DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.68796#0234
2 14
Ar cl lite cttiral Beauty
part in
story added, for the sake of effect, on to the really construc-
tive feature of the architrave, and as for its special forms,
what use or meaning in their present position have the
triglyphs and metopes? No doubt they had once their
significance, but this is only to be determined by archaeo-
logists, who, as a fact, cannot yet agree as to what really
was the natural history of these curious features. If it be
maintained that the triglyphs are constructive elements and
represent the beam-ends of the roof, the rejoinder is easy :
Once upon a time they probably did possess this character,
but they had lost it long before the date of the great monu-
mental temples, in which the stone beams of the portico-
roof are lifted on to the top of the triglyphs and metopes,
and are in no constructive relation thereto. If the triglyph
means a beam-end it is a sham; if it has no such signifi-
cance it is an arbitrary form adopted for artistic reasons
and out of all relation to the logic of construction.
§ 132. The Architect need not be ashamed of Beauty,
even when independent of construction.
That this should be so, is no reproach to the Greek
facade, which is a noble work of art possessed of the essen-
tial elements of architectural beauty, and quite as 1 true ’ as
any work of art need ever be. It is however an argument
of much weight against the extreme theory of ‘ respect absolu
pour le vrail and may serve to remind us of the more funda-
mental maxim, ‘ Beauty is the Truth of Art.’ It is indeed
not a little curious to find architects prepared to define their
art as ‘ construction beautified ’ but nervously anxious that
the beauty should always be in strict subordination to the
structure. They forget that by the very act of adding beauty
to their work they assert their artistic freedom. Of the
three Vitruvian elements in architecture this is the useless
Ar cl lite cttiral Beauty
part in
story added, for the sake of effect, on to the really construc-
tive feature of the architrave, and as for its special forms,
what use or meaning in their present position have the
triglyphs and metopes? No doubt they had once their
significance, but this is only to be determined by archaeo-
logists, who, as a fact, cannot yet agree as to what really
was the natural history of these curious features. If it be
maintained that the triglyphs are constructive elements and
represent the beam-ends of the roof, the rejoinder is easy :
Once upon a time they probably did possess this character,
but they had lost it long before the date of the great monu-
mental temples, in which the stone beams of the portico-
roof are lifted on to the top of the triglyphs and metopes,
and are in no constructive relation thereto. If the triglyph
means a beam-end it is a sham; if it has no such signifi-
cance it is an arbitrary form adopted for artistic reasons
and out of all relation to the logic of construction.
§ 132. The Architect need not be ashamed of Beauty,
even when independent of construction.
That this should be so, is no reproach to the Greek
facade, which is a noble work of art possessed of the essen-
tial elements of architectural beauty, and quite as 1 true ’ as
any work of art need ever be. It is however an argument
of much weight against the extreme theory of ‘ respect absolu
pour le vrail and may serve to remind us of the more funda-
mental maxim, ‘ Beauty is the Truth of Art.’ It is indeed
not a little curious to find architects prepared to define their
art as ‘ construction beautified ’ but nervously anxious that
the beauty should always be in strict subordination to the
structure. They forget that by the very act of adding beauty
to their work they assert their artistic freedom. Of the
three Vitruvian elements in architecture this is the useless