Studio: international art (55.1912)

The Lay Figure

^"n'HE LAY FIGURE: ON A

DECORATIVE ALLIANCE.

“ I want to plead for a closer association
between the different forms of artistic effort,” said
the Art Critic. “ I mean that I want to see the
arts of architecture, sculpture, and painting brought
into such intimate relation that each will take its
full share in building up a complete decorative
result.”

“ But surely that association already exists,”
objected the Architect. “You cannot complain
of any neglect of either sculpture or painting in
modem architectural work. Both play parts of
real importance in every architectural scheme that
has any pretensions to completeness.”

“ I am not so sure about that,” returned the
Critic. “ I am quite prepared to admit that
sculpture has during recent years regained much
of its earlier status as a valued ally of archi-
tecture, but I cannot see that painting has been
admitted to anything like the same degree of
intimacy.”

“ Now you mention it, I hardly think I can
recall many examples of important mural decora-
tion in modern buildings,” commented the Man
with the Red Tie ; “ and I do not fancy that archi-
tects nowadays have any particular liking for paint-
ing as a means of completing an architectural
effect.”

“ Precisely ; that is what I would imply,” agreed
the Critic. “ Sculpture is given a fair chance,
painting is not; and therefore the alliance I am
asking for has not been brought within the range
of practical art politics. I want to see things more
equitably arranged.”

“You are forgetting, I fancy, that modern build-
ings are usually decorated and that architects do
reckon on the use of colour to give a proper finish
to their designs,” said the Architect. “ Is not that
evidence that they recognise the value of the
painter’s collaboration and that they are quite
ready to give him his proper chances ? ”

“As far as it goes it is evidence that the col-
laboration of the painter is necessary,” replied the
Critic; “ but I contend that it does not go far
enough. The colour decoration of a building is as
a rule a sort of after-thought, not a matter con-
templated and provided for in the original
design.”

“And it is a matter about which the architect
concerns himself so little that as often as not he
leaves it entirely in the hands of the local builder
and decorator, who takes a contract for the job at
166

so much a square yard,” put in the Man with the
Red Tie.

“Well, even if it were true that the painter does
not play as important a part in architectural
decoration as you think he should, does that
matter so much ? ” inquired the Architect. “ There
is such a range of coloured building materials—
marbles, different kinds of wood, and so on—now
available that painting seems to me to be really
superfluous.”

“ Ah, now we are getting at the point of the
argument,” cried the Critic. “ Painting is super-
fluous ! That is the attitude which many people
are taking up to-day and it is an attitude to which
I very strongly object. I say there can be no
perfect decorative achievement unless architecture,
sculpture, and painting contribute to it in some-
thing like equal shares.”

“ Do you suggest that the architect in making
his design for a building should invent opportunities
for the painter, and should contemplate intervention
on the part of the painter as a matter of course ? ”
asked the Architect.

“ Most certainly I do,” returned the Critic. “ In
a public building, or, indeed, in any large bu ilding,
he should recognise that significant mural paintings,
placed in spaces suitably planned and so treated
that they form an essential part of the architectural
scheme, have a vital and emphatic interest; and
in elaborating that scheme he should take into
account the part which the painter may be called
upon to play. The painter would be in this case
subordinate to the architect, but that would be a
very different thing to ignoring him altogether.
But in a domestic building the architect should
remember that the easel picture is needed to give
the note of artistic completeness to the rooms and
to provide the proper surroundings for men of
taste. Here he must subordinate himself to the
painter and frankly accept certain limitations which
will affect his freedom of action. He must plan
with consideration for the paintings that are per-
manently or temporarily, as the case may be, to
be brought into association with the architecture
for which he is responsible.”

“ Then you think that the architect and the
painter should wprk in collaboration, and that the
painter should have a say in the planning of
the building, because he has to fill spaces which
the architect must leave for him,” said the Architect.

“Collaboration, alliance, call it what you like,”
laughed the Critic. “I do think they ought to
work together for the good of art, and that they
should help one another.” The Lay Figure.