May 10, 1872. THE BUILDING NEWS. 369
THE BUILDING NEWS. es LONDON, FRIDAY, MAY 10, 1872.
ARCHITECTURE AND THE
QUARTERLY REVIEW.
HE article on ‘‘The State of English
Architecture,” a large part of which we
haye reprinted, contains only one remark
which will be particularly new to our readers.
Most of its statements are trite enough ; they
have been insisted on by our ablest architects
time out of mind, and discoursed on in our
own columns year after year. ‘The archi-
tectural profession, or, at least, that constantly
increasing section of it which is in earnest
about its work, knows well enough what are
the obstacles to architectural progress, and
with incessant effort it has been trying to
bring them under the notice of the intelligent
British public. That respectable body, after
an incredible amount of hammering and
shouting at, may at last be said to have
opened one eye, and by the mouth of the
Quarterly Review professes to have arrived at
a sense of its situation. What we have been
dinning into its ears so long does not seem,
after all, to have been wasted. On the con-
trary, it is all returned upon us as the result
of profound investigation, and with the air of
a great and original discovery. The singular
thing is that the British public ignores our
share in the matter altogether, and professes
to have found it all out without listening to us.
So far it is of little consequence ; but when
the same yeracious public goes on to say that
it is our fault it did not find it out sooner,
and that, in fact, we are to blame if there are
any obstacles to architectural progress at all,
it might tempt us to tell it a few truths more
plain than complimentary. We are glad,
however, to find that public attention is called
by any means and in any spirit to the in-
fluences which hinder the more rapid growth
of architecture. On many points we may
claim the Quarterly reviewer as a convert, but
we protest against the ignoble spirit in which
he writes. Amongst the members of the pro-
fession there are more than a few with
real love for their art, and clear discernment
of the causes which obstruct it. They know,
better than any outside observer, how faulty
is the system by which they haye to work,
and how fatal are the conditions which sur-
round them. ‘These things have grown up,
or rather haye been heaped up, by degrees:
they are part of the general chaos out of
which modern society must emerge, and it
is somewhat hard that the blame of their
existence should be laid on those persons pre-
cisely who alone are really striving to subdue
them. A state of things which has been
going on for centuries cannot be changed in
a day: it is unjust to hold those responsible
for it who had no share in its production, and
it is both unjust and unwise to condemn them
when they only, out of all the world, are
trying to improve it.
The article under notice mentions five
things which prevent us from attaining archi-
tectural success. ‘These are (1) the influence
of the ignorant public; (2) the false position
of architects; (3) as an aggravation of the
last evil, the overgrowth of certain architec-
tural practices ; (4) the non-employment of
the workman’s mental power; and (5) the
custom of building on short leases. ‘To these
we may add a sixth—the contract system,
which is bound up indissolubly with the rest.
Taking these evils as they stand, the first by
itself is enough to ruin our art. The ma-
jority of people prefer inferior architecture,
just as they prefer inferior literature, and as
long asthe decision rests with them they are
sure to getit. This fact alone should induce
some moderation in the censure of the pro-
fession : for it proves beyond dispute
that the quality of English architec-
ture is no true measure of the ability
of English architects. They build what they |
may—not what they would. Their worst
too often is accepted—their best rejected.
How many of them follow their own judg-
ment in preference to popular caprice no
reviewer can well ascertain. To know all
existing buildings is not enough: he must
also have examined all proposed designs.
Again, while this state of things continues,
of what use is it to advocate any other
changes? Suppose the architectural profes-
sion abolished to-morrow, and the craft of
bricklayers and masons put in its place : still,
even the working man is human, and, if he
could not get employment on other terms,
might be tempted to popularise his produc-
tions till they were no better than those of
Mr. Street or Mr. Butterfield. Suppose, on
the contrary, that our present designers were
free—that they could follow their own tastes
without the fear of vulgar patrons or sensa-
tional critics—and we will venture to say that
some of them, at least, wouldproduce a class
of work which has been rare enough for cen-
turies past ; and, as things now are, is likely
to remain so still. What is the use of re-
forming our system of building while it is
certain that the public will not allow the
reform to take effect?
The Quarterly reviewer echoes the condem-
nation passed long ago in our own columns
on such architecture as that of Blackfriars
Bridge and 8. Pancras Station. He admits,
what we deplored, that they exactly suit the
popular taste of the day; but he has no
scheme for improving that taste, or for
delivering us from its control. For all that
appears, the uneducated public is still to be
the supreme judge, and have the right of
choice ; does he dream that the getting rid
of an architectural profession will in some
preternatural way endow the public with
wisdom and discernment? ‘This, the most
vital point in the whole argument, is passed
over in silence. Who is to instruct our
judges; who, in Mr. Lowe’s words, is to
educate our masters, we are not informed.
All past experience teaches us that as long
as they can gorge themselves with trash,
they will never take to wholesome food; all
past experience teaches us, too, that the
demand will create a supply, and that as long
as a premium is offered for rubbish, so long
will rubbish be brought to market. Our
reviewer perhaps, looks on his glorified
working man as superior to the temptations
of ordinary humanity ; he expects him to
pursue his way unmoved by offers of wealth
on the one hand and threats of starvation on
the other. If he doés not expect this, his
whole theory explodes at once; it is absurd
to devise a system for producing good archi-
tecture, while it is certain that the majority
of men will not put up with good architecture
on any terms.
We pass on to the second evil, and the one
most prominently put forward in the review,
the false position of architects. We should
rather say the false position of designers ; for
architects, according to our censor, ought to
be deprived of existence forthwith. They
ought to ‘‘ subside into their proper places as
bookmakers, artists, business men, students
of symbolism and archeology.” None of
them, it appears, ought to have anything to
do with building. A talent for building, as
for other things, might, & priori, be supposed
to be pretty equally distributed amongst
different classes of the community; and the
class which had followed that art by choice,
and studied it with enthusiasm, might be
thought as likely to succeed in it as any other.
Not so : architects are the only people who are
never under any circumstances to have any-
thing to do with architecture. The plumber
and the plasterer, the painter and the glazier,
have a future before them; they are real
working men, and capable therefore of pro-
ducing architecture ; even the paper-hanger,
probably, might get as far as to design a
church, which, we are told, was always in the
Middle Ages a very humble and inconspicuous
production ; but the architect’s utmost pri-
vilege, in the coming Millenium, will be to stand afar off and gaze with humility on their efforts. It is true, there will be a—no, not an architect, but something very much like him, only entirely different; like him in his functions, for he will have to settle plans and elevations and general arrangement of all sorts, but inconceivably and unutterably different in a more important point, since he will bear the name of a ‘““master mason” or a “foreman.” This is what the world has been waiting for, this is what is to bring back the fourteenth century, or to surpass it—the calling our designers ‘‘foremen” instead of architects! What a wondrous secret to occupy forty pages of the Quarterly Review! These foremen, indeed, are to be working foremen, though a little practical knowledge would convince our critic that a foreman, to fulfil the duties of his position in a moderate-sized building, cannot work much except in the way of superinten- dence ; still, he could lay a brick now and then, and the influence of this simple act. would be omnipotent for good. We do not. quite see how: perhaps we shall be en- lightened on this point in a future article = meantime we can only believe and wonder.. To be called a ‘‘ foreman,” and to carry about amallet or a trowel—this is the source of architectural greatness. Our designers, it seems, want less in their heads and more in their hands, and when the first are quite- empty and the second quite full our art revival will commence in real earnest. The third evil is the way in which fashion- able architects are overdone with business. A realinjury to the building art does, without doubt, lie here, and we have never shrunk from calling attention to it. It would be incomparably better if the prizes of the profession came in the shape of increased. commission rather than of excessive work. Instead of tempting one man to distribute his thought and attention over twenty different works at a time, architecture would obviously gain if each had the whole care of a competent designer. The assertions in the Quarterly about the way in which business is conducted in leading offices, and the amazing description of assistants as the ‘‘real architects of the day,” are, of course, ridiculous exaggerations. To produce a sensational article, a writer is compelled to draw on his imagination for facts, and amongst the multitude of quack medicine vendors, the Fergussons, and Deni-- sons, and Pugins, who have each an infallible: specific for all architectural maladies, a new— comer may be excused for making a few startling assertions. The only way to be listened to, so late in the day, is to invent some more outrageous paradox than any one: else has ventured on, and it would be cruel to inquire too closely into the truth of state- ments made under the pressure of this in- exorable necessity. We proceed to the next head: the non-employment of the workman’s mental power. The opinions of the Quarterly on this point would be more yaluable if Mr. Ruskin had not already expressed them twenty years ago, and if, from then till now, they had not been a constant subject of thought and discussion amongst everybody interested in the building art. We are all of one mind as to the advantage of having workmen competent to design their work : the only difficulty is to get them. Our reviewer states that it is the architectural profession alone which hinders their appear- ance ; we, knowing the facts of the case, are compelled to believe, on the contrary, that it is the architectural prafession alone which has ever tried to tram them. He seems, however, to think that training is not neces- sary : that once freed from superintendence, and left to themselves without an architect, they will develop the style of the fnture and bring back the Middle Ages. Here, ap- parently, he has overlooked the trifling cir- cumstance that nine-tenths, at least, of our street buildings are, and for centuries have been, put up by workmen without an archi-
