DOI Heft:
No. 61 (April, 1898)
DOI Artikel:Modern domestic architecture: the work of Mr. Ernest Newton, [1]
DOI Seite / Zitierlink:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.18391#0196
77/r I fork of Ernest Newton
detail reconsidered anew. Hut the simile is mot
quite happy, for here it is a certain austerity and
stern attempt to repress mere ornament, which
gives the New Queen Anne (as it was first called)
its real claim to be taken seriously, whereas English
Gothic grew more and more ornate, until it was
smothered by its superfluous decoration.
The reason for the renewed vitality imparted to
architecture to-day is not far to seek. As Mr.
Ernest Newton wrote in his contribution to a
notable volume (" Architecture a Profession or an
Of practical building if funds allow, but is
either present or absent from the first."' That is
the text of his writings, and it is also the test
whereby one may judge his work. And because
it is so, the difficulty of writing an appreciation
of the beautiful houses he has called into being
is increased. For the secret is told at once :
they are beautiful buildings because they have
been "built,"' not drawn, by their author. This
does not imply that Mr. Newton mixed his own
mortar or laid his own bricks, but it does mean
Art,' 1892): " There will be no real life and there-
fore no real development in architecture till the
architect is brought more into contact with his
work . . . until he ceases to be the professional
'architect' who, like a small Jove, from the
Olympus of his office fulminates through the
penny post, in order that he may terrify a long-
suffering and generally underpaid builder to his
autocratic will."' It is because the modern archi-
tect has set construction first and decoration
second that the revival so long hoped for has
arrived, but in doing so he did not leave art
outside. " Art," said Mr. Newton in the essay
already drawn upon for quotation, ki is not
something which may be added to a piece
174
that he realised from the first that he was dealing
with bricks and mortar, not with pencil or water-
colour—that the drawings were but explanations of
his purpose. The modern, like the earliest designer,
does not offer a problem to be translated by the
builder, he does not make pretty sketches and
leave others to make them workable. He re-assumes
the position of the master-builder who directs, and
he leaves the genius who dreams and relies on
others' interpretation of his dream to the bad old
past, where commonplace derails were deemed
too unimportant for his soaring fancy to notice.
Although the new movement does not disdain
to take account of the commonplace, it does not
confine itself to being merely utilitarian, but never
detail reconsidered anew. Hut the simile is mot
quite happy, for here it is a certain austerity and
stern attempt to repress mere ornament, which
gives the New Queen Anne (as it was first called)
its real claim to be taken seriously, whereas English
Gothic grew more and more ornate, until it was
smothered by its superfluous decoration.
The reason for the renewed vitality imparted to
architecture to-day is not far to seek. As Mr.
Ernest Newton wrote in his contribution to a
notable volume (" Architecture a Profession or an
Of practical building if funds allow, but is
either present or absent from the first."' That is
the text of his writings, and it is also the test
whereby one may judge his work. And because
it is so, the difficulty of writing an appreciation
of the beautiful houses he has called into being
is increased. For the secret is told at once :
they are beautiful buildings because they have
been "built,"' not drawn, by their author. This
does not imply that Mr. Newton mixed his own
mortar or laid his own bricks, but it does mean
Art,' 1892): " There will be no real life and there-
fore no real development in architecture till the
architect is brought more into contact with his
work . . . until he ceases to be the professional
'architect' who, like a small Jove, from the
Olympus of his office fulminates through the
penny post, in order that he may terrify a long-
suffering and generally underpaid builder to his
autocratic will."' It is because the modern archi-
tect has set construction first and decoration
second that the revival so long hoped for has
arrived, but in doing so he did not leave art
outside. " Art," said Mr. Newton in the essay
already drawn upon for quotation, ki is not
something which may be added to a piece
174
that he realised from the first that he was dealing
with bricks and mortar, not with pencil or water-
colour—that the drawings were but explanations of
his purpose. The modern, like the earliest designer,
does not offer a problem to be translated by the
builder, he does not make pretty sketches and
leave others to make them workable. He re-assumes
the position of the master-builder who directs, and
he leaves the genius who dreams and relies on
others' interpretation of his dream to the bad old
past, where commonplace derails were deemed
too unimportant for his soaring fancy to notice.
Although the new movement does not disdain
to take account of the commonplace, it does not
confine itself to being merely utilitarian, but never