66 THE BUILDING NEWS. Jan. 26, 1872. — eS eee given them to work with, and by so doing they would follow in the footsteps of the best of their prede- cessors. But if stucco can be decorated, what can be done with brick ? A little while since Mr. E. W. Godwin offered a prize to the members cf the Asso- ciation for the best design for the front of an ordinary Gower-street house, and in answer several very pretty designs were sent in; but he believed in every case the idea was to pull down the front and rebuild it, and the objection to this is that it is very certain very few, if any, of the people in Gower- street will pull down the fronts of their houses and rebuild. But how are they to be made artistic and interesting without pulling them down? This ques- tion seemed to be a poser; he could not imagine one of these houses in Gower-street looking interesting without pulling down the front and rebuilding it. He could only suggest: put some flower trays in front of every window, put some large pots or boxes in basement area, and train creepers on trellises up the front if they will grow. Mr. Payne then passed on to his last point—viz., that there is a want of general supervision in London from a fine-art point of view. Nothing is more striking in London than the utter confusion and want of plan in the place, taken as a whole; it is more like a collection of towns than one town, and the streets wind about and bend here and there in a sort of fortuitous manner, as if their position were the result of chance. The rights of separate individuals everywhere seem to override the public advantage, and the same is apparent in the motley architectural character of the streets. One man has his warehouse or shop built in Classic ; his neighbour adjoins thereto a Gothic building, without the slightest attempt to make it accord in any way with the former one. He thought Regent-street was the only street of any architectural pretensionsin London which had anything like similarity or unity of design about it. In other cases the only attempt seems to be to make each separate building look well per se, with- out considering whether it is in harmony with the rest of the street of which it forms a part. Another thing most noticeable in London is the number of untidy uglinesses which mar almost every view. If any man carries on in a town a business which is offensive to the sense of smell or hearing he can be prosecuted as a public nuisance; but he is allowed to offend against the more subtle sense of sight, by putting up some monstrosity which is a perpetual eyesore, with impunity. This seems as great a nuisance as the others. Let any one, for instance, examine the different views of London on the north side of the river from the various bridges or points along the Embankment ; he will hardly find a single view which is not spoilt by one of these eyesores, which would not be tolerated for an instant in the best parts of a Continental city. Of what avail is the consummate art with which Wren designed the beautiful spirelets of the City in perfect harmony with his glorious masterpiece, S. Paul’s—so aptly termed “the mother and daughters of London ”—when every view is marred by the introduction of some factory chimney or huge gasometer, which might at least be banished to the other side of the river, or by such specimens of fine art as the Charing Cross and Cannon-street railway stations—the one adorned with a couple of sow’s ears towards the river; and the other left in native ugliness? There are far more blots, blemishes, and general untidinesses about views of London and English cities generally than Conti- nental ones. Are we to draw a deduction from this that the English are naturally deficient in taste as museums which are only occasionally seen, surely still larger sums should be spent, and the very highest talent employed, to prevent lessons of bad taste being every day thrust under the eyes of the people in the streets. But who have we to preside over the fine art of our streets? Have we a board of several gentlemen eminent in art matters and taste, who have given up their lives to the subject, and spent years in foreign travel to prepare them- selves for so important a post? No; we haye a First Commissioner of Public Works, to whom it would almost seem that Nature has denied that exquisite pleasure which is derived from the contem- plation of ‘‘a thing of beauty,” for he publicly ex- presses his contempt for fine art altogether. Can we have a stronger proof of the contempt with which fine art is treated even now in thiscountry in high quarters than in the fact that they are presided over by a man whose very name has passed into a by-word of bad taste, so that it is pretty much the same whether we say ‘‘ Ayrtonism” or vandalism ? or rather, vandalism is the comparative of a word of which ‘‘ Ayrtonism” is the superlative. But there are hopeful signs; Mr. Ayrton is not popular, and there is a growing love of fine art amongst the people. Our new Embankment along the river is the finest in the world, and it is to be hoped that there is a bright future for London before us. There were several other points which Mr. Payne said he should have liked to have taken up in connection with this subject, such as the desirability of provid- ing accommodation in flats for all classes, and the advantage of building houses higher, with wider streets and openings between. At present very many quarters of London are taken up with numbers of small houses designed for only one family, but generally occupied by two or three; but these things have been amply dealt with elsewhere, and they are such large subjects of themselves that it would be quite impossible to go into them within the ordinary limits of a paper. Mr. West, in proposing a vote of thanks to Mr. Payne for his paper, remarked that Mr. Payne had far over-estimated the advantages of Paris; as a whole, that city was far worse than London. Mr. Boyes seconded the proposition, which, having been supported by Mr. G. R. Redgrave, was put from the chair, and unanimously carried, Mr. Payne having said a few words in reply, the meeting terminated. _———— WORK-PEOPLE’S DWELLINGS IN AMERICA. CORRESPONDENT of the New York Tri- bune describes the growth of Cohoes, ‘an American city of factories,” situated at the confluence of the Hudson and Mohawk rivers. Having de- scribed the various mills and foundries, he speaks of the dwellings of the work-people of the city. He says that 700 dwelllngs occupied by employés are owned by the corporation, and 100 more are in course of erection. Some of them are built of brick and some of wood. They are on wide streets, which are regularly laid out, kerbed, and paved with asphal- tum concrete, and have trees planted along the side walks. The dwellings are built on lots, 100ft. in depth by 25ft. frontage; some have gardens in front, and vary in rent from 34 dols. to 6 dols. per month, including water, which is supplied to each house. The rooms of these houses are generally 16ft. square, and each house contains, when intended for married men with families, three bedrooms, a compared with other nations? This may be partly ; kitchen, a sitting-room, an entry, and stairway. true, and the lack of unity of plan so discernible in English cities no doubt has its rise in that individu- | ality and love of freedom which is one of the cardinal points of the English character; but more must be Jaid to the door of that strong current of Puritanism which has set in so strongly in Christendom for the Jast two centuries, and especially in England. If this age is anything, it is a utilitarian age; utili- tarianism, no doubt, is a virtue, but it has been carried so far as almost to despise beauty. Orna- ments of any sort, and all things beautiful, have been thought fit for Oriental and effeminate nations, or perhaps for the French, but quite beneath the notice of practical Englishmen. Fortunately, how- ever, thelove of beauty is a goddess, and heaven-born, and cannot be slain by any age, however fanatical —not, at all events, while Nature pays her such worship in her glorious architecture, where beauty and utility go hand in hand. Hence we see the strong reaction that has undoubtedly set in in favour of fine art. Large sums are annually spent at South Kensington and schools of art generally to educate the people in this important subject. So far so good; but surely the streets should not be allowed to counteract what is learnt at the schools of art! If large sums of money are spent in
Where two families occupy the same house separate front doors and stairways are arranged for each family. The Harmony Mills Company have pro- vided all these streets with lamps, which are regularly lighted. They also own a steam fire-engine, kept under their own control, in addition to the one be- longing to the city. The greatest care has been taken to provide comfortable boarding-houses for young men and women in the employ of the company. There are five of them. One of them, intended for girls, was visited by the Jribune’s correspondent. It would accommodate 150 boarders, who took their meals together, two girls occupying a sleeping-room (12ft. square, with a ceiling 94ft. high) together, each room being provided with a large window, and each door with a transom ventilator above it. On each floor was a large sitting-room, on whose walls were some attractive chromos ; andin this boarding- house was a sick-room, medical attendance being provided at the expense of the company. >» ___—_ The ratepayers of Hull have been so short- sighted as to decide to oppose the establishment of a free library in the town. Fifteen years since the same proposal was put forward in the town, and frustrated in a similar manner.
PEDESTALS.
By Tuomas Morris.
(Concluded from p. 41.)
gre point his Shaksperian criticism, Kent's bio-
“ grapher says “This thing belongs to the
cockney school of sculpture.” But I pass to an-
other author. It would be in the power of any
writer of a handbook to Westminster Abbey to ridi-
cule anddepreciate, or to magnify its contents at
pleasure; but Mr. Peter Cunningham’s impartiality
may be more correctly estimated when illustrated
by his observations on two parallel works, e.g. :—
(1.) “Sir Stamford Raffles (d. 1826); Sir Thomas
Stamford Raffles, F.R.S., Lieutenant-Governor of
Java, and first President of the Zoological Society
of London, by Sir Francis Chantrey, and one of the best
of his sitting figures ; calm, contemplative, and manly.
Cost £2,300.” LordCourcy’s monument separates the
above from (2) that of William Wilberforce (d. 1833).
Here the handbook says: “‘ William Wilberforce, the
philanthropist, a sitting figure, by S. Joseph, and
rather more in the spirit of caricature than of sculp-
ture. The crossed legs of the Knights Templars
was a symbol of religion ; crossed legs in modern
sculpture a mark of careless freedom, completely re-
motefrom the gravity of marble. Mr. Joseph has placed
his Wilberforce as a companion statue to Chantrey’s
Sir Stamford Raffles. The position is of his own seek-
ing, and one by which he will suffer rather than gain.
This is the Madame Tussaud style of sculpture, and
unworthy Mr. Joseph’s well-known talents.” I
would not take from Chantrey even the “ gravity
of marble,” by which, but for his example, the British
school might have been less heavily oppressed. This
gravity defeats variety of attitude and play of ex-
pression. It confines idealism to the world of marble
rather than of nature. It shuns the accidental
changes of frame or facethat best characterise vitality.
But if an opposite inference can be drawn from any
example in the Abbey it is the portrait statue of
William Wilberforce. Chantrey generalised (itmay
be ennobled) his Sir Stamford Raffles, but Joseph drew
his whole inspiration from the individual before him ;
certainly no ordinary sitter. He was equally endued
with the most rigid principle and the most gay and
playful disposition. ‘‘ He was the most amusable
man,” says Sir James Mackintosh, ‘‘ I ever met with
in my life. Instead of having to think what sub-
jects will interest him, it is perfectly impossible to
hit on one that does not. I never saw any one who
touched life at so many points, and this is the more
remarkable in a man whois supposed to live absorbed
in the contemplation of a future state. When he
was in the House of Commons he seemed to have the
freshest mind of any man there. There was all the
charm of youth about him, and he is quite as re-
markable in this bright evening of his days as when
I saw him in his glory many years ago.” Was this
acharacter to falsify by generalization? I cannot
think so ; but rather consider that the world of art has
been benefited by the wonderful individuality here
displayed. It did not, perhaps, sufficiently strike
Chantrey’s amanuensis and allied supporter that
their relation was too immediate for the entire safety
of their patron’s name when making these detractory
remarks on other artists. The Wilberforce statue
might, with more propriety, be referred to the school
of Polycletus. The figure is seated in a Greek chair,
of which the detail is most carefully designed and
admirably carved. The Raffles figure has the same
kind of seat without ornament, and it is partially
hidden by drapery. So, also, has the colossal figure
of James Watt, in the chapel of S. Paul, for which
Chantrey’s price was £6,000. They are all raised
by blocks or pedestals of moderate height, on which
the respective inscriptions are cut, but in every other
point are as free from sepulchral character as Chan-
trey’s Sir Joseph Banks, in the British Museum, a
work of great merit and on a pedestal of superior de-
sign. Itis surely in the first degree essential to
taste and common-sense that congruity of style
should prevail throughout all parts of a work, let
that work be ultimately placed wherever it may. If,
therefore, a sculptor elect to produce a figure on the
Grecian model, and seat that figure in a Grecian
chair, it follows that the pedestal, which forms the
base and footing of the group, should be Grecian too.
Yet Mr. Peter Cunningham tells us that the orna-
4
