The Relation of Mural Painting to Architecture 
THE RELATION OF MURAL 
PAINTING TO ARCHITECTURE. 
T here are two ways of considering the 
relation of mural painting to architecture. 
We may consider what are the the properest 
parts of a building to be devoted to mural 
painting, or what kind of mural painting is 
best adapted to the decoration of various 
parts of a building. In its widest scope the 
term “mural painting” may be said to in¬ 
clude all application of paint,—even all ap¬ 
plication of color, — to architecture; and 
from this point of view there is almost no 
limit to the proper use of the art. If we 
put aside the use of colored marbles or other 
rich material (though mosaic and tapestry will 
still remain branches of painting) and confine 
ourselves to the application of paint alone, 
and if we include everything from the color¬ 
ing of architectural members and the flat 
tinting of walls up to the complete picture 
used as a central feature of decoration, it is 
plain that the parts of a building to be de¬ 
voted to mural painting may be all parts 
where the architect has not placed something 
else which excludes it. The tinting of walls, 
and even the painting of pure ornament, 
however, is seldom confided to a painter, 
properly so-called. It is done by firms of 
decorators under the supervision of the archi¬ 
tect. Even the completely realized human 
figure may be so placed upon a wall, without 
background or suggestion of retreating planes, 
as to be little more than ornament. For this 
the painter is called in, but more than this is 
generally expected. The painting which, 
however flat in its treatment, does yet sug¬ 
gest spatial arrangement, which places the 
human figure in its surroundings and includes 
landscape and buildings in its possible sub¬ 
ject matter,—this is the kind of painting 
which is desired when an eminent painter is 
engaged, the kind of painting the proper 
placing of which is of importance, and the 
kind of painting for which improper or in¬ 
adequate places are frequently provided. 
The consideration of the proper placing 
of approximately complete painting as deco¬ 
ration may be considered from two points of 
view: that of the architect, which is the point 
of view of architectural appropriateness; and 
that of the painter, which is mainly the point 
of view of visibility. I think we shall find 
the key to the proper placing of such deco¬ 
ration from the architectural point of view in 
the fact that, architecturally considered, such 
pictorial decorations—paintings which sug¬ 
gest spatial arrangement, which have fore¬ 
ground and background, and which place 
the figure or other principal subject in its 
surroundings — are simulated penetrations. 
They are such by their very nature, no matter 
how carefully the painter may avoid any 
approach to actual deception, no matter how 
conventional may be his treatment. Such 
paintings at once suggest, no matter how 
remotely, an opening through which the 
picture is seen; and the test of good placing, 
from the architectural point of view, is the 
question: is this a place where a penetration 
might reasonably occur without destroying 
structure and architectural coherence? From 
the painter’s point of view the question is 
even simpler. Pictures are made to be looked 
at. They should therefore be visible; and 
visibility depends on three elements : posi¬ 
tion, distance and lighting. The test of good 
placing of pictorial decoration, from the 
painter’s point of view, are the questions: 
is this a position in which painting can be 
looked at with comfort; is it within a distance 
from the spectator where the qualities of 
painting can be seen; and is it so lighted as 
to be really seen at all? With these two 
tests I wish to examine the different parts of 
a room (for I shall not attempt to consider 
the possible uses of mural painting in exterior 
decoration) which may be or have been used 
for the placing of pictorial decorations, giving 
such examples as occur to me of good and 
bad placing, and of good and bad treatment 
of the places given. For, as some kind of 
mural painting may be used anywhere, a place 
unsuited for the higher kinds of painting may 
be quite suited to the lower kinds. The 
more structurally important is the architec¬ 
tural feature, the farther must its ornament be 
removed from naturalism, until, in the most 
highly organized parts of the architecture, 
any use of color other than that of the 
material itself is of doubtful expediency. 
The possible parts of a room for treatment 
by pictorial decoration are the floor, the piers 
or columns, the ceiling (vaulted or flat) and 
the walls. The floor we might, perhaps, 
98 
