1848.] 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL, 



19S 



been said of it, they seem to hare jifot a most Pecksniffian plan for 

 their building-. Were I, as tliank God I am not, a member of the 

 Army and Navy Club, I should be tempted to hang myself out of 

 pureVexation. iVfter what they have done. Navy and Knavery are 

 likely to beL-ome synonymous words. 



VI. The idea of manufacturing the picturesque out of sucli 

 things as labourers' cottages is not a little absurd; more especially, 

 when two most embarrassing conditions are annexed to the task — 

 tirst, that they shall be erected at a minimum of cost ; secondly, ■ 

 that they shall be free from all those defects, discomforts, and in- 

 conveniences which accompany and contribute to picturesque 

 quality in the works of village Vitruviuses, which marked in their 

 ram state only by uncouthness and meanness, are touched, tinted, 

 and mellowed down by time and weather, into objects delightful to 

 the painter's eye, and congenial subjects for his pencil. Dilapida- 

 tion, or something approaching to it, and touches of lichenous 

 vegetable incrustation, are almost indispensable to qualify a cottage 

 for obtaining an artist's interest and vote. Nor must paucity and 

 sniallness of apertures be forgotten. Yet all these beauties, and 

 many others not here enumerated, are only so many defects in the 

 eyes'of many well-meaning, but prosaic and anti-picturesque people. 

 In fact, a cottage to look at, and a cottage to live iti, are two quite 

 distinct things : the former requires all that constitute so many 

 defects in the latter, and vice versa. While your philanthropist 

 would have no such things as rags in the world, the artist, on the 

 contrary, insists upoa them ; not, indeed, for himself, if he can 

 possibly lielp it, but rags he must and will ha\'e for his beggars 

 and gipsies. And so is it with regard to cottages. I was speak- 

 the other day to an artist friend of mine on the subject, and the 

 schemes for improving laljourers' cottages secundum artem. 

 Shorn of sundry emphatic words, that may as well be here omitted, 

 one of his observations was : " At this rate, we shall not have a 

 decently down-falling-looking- old tenement, nor a properl}- beg- 

 garly hovel in all England." It was to ^•ery little purpose. I ob- 

 served, that painters might draw upon their imagination for 

 i:ottages, as they now do for a good many other things, cherubim 

 included. So far from being consoled by the comfort 1 held out 

 to him, he seemed rather nettled at my remark. 



VII. No doubt, cottages maybe built so as to be exceedingly 

 convenient and comfortable within, and at the same time suffi- 

 (ueutly picturesque in external appearance — at least when Time 

 shall have done his part to them, — until when, they would be apt 

 to look as if they had just been unpacked and taken out of band- 

 boxes. Moreover, they would be comparatively expensive affairs; 

 not perhaps ijuite so costly as royal cottages, but more so than 

 suits the purses or else the parsimony of the devotees to the 

 picturesque. There are bargain-hunters even in matters archi- 

 tectural, — people \\'\io want things both cheaj) and tasty, but who 

 generall)' find out in the end that by the change oi a. t into an «, 

 thev have got hold of what is termed the "' cheap and nasty." It is, 

 indeed, possible to produce tasteful and striking effect with com- 

 paratively little or no money cost. Nevertheless, such effect costs 

 something ; if nothing, or next to nothing, to the employers, it 

 costs architects a \ery great deal, — nothing less than a life of study, 

 .-lud inlinitel)' more study than many make to suffice for a whole 

 life-time. Let me not be understood as saying, that comfortable- 

 ness, convenience, and other more directly utilitarian than poetic 

 or sentimental matters, ought at all to be interfered witli for 

 tlie sake of ensuring picture-like appearance. But I do con- 

 tend that small dwellings, built with regard both to such comforta- 

 bleness, and to strict economy in point of cost, can never be beautiful 

 objects in any sense of the term, unless beauty and homeliness be 

 one and the same thing. Neitlier are they likely ever to become 

 even picturesque, — because what will render a mere hovel so, 

 causes them to appear only tristefulhj squalid, and equally offensive 

 to feeling and to taste. No one has yet disco\'ered the way of 

 making " a silk purse out of a sow's ear." You may, indeed, tie 

 :i silk purse to it, and one well filled with gold : and so may you 

 trick out a cottage with much that shall be from the lery first 

 highly pleasing, on account of its being studiedly elegant and 

 tasteful; but then it will be an expensive affair — at any rate, 

 ciimparatively expensive, because if effect is to be attended to and 

 produced, there must be a good deal more or less beyond what 

 mere necessity would dictate. Besides which, even if cost be not 

 at all regarded, there is very great danger of a building of the 

 kind, when intended partly as an ornamental object, turning 

 out a very finical-looking one. He who is a mere architect, is not 

 capable of treating such subjects properly: in order to do so, he 

 must have more of the artist in him than falls to the share of 

 architects in general, — 'or, instead of the artistic or artistic- 

 picturesque, he will only give us the artificial. Was ever painter 



so smitten by what may be called an architectural tricked-out 

 comme-il-faut and secundum artem design, as to venture to introduce 

 it into a picture ? As soon would he think of peopling a landscape 

 with the satin-slippered and silk-stockinged peasants of the Opera- 

 house, instead of the vulgar worsted-stocking, or perhaps stock- 

 ingless, creatures of real life,— wliether iji the land of John Bull, or 

 any other. Cottages tliat are really and positively picturesque, 

 are those erected by people who ne\er thought of the picturesque, 

 or perhaps even never heard of such word. If it should be 

 asked what it is then that has rendered them picturesque, I 

 answer, Accident, and all that causes builders, surve\ors, ap- 

 praisers, and auctioneers to shake their heads at them, as if there 

 was anything in them — I mean in their own heads. 



ARCHITECTURE AT THE ROYAL ACADEMY ; 



AND THE ARCniTECTUKAL DRAWINGS AT THE EXHIBITION. 



Since our preceding publication, matters look more and more 

 cheering — riper for reform, and indicating the necessity for it. 

 The Art-Jouniat scruples not to tell its readers vei-y bluntly that 

 architectural drawings have no business to be in the Exhibition. 

 The editor seems to have made up his mind that there could not 

 possibly be two opinions as to the proprietj- of excluding them 

 altogether ; and, to say the truth, they might almost as well be so 

 as experience the scurvy treatment they now do. As to the ill- 

 will which he manifests towards architecture, we will merely say, 

 that it is not exactly the tliiiiy for a gentleman to do who conducts 

 an art-journal, and who professes to watch over the interests of 

 art in all its branches, — and some of the lowest of them he takes 

 under his especial patronage : much good may it do them. Con- 

 sidering the quarter it comes from, we are not at all surprised at 

 the ill-will just instanced ; but surprised we are, and that in no 

 small degree, at an outrageous instance of similar feeling on the 

 part of the Royal Academy. As the fact has been publicly noticed 

 and animadverted upon by others, our readers will probably have 

 guessed that we allude to a model of Miss Burdett Coutts's church 

 having been sent in by its architect, Mr. Ferrey, and turned away ! 

 No wonder, therefore, that there is nothing of the kind in this 

 season's exhibition. If there vvere any other productions of the 

 same class that met with the same fate, we cannot say : it is just 

 as probable as not that there vvere at least some ; yet, whether such 

 were the case makes no difference as to the animus displayed by 

 the Academy. Had more models been sent in than could possibly 

 be accommodated, some of them must, of course, have been ex- 

 cluded. But to reject while there was room — not to suffer so 

 much as a single one to appear in the Exhibition, vvas really too 

 bad, and showed singular \iant of tact also. If the Academy 

 were determined not to admit models, they ought at least to have 

 said as much in their advertisements to those who intended to 

 exhibit. That would, at any rate, have been acting straight- 

 forwardly. They might have been well aware, that although 

 models actually e.\hibited might fail to obtain notice, the entire 

 absence of them would excite remark. Had none been sent, what- 

 ever remark had been made could not affect them, because they 

 cannot compel persons to exhibit. But to act as they have done is 

 nothing less than a solemn blunder, it being certain to lead to 

 explanations and comments that are not at all to the honour of the 

 Academy. If the painters are ashamed of having architecture in 

 their company, let them honestly and openly declare as much, 

 instead of resorting to every sort of mean and dirty trickery in 

 order to force it out. If the Academy can shift without archi- 

 tecture, the latter can shift equally well without the Academy, 

 there being, most luckily, another royal, and eminently public- 

 spirited body, which only waits for architecture being dismissed 

 from the Academy, to bring it more effectively before the public. 

 Nothing — so we are assured — but delicacy towards the Academy, 

 has withheld the Institute from getting up an annual exhibition of 

 architectural designs of every class, upon an adequate scale. 

 AVell, they need not now be restrained by delicacy, for it would be 

 entirely thrown away after the " exliibition" of the cloven-foot in 

 their conduct towards architecture. 



For our part, we are not at all sorry that the Academy have 

 acted as they have done, because they now leave no room for 

 doubting of their hostility towards architecture. They have now 

 fairly committed themselves ; and if architects should not now be 

 stirred up to resent the insults put upon their art, and upon them- 

 selves as a professional body, they will richly deserve to be treated 

 with ignominy and scorn. We would fain be of better hope. We 



26* 



