126 THE BUILDING NEWS. Fes. 16 1872: ee
mental details. . Lifeless grotesques are simply unendurable, and, moreover, Cam- bridge is already provided with one set of them at Caius College. These at Pembroke come upon us like another repetition of a venerable joke, not first-rate even originally. No doubt decorative humour is somewhat hard to obtain at present. Our carvers do not seem to have much perception of fun, and the artists who have prefer drawing on woodto chiselling instone. ‘This being so, all that we can do, probably, is to wait for better times; we shall not improve matters by making painful copies of Medixval jeux @esprit. ‘The Casterton stone, which is some- what dark in colour, harmonises well with the red brick facing. So also do the green West- moreland slates, which are small and thick. Nearly allthe internal woodwork is of pitch pine. The flooring boards which are in narrow strips about 2in. thick, are to be polished. A simple but convenient contrivance for hanging pictures is placed in the principal apartments. ‘This is a small wood moulding or projecting bead secured to the walls and running allround them about a foot below the ceiling. ‘Lhe pictures will be suspended from hooks which will hang on this moulding, and which may therefore be removed or altered in any way at pleasure. There are plaster cornices, delicate and of small pro- jection. Externally the copings and weather- ings are of a hard stone from the neighbour- hood of Stamford. Most of the masonry in recent buildings at Cambridge, we may note, is either of Ketton, Ancaster, or Casterton stone. Ketton is an excellent material, but its price, from 2s. to 2s. 6d. per foot cube at the quarry, prevents its general use. Ancaster, which has a few miles further to come, only costs 1s. per foot at starting ; and if well selected, there is little fault to be found with it. Casterton is the coarsest and most open-grained of the three, and costs 1s. 6d. per foot, but it is considered durable, and can be obtained in larger-sized blocks than Ancaster. ——y>] —. THEORY OF THE ARTS. THE PROXIMATE PRINCIPLES OF ARCHITEC- TURAL DESIGN. (Continued from page 490). lio the preceding papers I have briefly re- ferred to the various materials and sub- stances employed in construction, and have attempted to analyse their capabilities and peculiar properties, with a view of arriving at a rational use and combination of them in the composite structure. It has been pre- viously remarked that there are two ideas which seem to predominate over all our con- ceptions of architectural design—namely, form and foree—the first resulting from our abstract notions of fitness and space, and the latter depending on the more concrete rela- tions of form and material in actual construc- | tion, and which may be regarded both in ay mechanical and chemical sense. These I have / endeavoured to illustrate in noticing the ' different materials used. Still, there is a hiatus—a difficulty—and one arising from our advanced knowledge of these materials. It is the discrepancy between the scientific or economical use of materials, and that agreeable sense of proportion or form which the mind and eye require. Mere geometry and mechanics do not enable us invariably to solve this, and taste has to be consulted ; but taste is often the slave of imperfect culture and mere fancy dictates. In the earliest architectural examples force was- strictly sub- ordinated to form—that is, the few materials employed, and the construction adopted, ad- mitted of very simple mechanical conditions. With a smaller quantity of material, though of greater diversity and complexity of arrange- ment, as with us now, force has a far larger influence, and comprehends many physical phenomena. It must, however, holda place in architectural art—that is, be visibly counter-
acted, not actively shown. It would be an impropriety, for example, to see a heavy, deep entablature of stone resting on slight stone columns, or an insufficient number of them. It would be equally wrong if these columns were of iron, although, mentally, we may be satisfied with the strength. Here, then, we have an instance of an active visible force destroying the repose of the structure visibly, and, we may add, mentally too; the dispro- portion seizes-us as unconditional and unsatis- tory. Imagine the beam or entablature of iron or wood, the effect would be the same ; but reduce its thickness or depth in a certain relation to the columns, and the result is far different—the ratio of the two counteracting forces or materials makes anagreeable balance. Dimension and force are here the simple general ideas ; it is the relation between these two only that affects us, not the nature of the materials. Hence it is seen how unsatis- factory any structure must be in which heavy masonry and iron enter, unless the latter bear any agreeable proportion to the other; and yet iron is a material we cannot overlook. Related to force is the chemical molecular or specific qualities of the materials—a con- dition arising out of a more intimate and ex- perimental knowledge of materials. Only modern civilisation has acquired this know- ledge, and only moderns can utilise it. The ponderable qualities of material were those the ancients considered ; we have imponder- able qualities to study. The Classic and middle-age builders had few materials ; but those were unlimited in supply, hence they established a code of proportions which has astonished later times. We have, on the other hand, to keep in mind economy of space, of material, and of construction ; we ave obliged to use our different materials so that a maximum amount of work with a minimum ef material may be obtained of each. When an architect, for instance, is called upon to design a struc- ture in which masonry or brickwork and iron are employed, which, moreover, must possess some artistic merit, the difficulty of the pro- portion between these materials is at once manifest. He may get over the difficulty by ignoring the question of economy, but this will not do, as in such a case the engineer or mere builder derives the advantage, being able to produce the desired result with less material. The solution of this difficulty can be only effected either by violating the law of proportion, or by such a study and adjust- ment of the two antagonistic materials as will insure an agreeable result. The latter is the architect’s only alternative. In the first place, a strict definition of the limits of the two materials, or the legitimate ex- tent and office of each, must be determined upon ; this will, of course, vary with the dif- ferent purposes or conditions of different buildings. In this investigation we have the chemical properties of the materials to consider—in what manner they will be affected by atmospheric or accidental agen- cies, or by their connection with other sub- stances. We must alsoknow the mechanical forces they will be subject to, and what size, form, and section each part must have to counteract such forces in the most effectual manner. After this analysis or examination of the physical qualities by which we can so far arrange our materials as that they should structurally answer their end, another faculty in the process of design is called into requisi- tion, by which we regulate the materials at our command, assign to them their position and form, and, chiefly, so balance and modu- late the various parts and forces, as solids and voids, as to give a harmonious proportion to the whole work. ‘This operation of the mind embraces a comprehensive grasp of the before-mentioned properties and conditions, a generalisation of facts and ideas—indeed, an exercise of judgment which requires an exten- sive knowledge and training few are gifted with under the present defective and unsys-
influence of early training and association, predilection for what we designate “ styles” (which are really the expressions or phrases certain materials and modes of construction haveassumed during distinct and past periods), entirely take the place of this last-mentioned process or faculty of thought, and thus our modern architectural, as, in truth, our modern art generally, is nothing better than ‘“ repre- sentative,” or scenic, and may be placed in the same category as historical dramas, theatrical costumes, or fashionable and masquerade dressmaking. Mannerism and the semblances of archaic forms aré not architecture—a truth that ought to be impressed on those of our architects who devote their best days and energies in giving us a dead art for that which should be essentially modern in idea and in con- struction. It is argued by the ultra, or retro- grade, school of art (as it isby the section of creed and polities of the same school) that there is enough in ancient art or its vocabu- lary of forms to satisfy the most modern want, or the most scientific construction, The ultra-medizevalist tells us, for instance, that the pointed or Gothic form of window-opening insures as much light and facility of m: e- ment as any of the forms adopted by the classic or Anglo-Italian school. For aught we know this may be: but why should the manner, mode, or expression of either medievalism or Italianism be introduced ? Why should not the simple logical conditions of a window amply satisfy us as a starting point, and the proportion and decoration of such a necessary feature be determined, ir- respective of style, by the mode of construc- tion adopted, or by the simple nature of the materials used ? Why begin, as a necessary premise, with a type borrowed from an ex- ample of some middle age or some foreign building, as the very means and end? If the logical process of designing brings us to such a type, we may feel satisfied with the resem- blance, and copyism cannot be laid to our charge ; but when that resemblance is pre- destined or determined, the function of the designer or architect ceases, and the most expert and -painstaking copyist becomes de facto the most successful practitioner. When we see such an important national work as the New Courts of Law countenanc- ing this reproductive tendency, we may well ask where our architectural art is to be found, or what constitutes its originality. Per- haps, also, the vast spread of works of ancient art and archeological studies has tended much to hinder original thought and encourage a spirit of copyism among our artists, instead of making them rely on their own inventive resources. This tendency is noticed especially when we contrast the works of the civil en- gineer with those of the architect. There is always a characteristic originality about the works of the former; crude and harsh and tasteless asthey may appear, they often evince more originality of conception and a freshness of their own after the numberless repetitions of Classic and Medizeval temples, churches, and monasteries which make up a majority of our civil buildings. But let us see wherein a ra- tional theory of design may be established, and one which shall take cognisance of the varied materials at our command, First, I have shown thereare the physical conditions or ideas of construction, which, under the names of form and force, include the common sense notions of the shape and most convenient form of our materials—such as stone, brick, timber, iron, &c., and the modesin which they should be adopted and combined in accordance with our mechanical and chemical knowledge. Here we have certain definite laws to guide us—namely, gravity, or weight, which will determine the extent of our foundations or footings, our walls, piers, and all bear- ing-parts of a structure, and the use of the heaviest material at such parts; we have form, which will determine the most rational shape to give to such materials— tematic mode of education, At present the | namely, square, round, or solid figures, and
