332 



TPE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



[OcTOBEB, 



Mr. Hunt had tried magnetising by the coil, and found the best effect to 

 he produced by a blue heat being given to the bar, which at that tempera- 

 ture was exposed to the current, and then plunged into water or a solutiou 

 of ferro-prussiate of poca&h. 



Dr. ScoiiEsuy rejnarked that 500° or .')05° was the best heat to 

 which a bar should be raised before beini; magnetised. Too powerful mag- 

 nets also ought not to be useil in magnetising. 



Mr. Wakd had had considerable success in magnetising by the coil, by 

 dr.iwing a helix of about an inch in height from the centre of the bar, back- 

 wards and forwards, as in the ordinary mode of magnetising. 



On a Tubular Crane. By Mr. Fairbairn. — The jib and post of the 

 crane is formed hollow, of boiler plate. 



THE INSTITUTE OF BRITISH ARCHITECTS 



ON 



CEMENTS AND STUCCOES. 



It is not often that the Institute of British Architects indulge in sesthe- 

 tics. Generally speaking, whent-vcr the suliject is fairly opened to them by 

 the nature of their lectures, they avert the discussion to a matter of fact 

 question respecting the economical use of slate, the number of feet and 

 inches in a broken column, or some other subject equally well calculated to 

 promote an improved architectural taste. 



With surprise and gratification, therefore, we observed that, during the 

 late meetings, the reading of a paper on " Cements and Stucco" {ante, 

 p. 221), led to an animated and interesting discussion respecting the legiti- 

 mate use of those materials. The debate was carried on with far more ear- 

 nestness of purpose than could be incited by a mere abstract question. No 

 abstract question can long engage the earnest attention of a general assem- 

 bly, but to the British Architects the inquiry whether the use of deceptive 

 materials be iii good taste is not an abstract inquiry. It is a vital quettion 

 to them ; for probably if that question be decisively answered in the nega- 

 tive, it is not too much to asiunie that the decision would be condemnatory 

 of half the buildings erected by members of the Institute. 



Mb. Knowles, the reader of the ptper referred to, slates the objections 

 against the use of stucco for "protecting and adorning the exterior of our 

 buildings" to be 



1. That cements and stuccoes are not durable, and require frequent and 

 expensive reparations. 



2. That they are very costly; not so much at first, as by reason of the 

 colouring and painting in oil, which, it is thought (erroneously, as ,he be- 

 lieves), that they afterwards require. 



3. Tliat they are false and deceptive inasraneb as they, being artificially 

 formed material-, do in some measure assume the appearance of natural 

 productions. 



4. Tliat their introduction has led to all that is false in design, and defec- 

 tive in construction, 



5. Ihat when employed in decoration, the enrichments are deficient in 

 that sharpness of outline and delicacy of finish by which the productions of 

 the chisi-l are distinguished. 



Of the first of these olijections he confesses, that it applies with great 

 force to modern London buildings, and that " extreme care" is required "in 

 the construction of buildings intended to be covered with cement." The 

 second objection may, he thinks, be removed by an improved knowledge of 

 chemistry and geology. With respect to the deficiency of ihsrpness of out- 

 line in ornaments moulded in «tuc«o, he asks whether it be not possible to 

 overcome this diflkulty hy increased attention on the part of the architect 

 in designing, and especially in inspecting the modelling of his enrichments 

 whilst in the clay. 



Up to this point we need not demur to any of the arguments in defence 

 of stucco, for they amount to an a(ki!onl('di:enierit, that the use of that 

 material involves peculiar diflJcuUics and requires peculiar precautions. Hut 

 now comes the gist of the debate, the question as to the deceptive nature 

 of the material. Mr. Knowles ingeniously argues, that grandeur, beauty, 

 and originality of design, are far more important and far less easily attain- 

 able than costliness and durability of materials. 



" That species of adnjiration which is excited hy the costliness of the 

 materials employed in works of art, has always appeared to me to partake 

 considerably of the vulgar and the barbarous. For, as much as the lieavens 

 are higher than the earth, so much do I believe the emanations of the iiiind 

 to be above and beyond the mere vehicle in which they are euibo.lied." 



Precisely. We do not happen to know the altitude of the " heavens," 

 but if Mr. Knowles will adopt any kind of terrestrial measure, we have little 

 doubt that we shall be able to assent to his estimation of the superiority of 

 mind above matter. We readily allow that all that is vile and monstrous 

 in taste may be exhibited in an arch of the purest statuary marble or bronze, 

 cast in the most costly manner ; while some of the most admirable build- 

 ings whieli have appeared on the face of the earth are churches and castles 

 built of bricks. But who are those most liable to the charge of preferring 

 the material before the design and skill of the architect .' Those who would 

 let plain bricks honestly show themselves? or those who would hide the 

 bricks beneath a surface imitating costlier stone? The " admiration excited 

 by the costliness of materials" does partake "considerably of the vulgar 

 and bariiarous." But can that vulgar and barbarous admiration be exhibited 

 in a more vulgar and barbarous manner than in the concealment of cheaper 

 substances by a mere show and unreal pretence of costliness .' Or can 

 that same admiration be more openly and decisively disavowed than by the 

 honest exhibition of the cheaper substances .' 



Mr. Knowles has, it appears to us, forged a weapon which inevitably 

 recoils upon himself. His gun kicks more strongly than it shoots. The 

 very argument which he has chosen for a defence of stucco is its most 

 decisive condemnation. If the admiration of costly materials be barbarous, 

 how infinitely more barbarous is the dishonest imitation of them. If the 

 love of real gems has a vulgar taste, what shall be said of those who near 

 paste diamonds .' 



As a matter of practical experience, the use of stucco in domestic archi- 

 tecture leads to the constant reproduction of the same insipid forms, 

 Where the ornament can be laid upon a building as something altogether 

 extrinsic and adventitious, the principal necessity for originality and inven- 

 tion is altogether evaded. But where the ornament is an essential and in- 

 tegral part of the building — where it depends upon, and springs out of, the 

 construction, the architect is almost compelled to think whether he will or 

 not; and, on the other hand, where the construction can be wlinlly hidden 

 hy a false surface, on which skin-deep ornaments can be laid at " so mu..h 

 per yard run," ornament becomes mere stock-in-trade, to be kept on hand 

 till wanted, and the architect is superseded by tite builder. 



In the discussion which followed the reading of the paper, it is grati- 

 fying to find that architecture was regarded — not as a mere fancy or fashion 

 — nor as a mere code of arbitrary rules — nor as a system of jugglerv to 

 delude mens' eyes by false show of splendor — but as a liberal art. Mr. 

 Francis appeared to us to give the coup de grace to the question, which 

 the most unfortunate argument above referred to had already settled. Ce- 

 ment he considered " a material quite inadequate for the purpose of minute 

 and elaborate design in ornamental work, which, when executed in it, must 

 want the freedom of touch and the artistic feeling belonging to the chisel. 

 For freedom of touch and artistic feeling, we should as soon look in a 

 willow-pattern plate as in plaster ornaments run in a mould." 



It is certainly in too exclusive a spirit that some writers condemn all 

 kinds of ornamental forms multiplied by mechanical means. Such con- 

 demnation is far too general. It would include engravings which have a 

 beauty and excellence of their own, diffeiing much from that of the pictures 

 from which they are taken. To engravings, moreover, is incoulestihly due 

 the merit of popularising the highest works of the easel. But an engraver 

 must be an artist, and have an intellectual feeling of the spirit of his 

 original ; while the maker of stucco ornaments is a mere mechanical drudj,'e, 

 an Irish labourer, probably, who has never cultivated his taste beyond an 

 appreciation of gin and tobacco. The engraver must have a wonderfully 

 keen eye for all the varying depths of dilferenl colours which have to be 

 imitated by him by mere gradations of shade in black and white. 



Even where mechanically produced, decorations require no taste for their 

 sut'cessful reproduction, they may yet possess grace when honestly and 

 lefritimately employed. Such grace may and ought to belong to paper. 

 han|(ings, the forms of porcelain, and glass utensils, and the patterns of the 

 commonest and cheapest pottery. Such grace may also belong to ornaments 

 of plaster properly employed. To confine ourselves to one instance among 

 many, it would be, we think, mere architectural purilanism to object to the 

 adornment of ordinary ceilings with appropriate decorations in stucco. In 

 such use of plastic materials no deception could be intended or ett'ected. 

 The white plastered ceiling of an ordinary room can no more be mistaken 

 for stone than ordinary gilding for gold. 



The real offence against taste is the attempt to deceive. Gilding is a 

 Tno>t admirable and beautiful species of decoration when legitimately era- 



