity be the emptiest of all. IV. As this is the age of surprising discoveries of all kinds, we need not be particularly astonished at some one’s having just disco vered a “ bright halo ” irradiating the character of Sir Robert Smirke as a man and an architect, and claiming distinction for him on account of his “noble and generous nature!” With his private character the public have nothing to do, more especially as he is not one of those who are perpetually thrusting themselves forward into notice, and who advertise themselves and their doings in newspaper puffs; on the contrary, Sir Robert invariably “keeps himself quite to himself,” as the saying is, and is no doubt fully entitled to the praise of being in his private station a very gentlemanly and highly respectable indi vidual. Yet there are many others such—at least, so it is to be hoped, many truly excellent and worthy persons, who nevertheless are not on that account paraded before the public. It is in his professional ca pacity alone that Sir Robert stands exposed to notice, and his personal character belongs not to criticism but to biography. However justly such character may be claimed for him, his “ noble and generous na ture” does not discover itself by any overt acts: on the contrary, he shows himself to be of a very reserved and cold—not to call it a churlish disposition—not that he is on that account to be singled out for reproach, since even that is merely a negative defect, and one which does not at all concern the public. When, how'ever, a man is officiously extolled for qualities which he does not appear to possess, it is but fair that the world should make some inquiry. To call upon us to admire the high character, and the noble, and generous nature of Sir Robert, is, however intended, not a little indiscreet: most as suredly his professional character fur talent does not stand very high, among those at all capable of appreciating it, since, considering tbe numerous and ample opportunities which have been afforded him, no one in the profession has done less, or has manifested less of artist-like ability and feeling. So far from displaying any sort of invention or fertility of mind, his buildings present merely a few obvious and common-place ideas, bashed up over and over again; and are one and all most tame and insipid—even to poverty, in their detail. To talk of fancy and Smirke in the same breath would be preposterous ; his Grecian designs and composition are purely mechanical, such as any one may attain to, merely by literally copying the Ilissus Ionic on all occasions, and sticking its columns against fronts which belong not to a columnar but a fenestrated style. Therefore even his so much cried up puritv, is, after all, only impurity—mongrelism of the very worst kind, exhibiting in marked contrast to each other, two opposite styles, without any attempt to reconcile them, and thereby bring them in some degree into esthetic harmony. All that Smirke has done has been quite as well done—in some instances, better, by others of the same school. Foulstone was quite equal to Smirke, and the buildings of the one might very well be mistaken for those of the other; there fore, it is hard for poor Foulstone—the late “Plymouth Vitruvius,” and rather puzzling that he should be so little thought of by those who admire his duplicate. Possibly it is because be lacked the talis- manic prefix of Sir to his name. Putting Foulstone, however, out of the question, it does not say much for the superior talent of Smirke, or for the heartiness of his admirers, that none of the latter—even those who consider him to have been unfairly treated, should have attempted to vindicate him, by directly pointing out in bis works some of those excellences for which they so largely give him credit. In stead of so doing,' they adopt the more cautious yet far less satisfac tory mode of speaking of them in the lump, without particularizing any one of his buildings or its peculiar merits. Alas ; for his classical taste shown by such a maudlin affair—-such a jumble of Grecian and anti-Grecian, as the hall of the Post Office; or such another specimen of his, as is the church in Wvndham Place, or in the Mint on Tower Hill, or the Long-room of the Custom House, or his buildings in the Temple, or those of Serjeants’ Inn, or King’s College, or the College of Physicians and Union Club House, or tbe Conservative in Pall Mall. Is it for all—for every one, or for any one of these that our admiration is demanded? if so, and justly so, then has Sir Robert Smirke been, notwithstanding all his success, one of the most unfor tunate gentlemen in his profession, for they are all sent to Coventry— are neve.r referred to, spoken of, or mentioned in any way—most cer tainly not for admiration. As to his “noble and generous nature,” the proofs of that are not more striking than are the beauties of his ar chitecture. Is it his generous feeling which withholds him from ever joining the exhibitors in the architectural room of the Royal Aca demy ? Are his ideas too precious to be there submitted to vulgar gaze, or would his designs so entirely absorb attention that everything else would be passed by unheeded, and they are therefore kept away out of compassion to others? His enthusiasm for art-—supposing it to exist at all, must be of a particularly quiet kind, for never does it burst out on any occasion. Externally he wears much more that looks like indifference for art, and haughty contempt for public opinion. Most assuredly it is a very strange sort of generosity which deter mines him not to allow the public to view the Museum model, not withstanding clamours and remonstrances. In that matter we may give him credit for discretion, but hardly for generosity of any kind, or for the warm feeling of a genuine artist who looks to public approval as his most prized reward. Very rarely, if, indeed, ever, has Sir Robert Smirke’s name appeared in connexion with any scheme or plan for furthering the interests of art generally, or those of his own profes sion. He encourages no one, nor any thing: of course he is at perfect liberty so to act, without being responsible to any one for his conduct; but then let him not be held up as a pattern character; let us not be told of his noble and generous nature. If Sir Robert chooses to let the world misunderstand him—to veil the feelings of a warm-hearted and enthusiastic mind beneath the garb of a frigid and repulsive in difference, he must take his account accordingly, nor will he at least be surprised or disappointed at finding himself judged of from ap pearance. However, his hypocrisy, if such it be, is not of a very dangerous kind, for very few will be tempted by his example, to dis semble their virtues, and completely disguise all signs of “a noble and generous nature.” V. Singular paucity of invention is displayed by the surveyors of private fetes—a greater disregard of money on the part of those who order, than of ingenuity and contrivance on that of those who have the management of them. One stock conceit—and one that would seem to be a piece of etiquette on such occasions—is to lumber up vestibule and staircase with such a profusion of evergreens and plants, that one might fancy Covent Garden market had been invited to the party, and was making its way up stairs before him ; or else that he has mistaken the house, and has got into that of some horticultural and florist society. If there be ample space for them, and they are introduced sparingly, and just where an artist would place them for effect, plants and flowers—N. B. artificial ones would answer the pur pose just as well and even better, besides being cheaper in the end—• are admissible as embellishments on such occasions: but to have a mere crowd and mob of such things does not argue the most elegant taste. What is squandered away by some persons in a season or two, in temporary and trumpery decorations, would enable them to decorate their staircases and rooms in a style of superior and permanent beauty.