DOI issue:
American section
DOI article:Mechlin, Leila: The Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts and the T-Square Club's exhibition of architecture and the applied arts
DOI Page / Citation link: https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.28250#0469
T-Square Exhibition
architect—of any architect who is more than a mere
builder. As the background is to the painted por-
trait, so is the landscape to the country house or the
great city. Great would be the incongruity if it were
executed independently—sorry indeed is the result
when it is not developed sympathetically. Being
comparatively a young nation and richly endowed
by nature, we have almost unparalleled opportuni-
ties, and that they are being realised and not wasted
was testified by the work in this exhibition—such
work as the Park Commission’s plans for Washing-
ton, Messrs. D. H. Burnham and Company’s pre-
liminary drawings for the beautifying of San Fran-
cisco, the Olmstead Brothers’ Boston parks and
Scarborough gardens, and the numerous instances
of well-treated private estates furnished by various
architects.
But this was not all. The field of architecture in-
cludes both sculpture and painting; the house
when completed must be adorned, and both public
and private grounds can be beautified by the artist.
Through the cooperation of the Na-
tional Sculpture Society certain ex-
amples of outdoor sculpture were
included in this exhibition—not
monumental works, but chiefly
those intended for architectural
adaptation. There were the half-
size casts for the New York Custom
House groups by Mr. Daniel C.
French, the competing model for
the doors of the chapel at the Naval
Academy, by Air. Adolph Weinman,
and other notable works, but as a
whole the section was disappointing.
It is true that along these lines
American sculptors have not made
their greatest progress. Some better
work has been done than was shown
here; but, facing the truth, it must
be admitted that there is still much
room for improvement. Where,
save in transient expositions, are
our beautiful fountains, our great
park groups, our noble public me-
morials? Have they all, through
the demand of the public, become
statues of more or less worthy
heroes ? Why have we so little
garden statuary, so few fine adorn-
ments for our public buildings ? Is
it the fault of the sculptors or their
patrons ? These are questions which
this exhibit made pertinent.
To be sure, as I have already said, there were Mr.
French’s groups, which, if inclined to be conglomer-
ate, have undoubtedly great sculptural dignity, as
well as Mr. Herbert Adam’s fine Welch Memorial,
sections of Mr. Charles Grafly’s remarkable
Fountain of Man, Mr. Roth’s animals, Mr. Eli
Harvey’s lions, Mr. Piccirilli’s Satiro and the
Misses Eberly and Hyatt’s Boy and Goat, all de-
serving commendation; but there were also Mr.
Massey Rhind’s figures for the Indianapolis Court
House, which in position are said to be creditable,
but detached are weak and uninteresting, and Mr.
Andrew O’Connor’s figures for the Essex County
Court House, which are ill-proportioned, besides
much more uninspired work. And yet it was prob-
ably more for omission than commission that
fault could be found. Not because the exhibit was
inferior, but incomplete, not because the work
itself was bad, but not better, more spontaneous,
original and feelingly wrought, is complaint made.
But if shortcomings were noted in this section of
BRYN MAWR COLLEGE COPE AND SXEWARDSON
ROCKEFELLER HALL ARCHITECTS
LXXXIX
architect—of any architect who is more than a mere
builder. As the background is to the painted por-
trait, so is the landscape to the country house or the
great city. Great would be the incongruity if it were
executed independently—sorry indeed is the result
when it is not developed sympathetically. Being
comparatively a young nation and richly endowed
by nature, we have almost unparalleled opportuni-
ties, and that they are being realised and not wasted
was testified by the work in this exhibition—such
work as the Park Commission’s plans for Washing-
ton, Messrs. D. H. Burnham and Company’s pre-
liminary drawings for the beautifying of San Fran-
cisco, the Olmstead Brothers’ Boston parks and
Scarborough gardens, and the numerous instances
of well-treated private estates furnished by various
architects.
But this was not all. The field of architecture in-
cludes both sculpture and painting; the house
when completed must be adorned, and both public
and private grounds can be beautified by the artist.
Through the cooperation of the Na-
tional Sculpture Society certain ex-
amples of outdoor sculpture were
included in this exhibition—not
monumental works, but chiefly
those intended for architectural
adaptation. There were the half-
size casts for the New York Custom
House groups by Mr. Daniel C.
French, the competing model for
the doors of the chapel at the Naval
Academy, by Air. Adolph Weinman,
and other notable works, but as a
whole the section was disappointing.
It is true that along these lines
American sculptors have not made
their greatest progress. Some better
work has been done than was shown
here; but, facing the truth, it must
be admitted that there is still much
room for improvement. Where,
save in transient expositions, are
our beautiful fountains, our great
park groups, our noble public me-
morials? Have they all, through
the demand of the public, become
statues of more or less worthy
heroes ? Why have we so little
garden statuary, so few fine adorn-
ments for our public buildings ? Is
it the fault of the sculptors or their
patrons ? These are questions which
this exhibit made pertinent.
To be sure, as I have already said, there were Mr.
French’s groups, which, if inclined to be conglomer-
ate, have undoubtedly great sculptural dignity, as
well as Mr. Herbert Adam’s fine Welch Memorial,
sections of Mr. Charles Grafly’s remarkable
Fountain of Man, Mr. Roth’s animals, Mr. Eli
Harvey’s lions, Mr. Piccirilli’s Satiro and the
Misses Eberly and Hyatt’s Boy and Goat, all de-
serving commendation; but there were also Mr.
Massey Rhind’s figures for the Indianapolis Court
House, which in position are said to be creditable,
but detached are weak and uninteresting, and Mr.
Andrew O’Connor’s figures for the Essex County
Court House, which are ill-proportioned, besides
much more uninspired work. And yet it was prob-
ably more for omission than commission that
fault could be found. Not because the exhibit was
inferior, but incomplete, not because the work
itself was bad, but not better, more spontaneous,
original and feelingly wrought, is complaint made.
But if shortcomings were noted in this section of
BRYN MAWR COLLEGE COPE AND SXEWARDSON
ROCKEFELLER HALL ARCHITECTS
LXXXIX