190 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



I Jti,v, 



ret'i-et if not actual distrust when employed for, or rather waste- 

 fully thrown away upon, an inferior or even decidedly had desij^n. 

 Insisting so strongly as he does upon excellence of material and 

 workmanship as a xiiif-qita-iwn in architecture, and as if they were 

 of themselves all-sufficient— for, although perhaps he may intend 

 that it should he inferred, he says nothing as to the necessity for 

 corresponding excellence of design, notwithstanding that there 

 is very great occasion for insisting mainly upon that as the foun- 

 dation of all other excellence,— Mr. lluskin seems after all to en- 

 tertain hut rather low, not to sav vulgar notions of architecture 

 and its powers as a line art. A hiiilding that can be admired— as 

 far as it can he admired at all— only for the beauty and money- 

 worth of its materials, — and there are many such— is so far from 

 being an honour to, as to be a reproach to the aixhitect. It is for 

 the latter to confer a value u))on even the homeliest materials, and 

 to stamp a charm upon costly ones that shall enhance their ori- 

 ginal market value hundredfold, or even more; not for the material 

 and mere manual execution to give a vulgar £ a. d. value, as has 

 frequently been the case ere now, to Pecksniffian taste and Peck- 

 sniffian design. And so far, iMr. Ruskin shows himself to be too 

 much of a materialist in art, and to be strangely devoid of aesthetic 

 sensibility. 



III. Even where there is equal beauty ff both material and de- 

 sign, it is for the latter alone that the aVchitect himself can claim 

 anv merit, for as to the other, and the workmanship of it, they 

 belong not to him, but in the first instance to his employers, and 

 in the next to the actual operatives. As far as his own talent is 

 concerned, it makes no difference whether his ideas be realised in 

 genuine or fictitious materials. That there usually is a great deal 

 of vulgar, barbarous, and paltry taste sliown where such materials 

 are made use of, is not to be denied; yet that is more the ftiult of 

 the design and the designer, or of paltry and slovenly execution, 

 than of the deception itself; which, if it be such as to impose 

 upon and consequently perfectly satisfy the eye, produces just the 

 same effect as would result from employing the actual materials 

 which are simulated. That refined taste and elegance may be dis- 

 played with materials which are in themselves of little or no 

 money-worth, is proved by Greek fictile vases and many antique 

 terracotta ornaments. Certain also it is that as objects of art, 

 well executed plaster casts from approved originals are preferable 

 to ordinary marble statues. It is owing to tastelessness and truni- 

 periness of design, and to slovenly coarseness of execution, far 

 more than to the ordinary quality of the materials employed, that 

 we have so much architectural trumpery. Because embellishment 

 with fictitious materials costs comparatively little, it is generally 

 oifensively overdone, and thereby alone proclaims itself to be spu- 

 rious; whereas, were it applied with proper reserve and discretion, 

 decoration of the same kind — of course provided it were satisfac- 

 torily executed^might pass unquestioned. 



IV. So great is Mr. Ruskiii's enthusiastic admiration of cost and 

 labour for their own sake, that lie would have the same degree of 

 finish bestowed upon those parts of a building which are out of 

 sight, or nearly so, as on those which can be closely inspected. 

 "The principle of honesty," he tells us, "must govern our treat- 

 ment: we must not work "any kind of ornament which is, perhaps, 

 to cover the whole building "(or at least to occur on all parts of it) 

 delicately where it is near the eye, and rudely where it is removed 

 from it. That is trickery and dishonesty." My good Johnny 

 Ruskin, what an admirably honest world we should live in had we 

 no more dishonesty and moral delinquency than such decejition 

 amounts to, to encounter or complain of. Now, it is a generally 

 received maxim among artists that they should jn-oportion the de- 

 gree of finish they bestow on their work to the distance at which 

 it is intended to be viewed. So long as there be the appearance of 

 finish, it matters not how it is produced; nay, rude touches of the 

 pencil or chisel may tell effectively where the same careful mani- 

 pulation as is required for similar decoration that can be closely 

 examined would not tell at all. Even Mr. Ruskin is somewhat at 

 variance with himself when he afterwards says in another place: 

 " It is evident that for architectural appliances, masculine handling, 

 likely as it must be to retain its eil'ectiveness when high finish 

 would be injured by time, must always be the most expedient; and 

 as it is impossible, even were it desirable, that the highest finish 

 should be given to the quantity of work which covers a large 

 building, it will be understood how precious the intelligence must 

 become which renders incompletion itself a means of additional 

 expression; and how great must be the difference, when the touches 

 are rude and few, between those of a careless and those of a 

 regardful mind." To the passage just quoted I fully assent, — 

 not, perhaps, very disinterestedly, because it in fact makes strongly 

 for my own argument against what Mr. Ruskin had previously 



urged. There is, indeed, no greater test of genuine artistic skill 

 than the producing by means of what considered in themselves 

 would appear to ordinary eyes mere rude and random touches, just 

 the desired effect — the labour of the mind sparing all superfluous 

 and unnecessary labour of the hand. 



V. The following is an excellent piece of advice, and one of the 

 best and most pertinent remarks in Mr. Ruskin's book: "Among 

 the first liabits that a young architect should learn is that of 

 thinking in shadow, not looking at a design in its miserable liny 

 skeleton." The necessity for so doing requires to be impressed 

 upon the student, because according to the now almost universal 

 practice, on the continent especially, of showing architectural sub- 

 jects in mere outline engraving, the expression derived from liglit 

 and shade in all their various modifications and effects, is entirely 

 withdrawn from the student's consideration; whereas it is what — 

 if he is ever to become an artist in his profession — deserves his 

 most thoughtful attention. "Liny skeletons," as Mr. Ruskin very 

 happily calls them, give us rather abstractions of buildings — dis- 

 embodied unsubstantial spectra of them — than actual representa- 

 tions of them as they show themselves to the eye. No wonder 

 therefore that, excellent as they may be in themselves, works en- 

 graved in that manner have no interest for any except professional 

 men and a few studious amateurs. It must be admitted that out- 

 line engravings are eminently serviceable in one respect, because 

 they show form in all its minutest lineaments more clearly than 

 shadowed ones can do; and they thereby lead to correctness of eye 

 and hand in draw ing. Their insufficiency consists in their not 

 showing buildings as they really do appear, or designs as they will 

 appear, when executed. Many a building which when so shown has 

 a very disagreeably bald and vacant look, may, wlien seen in its pro- 

 per substantiality", and in all the vigour of broad liglit and shade, 

 be a striking object; and so, on the other hand, one which looks 

 exceedingly well when judged of by its pattern in outline, may be, 

 or turn out to be, comparatively unsatisfactory, tame, and spirit- 

 less. The greater pai-t of the details, perhaps, which show so well 

 as ornamental pattern upon paper, will be found hardly to show 

 themselves at all or very imperfectly in the actual structure. It 

 is owing to the practice of architects giving their attention too 

 exclusively to linear appearance alone, instead of at the same time 

 "thinking in shadow' also, that we get so much of mere pretty 

 pattern. AVe frequently see a great many "very nice" parts — a 

 "nice" bit there, another "nice" bit there, and so on; — just the 

 very things, perliaps, for an architectural scrap-book, where they 

 would be in their proper place. AVe can dispense with fragmentary 

 niceties of tliat sort in our buildings, which ought to show well- 

 considered artistic compositions, and not be mere scrap-books in 

 stone. — I have here been interrupted by a visitor, who, on my 

 pointing out to him \thfit Ptuskin says as to the necessity for 

 thinking in shadow, observed: "Aye, and of thinking and feeling 

 like artists, which very few of our architects seem ever to do 

 when they sit down to their drawing-board. Were some of them 

 to think a great deal more, and talk not quite so much maudlin, 

 frothy stuff' as they now do, it would be better for themselves and 

 for their art also." My friend went on in a similar strain for some 

 time, I listening to him the while far more patiently, nay compla- 

 cently, than most other persons would have done. 



MR. FERGUSSON AND THE BRITISH MUSEUM. 



Although little more than a brochure, the new production from 

 Mr. Fergusson's pen,* wliidi has just appeared, is likely to obtain 

 far more general notice, and that too immediately, than his larger 

 work lately reviewed in several successive numbers of this 

 Journal, for the latter appears to be quite a noli-me-tangere to the 

 rest of the fraternity of reviewers — even those who profess to take 

 especial notice of everything bearing upon and connected with 

 Art. His present "Observations," on the contrary, are so excoed- 

 ino-lv stirring that they can hardly fail to excite public attention, 

 and perhaps excite some commotion also in several quarters. While 

 many will be startled at the magnitude of some of his schemes, 

 others will marvel not a little at the fearlessness with wliich he 

 has probed and dissected the magnum opus of a living architect, 

 and proved it to be utterly naught. Such operating upon the 

 "livino- subject" is, we hardly need remark, quite contrary to the 

 usual etiquette of architectural criticism, which, perhaps for fear 

 of getting into scrapes, cautiously abstains from passing formal 



* Observations on the Btilish Museum, National Gallery, and Niitionul Record Office; 

 with SuccestioMS for their Iraproreraent. By James Feru.uson. M.K.I.B.A., "ulhor of 

 "An Historical Inquiry into the True Princijiles of Beauty in Art."— London: J. %\ eale. 



