OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 



37 



ever a general conference of the three with 

 the client, and even more rarely is there real 

 collaboration worthy of the name. What 

 actually occurs is this: Some details are es- 

 tablished by one of the three, and the process 

 thereafter is that of warping the several in- 

 dividual ideas into a sort of harmony of ar- 

 rangement or expression. It is a rather ne- 

 bulous ideal which remains nebulous through 

 our persistence in the use of values which ap- 

 ply alone to the narrow field in which we are 

 individually engaged. The attitude already 

 expressed as that of the average client, to- 

 gether with the disintegrated results to be ob- 

 served upon every hand, are most significant 

 when examined in an attitude of inquiry which 

 seeks its cause. The student must learn to 

 look upon his contribution not as an independ- 

 ent element which may at will be added or 

 taken away but rather as a factor to be in- 

 tegraded with other factors. All this may 

 seem so obvious that it is hardly worth the 

 stating, yet if one looks about with some pur- 

 pose of analysis, he soon discovers that illus- 

 trations or examples of such united effort are 

 rare indeed. Our schools are preparing ele- 

 ments to be used in a mixture; they are not 

 making a compound. Or, to use another fig- 

 ure, it is a patch-work quilt upon which they 

 are working when they should be weaving a 

 fabric. The architectural student looks with 

 an attitude of unsj'mpathetic criticism upon 

 both the practical (vocational) and the ro- 

 mantic tendencies of the school of landscape 

 design. The student in landscape architecture 

 looks upon the work of the architectural stud- 

 ent with his formal plans covered with 

 "mosaique" and oftentimes meaningless con- 

 ventions, as void of any value whatsoever. 

 The student in decorations has no use for the 

 cold, monumental, conventional indications of 

 the architect, while the architect depreciates 

 the "interiors" of the decorator, showing as 

 they so often do, little else than a bit of 

 "period" wall, a chair, a table, and a bit of 

 cliintz. In answer to the question, "How can 

 we achieve collaboration?", he answered — only 

 by breaking down the hedge or the wall that 

 separates the school of architects from the 

 school of landscape architects. The students 

 of both should collaborate. He suggested the 

 students of both schools be given the same 

 problem. In his opinion, this would develop 

 a desiraljlc working relation which would pro- 

 duce a foundation on which to build in after 

 years. Mr. .Ackerman said that if a student of 

 architecture goes to a school of engineering 



this does not make him an engineer but rather 

 it makes him appreciate the engineer's point 

 of view and prepares him to co-operate the 

 better when in practice in after years, they are 

 called in to work on a given problem. We 

 must show the student that his entire environ- 

 ment counts, and that unity of expression is of 

 first importance. 



Mr. Caparn called upon Mr. J. C. Mollar, a 

 guest from South America, who responded by 

 stating that he had started as an architect and 

 degenerated into a contracting engineer. He 

 told of the difficulties in landscape problems 

 particularly in the north of Peru, where it was 

 necessary to transport earth several hundred 

 miles in order to have gardens. 



Mr. Vitale was then called upon. He ex- 

 pressed an interest in a system of education 

 such as Mr. Ackerman had outlined, and told 

 of the student work at Rome. 



February 16, 1917. Boston annual meeting, 

 Hotel Vendome, Boston. 



Present: Messrs. Blaney, Blossom, Brett, 

 Brinckerhofif, Caparn, Comey, Fleming, Fow- 

 ler, Gay, Gibbs, Hall, Kellaway, J. C. Olm- 

 sted, Pond, Pray, Reynolds, Shurtleff, F. A. C. 

 Smith, S. C. Smith, Vitale. 



In the absence of the secretary, Mr. De- 

 Forest, Mr. Brinckerhoff was elected secretary 

 pro tem. On motion it was 



Voted: To waive the reading of the minutes 

 of the last meeting. 



The president stated that owing to the wider 

 geographical distribution of members it had 

 now for several years proved impossible to get 

 together a quorum at any meeting of the so- 

 ciety, and that moreover even were the ma- 

 jority of the voting members present, the by- 

 laws no longer permit a meeting to commit 

 the society on any matter of importance. Such 

 matters must be submitted to the whole mem- 

 bership for mail ballot vote. No action of this 

 meeting, then, could commit the society. 

 Nevertheless, these meetings are of great 

 value, not merely in bringing the members to- 

 gether but in providing opportunities for dis- 

 cussions of important matters and for express- 

 ing the "sense of the meeting" on these mat- 

 ters by actual votes, which, while not com- 

 mitting the society, are nevertheless of interest 

 to the whole membership and most influential 

 in determining the society's decisions. On in- 

 quiry he stated that in these discussions and 

 votes Juniors as well as Fellows are expected 

 to take active part. The main purpose of this 

 meeting was to consider, discuss, and vote 



