•214 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



[June, 



ON SCULPTURE AND ARCHITECTURE. 



He would confci a large benefit on art, nlio, in a pliilosopliical spirit, 

 should betake himself to the detecting of its great principles ; and, 

 shaking from his mind the load of professional clogs, pr^' freely and 

 boldly into the beautiful trcausure of nature, to draw thence tlie secret 

 of her workmanship for the guidance of her imitators ; and if the book 

 that recorded liis labours should do little itself towards its object, yet it 

 might give birth to another, or a scries of labours and books which 

 should effect a thorough investigation, ending in the satisfactory ascer- 

 taining and fixing of the universal and inevitable in art. If liis labuurs 

 should not produce, and his book publish, a code, yet so might a foun- 

 dation be laid for tlie erecting of a code ; and if not even thai, yet 

 it might stir up some sleeping philosopher or philosophers to do the 

 work he has failed to do, — at least, to miike a solid basement on which 

 (now or at any time) the perlect building could be raised, story by 

 story, to its completest form. The importance of a system, imme- 

 diately or gradually, perfected ; an undisputed, indisputable code of 

 laws, universally applicable — to which the artist might go for guidance, 

 and the critic for authority, and the importance of even a single caput 

 in the code— sliould make the smallest attempt welcome, and entitle it 

 to tender usage. But attempts are more to be desired than hoped for ; 

 the labourer's reward is of fame only, whose wreaths are not golden 

 wreaths, and who coquettishly distributes them such as they are. 



In a lower degree, still, attempts towards the detection of some one 

 or two principles, in limited portions of art. claim a diminished con- 

 sideration. They may be of advantage; truths (of less value, indeed, 

 because limited in application, yet of some value) may be, though not 

 perhaps discovered, at least promulgated ; and, at the worst, if the 

 attempts be full of error — yet if of sufficient importance lo excite atten- 

 tion— they lead to their own refutation, ai-.d to the clearing away of just 

 so much rubbish tliat might, perhaps, at some time or otlier impede the 

 workman. And in the course of the investigation trainsof thought may 

 be suggested, pursuing wliich (Ibr of a spark comes the fire) the artist 

 may escape out of the labyrinth of tangled technicalities and perplexity 

 of indifferent details which now smotiier many a large genius in infancy, 

 that, but for them, had betaken itself to the great sclioolmaster in arl[ 

 Nature, and had educated and unfolded itselfto the strength of a full 

 man. It is impossible to avoid acknowledging that neither in the works 

 of modern artists nor the opinions of modern critics generally, is there 

 any evidence that much thought has been expended on their labours, or 

 that any considerable knowledge has been acquired by either of the 

 great foundations of their craft. They are practical wailings over the 

 absence of the philosophical dnector, and even no acquaintance can be 

 discovered in tliem with .these generalities, which belong to their own 

 particular province. 



Thus much, for warding off the strokes of censure from the following 

 comparison of the two arts, sculpture and architecture, as they are con- 

 cerned in the embodying of the beautiful. It must be observed that the 

 useful is set aside as not concerned with tlie work (the Nelson memo- 

 rial) which suggests tliese remarks ; and tliat by bcaiKv isalwaysintended 

 the abstract, most exalted, and purest : it is not used in that unlimited 

 manner by which, in common speech, it represents every quality, from 

 deformity upwards. 



Beauty, tlien, in art cannot e.xist, independently of imitation. The 

 object of nniration is Nature— 1st, in order animate ; 2nd, Inanimate : 

 considering art as merely imitative ; the most excellent imitation of the 

 highest class constitutes the most perfect work. Thus the perfect 

 imitation of a man is a superior work to the peifect imitation of a tree. 



Sculpture imitates the fiist and most excellent class, and is therefore 

 superior to that which imitates tlie second— viz., inanimate nature ; but 

 where is this last to be found ? Has any artist copied atree, or a moun- 

 tain (unless the pyramids be feeble copies), or the sea ( unless the molten 

 sea of Solomon, which we may imagine was no very wonderful work) V 

 Imitation, then, would seem to be confined to sculpture ; and if beauty 

 cannot exist independent of imitation, beauty must be allowed to be 

 confined to sculpture. Architecture, then, is not an imitative art, but 

 ranks lower ; and, adhering to the first concession, beauty is wanting 

 to aichitcctuie. And so long as the beautiful is regarded a's the end of 

 art, architecture is a much inferier art to sculpture. Buildings are 

 chiefly for habitation, either of gods or men ; they are temples or 

 houses. The Druidical gods inhabited— that is, their temples were 

 sometimes— trees ; and could man roost on branches, as fowl do, his 

 wrought house might be the imitation of a tree, if real trees should fail, 

 or be inconvenient. Tlien architecture would be lifted up into the 

 ranks of the imitative arts, and would be inferior to sculpture only as 

 Its model would be of a lower class. As it is, man's house is a pro- 

 tection from weather and assault ; and these are the prior objects in 

 Its construction. The best adapted form to secure tliese objects being 

 determined, it remains to bring into the work as much beauty as can be 



admitted, without prejudice to the objects. Here, then, the architect 

 flies to nature for a model ; and in proportion to the amount of perfect 

 imitation brought into his work, would be the amount of beauty. But 

 again nature fails him ; as lie finds no model for his whole work, so 

 neither can he for its parts. Unless we allow that columns are imita- 

 tions of human form, and certain parts of Gothic architecture imitations 

 of groves of trees — which, the resemblance being so slight, it would be 

 hard to do. Not allowing tliese, and setting aside those ornaments, bor- 

 rowed from sculpture, which are inartificial additions to the architectural 

 design, do not assist, even feignedly, in the carrying out of the design, 

 and which, therefore, do not belong properly to architecture, there 

 is, neither in thewhole work of the architect, nor in its parts, imitation ; 

 and therefore the beautiful does not at all enter into it, either as a whole 

 or in detail ; and the workman would seem to have nothing for it but 

 to fall back upon utility and perfect his work to tiiat end. Something, 

 however, may be attempted beyond ; acompromise may be niadebetween 

 utility and beauty — beauty conceding a great deal, and utility a little. A 

 ccriain sort of imitation tliere may be, not of actual models, but of the 

 principles discoverable in them. The ingredierrtsand sources of beauty 

 in nature's models may be searched for, and if any can be found that aie 

 independent of adaptation, these may be brought into aichiteeture, and 

 the artist mav endeavour to develop them in his work. Tliiis the pro- 

 portions of height to breadth, found in the most perfect models furnished 

 by nature to the imitative aits, might be, and most probably were, 

 applied by the earlier architects to those parts of their work which 

 admitted of it. Thus they may have applied to the Doric column the 

 general proportions found in men, animals, or tree trunks remarkable 

 for strength, hs that order is intended to express strength. The thin- 

 ness of thedoric may have been founded on the slighter form of woman, 

 that order expressing grace ; sublimity is connected with size, chiefly 

 height; breadth adds more to strength. With these faint conceptions 

 and imperfectly settled principles the architect goes to his work, without 

 a model, and therefore without a test — the uncertain workman of his 

 own uncertain speculations. Hence the variety of opinions among the 

 best instructed and mo<t capable artists, the changing nature of tlie 

 standard; viz., the succeeding oiders. 



So much for sculpture and archilecture; art being regarded as merely 

 imitative. But there is yet something beyond, which raises art to a 

 higher rank than imitation alone ever could ; that is, to the creative ; to 

 the proper regions of poetry : for true poetry, whether it has its ex- 

 pression in language ur form, nr whatsoever, is the conceiving, and 

 making of a work superior to its model, and is not the creating of a 

 work after no model. Imitation is the basis, and is never in the most 

 exalted works of poetry dispensed with. Genius is of an higher order, 

 as it carries out its model nearer to a perfect ideal excellence. Thus, 

 in men, maybe detected the initiative of moral perfection : the imita- 

 tion that expresses this, is an inferior work of art — poetry will conceive 

 and express moral qualities of an higher order than those that are 

 found in any model ; and will be more exalted as it climbs higher 

 towards their perfection. Sculpture and architecture de.-il with form, 

 and form is either the subject or the means ; it is cither final or medial. 

 When final — when form is regarded for itself ahiiie — the question 

 arises. Can there be any thing beyond imitation ? Can forms be created 

 like those to which the sense has been accustomed, yet 3ielding a 

 superior satisfaction to the sense 'i If tlie sense be thus capable, we 

 see not why new forms without model should not also satisfy it, and 

 then arcliitecture would stand orr the same level with sculptirre. The 

 examination of this question would lead to others ; such as, whether 

 there be in the organs of man an inherent adaptivcness to beauty, or 

 only an acquired y whether beauty is self-existent or ilependent':' and 

 so forth : to which, perhaps, tliere never could be certain satisfactory 

 answers. It will be more safe to assume that form cannot be created 

 nor amended, but imitated, when it is regarded as an end ; but when as 

 a means, when it is the expression of faculties, as the instinctive and 

 the reasoning, then art uses it, and, using it, thereby enables itself to 

 advance beyond imitation, and becomes creative ; for all faculties are 

 imperfect, in the best models. These can be conceived the perfection of 

 the faculties — and it is possible to express, by form, that perfection, 

 which, yet not being expressed in any known form, the aitist cannot 

 express by imitating, but may by creating. Here then sculpture 

 surpasses itself and architecture. Granting to the latter every tliin<' ; 

 that, up to this point it has gone hand in handwith sculpture, that there 

 is in it an equal capaciiy to satisfy the sense; yet, at least, now, it 

 halts and drops behind. Sculpture is at work with the highest possible 

 subjects; form is no longer presented to the eye, but the soul to the 

 soul ; arrd now also it becomes important as an instrument in the hands 

 of the state, with which the state may work powerfully ; for the whole 

 mass of sympathies, good and bad, are within its influence. Mental and 

 moral excellence or deiiravity are ever-present models or beacons for 

 good, or for ill. 



