DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.68796#0235
chap, i Claims of Beauty in Architecture 215
one, and the adoption of it is an act of choice quite outside
of the sphere of utility. The demon of Philistinism might
rise up against the architect and say : Stability I know and
Convenience I know, but what is Beauty? To lay such a
demon we only need to glance back at the history of
civilised humanity, where we see the genius of successive
ages and peoples writing with the pen of beauty, on eternal
monuments, the record of their aspirations and deeds ;
where in every epoch we meet the architect at his task and
discern in him the inspired mouthpiece of his people and
his creed. Remembering all that the architects of the past
have been able to express in the pregnant language of their
craft, their modern successor might well be proud enough
of the artistic element in their work to allow it a certain free
range beyond the mere bounds of the £ program.’ Why
should such a one not admit that architectural beauty may
rightfully claim, in its relation to construction, something of
the same latitude which in sculpture and painting is claimed
on behalf of artistic effect as opposed to the mere truth to
nature ? Isa building that depends for its main features
on construction any the worse because it adopts in freedom
such additional features as are needed for the composition ?
Are we not justified in affirming that the practice of archi-
tecture, like that of painting and sculpture, rests to some
extent on conventions, and is not a logical deduction from
any one theory however sound in its main contention ?
The beauty and significance of architecture are based on
construction, but it does not follow that they are slavishly
bound down to the exigencies of this more material side of
the craft. From the first, let it be again repeated, architect-
ure is ‘ an art of free and spontaneous expression,’ and this
character remains with it throughout its long and varied
history.
one, and the adoption of it is an act of choice quite outside
of the sphere of utility. The demon of Philistinism might
rise up against the architect and say : Stability I know and
Convenience I know, but what is Beauty? To lay such a
demon we only need to glance back at the history of
civilised humanity, where we see the genius of successive
ages and peoples writing with the pen of beauty, on eternal
monuments, the record of their aspirations and deeds ;
where in every epoch we meet the architect at his task and
discern in him the inspired mouthpiece of his people and
his creed. Remembering all that the architects of the past
have been able to express in the pregnant language of their
craft, their modern successor might well be proud enough
of the artistic element in their work to allow it a certain free
range beyond the mere bounds of the £ program.’ Why
should such a one not admit that architectural beauty may
rightfully claim, in its relation to construction, something of
the same latitude which in sculpture and painting is claimed
on behalf of artistic effect as opposed to the mere truth to
nature ? Isa building that depends for its main features
on construction any the worse because it adopts in freedom
such additional features as are needed for the composition ?
Are we not justified in affirming that the practice of archi-
tecture, like that of painting and sculpture, rests to some
extent on conventions, and is not a logical deduction from
any one theory however sound in its main contention ?
The beauty and significance of architecture are based on
construction, but it does not follow that they are slavishly
bound down to the exigencies of this more material side of
the craft. From the first, let it be again repeated, architect-
ure is ‘ an art of free and spontaneous expression,’ and this
character remains with it throughout its long and varied
history.