Volltext Seite (XML)
90 THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. [March, SCHOOL OF DESIGN, LEICESTER SQUARE. Ok Monday the 15th ult., a lecture on the application of perspective, being part of a course, was delivered by George Eoggo, Esq., at the School of the Society for Promoting Practical Design, Saville House, Leicester Square, before a numerous and respectable audience of members of the society, -artists, students, &c. The lecturer commenced by urging the necessity of a knowledge of per spective in ornamental design; observing that however the students in that class might be inclined to undervalue such an acquirement, they could not ■nor did not make a drawing without availing themselves of it. So accus tomed are we to see objects in perspective, that we are perpetually putting objects in perspective without being aware of it. The child newly born is destitute of this knowledge, but we cannot pass through life without acquir ing it—we must perforce obtain a knowledge of the distance of objects, their relative positions, their size, their colour. There is not a human being who does not learn this—not an animal—we could not go through life without it. Whether in historical composition, or whether in architectural design, we are obliged to have recourse to perspective. The architect, after making his design, may think he has nothing to do with this science, but if he do not attend to it, he will soon find himself in serious difficulties. Suppose, for instance, he has designed a frieze; although it may look very well upon paper, yet, when it comes to be placed high up, and lighted in a particular way, he may find the effect very different from what he intended. From want of knowledge of this kind, lamentable errors occur; in buildings re cently erected, ornaments are lighted with windows in such a way as to lose their effects; a delicate scroll is placed at such a distance as not to be seen, and bold ornaments brought too near. I am anxious, said the lecturer, that in drawing ornament we should not draw' it as if it were a mere dead inani mate object, but should remember that taste is required for designing pure ornament. This may not suit those who are contented with copying, and think that they have done enough when they have reproduced a design from the French, or the German, or the Italian, or the Greek; but it is the right course—copying we always find limited, nature ever varying. We have heard much lately about copyright of all kinds, but I think a great deal more has been said than has been necessary; I am by no means disposed to admit that copyright can be derived from the mere act of copying the design of another, whether that design be French or Greek, one year old or a thousand. Copyright should have no right for merely copying others, but for original adaptations of natural objects. Composition requires originality and power of mind, without which the name is idle. The architect has irregular ma terials to bring into regular proportions; the designer of artistical compo sitions has the opposite course, to take fixed objects, and to place them in every allowable variety of attitude that is to be found in nature. Some imagine that great diversity of power is required for these two objects, that it takes very little power to make an architectural design, and much to produce a picture. I am not inclined, however, to allow this. Want of reference to nature is, in my opinion, the principal defect of our architects, the result of which is the greatest inconsistency. Thus, if we w r ant a church, the archi tect will, without regard to propriety, take a Greek temple for his model, and so in an edifice where no sacrifice is allow’ed, devoted to a religion by which it is abolished, we shall find the sacrificial ornaments of another creed. If we are to have a theatre, the same temple is referred to, and then we get the sacrificial emblems again. There is no thought of propriety, though a building should be appropriate in its character to the object to which it is devoted, and mark the circumstances which have influenced its erection. The architect having to do principally with straight lines in composition, has of necessity much difficulty to contend with, but he has other and greater difficulties; the want of having men of taste to judge of his productions causes inactivity on the part of the architect, and the result is that he con tents himself with making a flaming copy from some antique building of reputation, which pleases the committee because it saves them the trouble of judging. His rival, with less knowledge of the world, labours hard to produce a good plan and an original elevation; his plan is never looked at, because it is not understood, and his elevation being placed by the side of those of his competitors, is outstared by them, and so he is discarded. By and bye the favoured design is carried into execution, and then, to the gene ral disappointment, it is quite inapplicable. (The lecturer here proceeded to sketch the ground plan of a building, and show the modifications which would be required in the external effect by different arrangements of the interior.) When an architect has got over the impediments thrown in his way by the ground plan, he will, without a knowledge of perspective, find himself in serious difficulties in making his elevation. There will be a want of important parts, broken lines, intricacies in the external arrangements, so that the eye can never repose satisfactorily. Still a good plan is a great thing, and it is of much importance that the public should know what plans are, for every one may now be on a committee some day, and it is very essential that this point should be understood. The elevation may mislead, while the plan is the first thing, and when we have provided for the useful, we can afterwards see what sort of a fine frontage can be applied. Some of the cabinet-makers and upholsterers studying here must very frequently be applied to with regard to furniture, when they first send in a drawing of what is imperatively necessary, and then do what they can to ornament it afterwards. Sometimes, however, the contrary occurs; a pretty drawing is made, and when the article comes to be put up, it is found clumsy and use less. Nor do I hold that it requires much less talent to design furniture properly than to design a building—and, indeed, in many of our recently erected club-houses, the architects have themselves designed the furniture, plate, Sec. Unfortunately, however, architects have little studied this de partment, and if they attempt it, there is a baldness in their works far from pleasing. Architects have not often, more particularly in crowded cities, the choice of situation, but still it is in their own power to do something more than they do. There was, for instance, no necessity in Pall Mall to swamp the Travellers’ Club by rearing next to it the Reform; had this been done by others, Barry would most probably have been offended, but people are not so offended at their own deeds as at those of their neighbours. Here, how ever, the example is given, and so, perhaps, some day we may have another larger, and the Reform Club itself overshadowed. The back of the Travel ler’s Club is not the less admirable, and it is much to be regr etted that the architect had not combined the two buildings in one design. It is, in fact, a duty of architects to avail themselves of the position in which their build ing is to be placed; if, for instance, the space were next to a church, then, by making the new buildings, though not uniform, yet in some degree, cor respond with those on the other side, the church might be brought into the composition, and so a better effect produced. Regular composition in archi tecture requires a centre and two wings; so if we see a bridge with four arches, the effect is unpleasant, though this is sometimes avoided by making the piers more prominent, but this again leads to another impropriety. The bridge, to be effective, must have three or five arches. The building, too, requires good thick flanks; this Wilkins forgot, and thus, in the National Gallery, we have the flanks getting thinner and thinner till they come to almost nothing. Solidity of effect is a thing imperative—the human mind requires bulk—it does not consider surface sufficient; if we see a surface, we like to know what is behind it, and particularly with regard to stone, for we always imagine the other front must be something similar. I may be re minded that, in the Gothic, there are exceptions and most beautiful ones, butjtliese are exceptions only as between the uninstructed and the instructed— the instructed will see where strength is, and so be better satisfied with the effect produced. It is our duty to make our building as vast as possible with the materials we possess; if we do something great with small materials, money is saved; if great materials are frittered away in petty details, we have spent a vast deal to produce a little effect. It may be thought much better not done at all, unless the effect be produced at little expense. Two instances have been greatly extolled by our travellers; St. Peter’s, at Rome, say they, is so vast and so beautifully proportioned, that we do not perceive its grandeur, and it is only when we coriie to examine some of the parts, that at last we are convinced. Another instance is the column in the Place Ven- dome, at Paris, which is made after a barbarous Roman model—a column in Grecian proportion, is covered with a thick coat of bronze, and made gouty, just like the Duke of York’s column in the Park. If the Napoleon column appears 80 feet high instead of 150, it certainly appears to me much better to have spent half the money to have produced a column which should have appeared 150 feet high. It is travellers only who see things of this kind, who stand openmouthed with astonishment that much money should be thrown away to produce nothing. Architects very frequently complain of want of money, but with injus tice, for it is by no means the amount of money, nor the vastness of the material at their disposal, on which the affair depends, particularly if money be exhausted on a number of small parts. No error is greater than to, divide a thing into a number of small parts; if we want to know the effect, let us go into a mountainous country, and we shall go on from one mountain to another, and always find the object in the distance of the same comparative smallness. We see the distant peak with clouds lying about the sides, di viding it, and some covering it, some lying in streaks across it, but it does not appear high. We get to the top of another mountain, but a deep valley lies between, and it still does not appear high ; we climb from crag to crag, and when we have got to the top we have an unbounded view, but we do not appreciate the immensity of the elevation, we feel rather delight than surprise. Had we seen a precipice, instead of 15 or 20,000, a thousand feet high, the effect would have been different. Many instances might be mentioned, but there is one place in the United States where the view is so terrific, that no courage can encounter it twice. Persons who wish to see this place go provided with guides, and secured with cords, and after looking down be come senseless, and when asked always refuse to try it again. So different is it to see a simple elevation, or to see a thing frittered away bit by bit. This is not without its lesson in architecture; the Gothic architects knew it and profited by it. We see it if we look at the Gothic spires and towers with their tops wreathed with ornament; such compositions show that our ancestors understood this effect perfectly. Let us sketch a tower : we have here a great height, but in proportion to the bulk is the apparent elevation reduced; to remedy this, we must do as Barry is going to do at the New Houses of Parliament, we place simple turrets at the corners, sometimes of unequal size to produce picturesque effect. Looking up, the eye runs along this narrow line, and appreciates the full height of the object, at the same time that the bulk is also felt by this combination of parts. The composition of Gothic buildings requires great consideration, both of perspective and composition, as well as of appropriateness of character. If we construct a residence for a clergyman, we must make it comfortable, but at the same time we must give it a certain clerical character; but if we make a house