There is a presumptuous feeling in the breasts of those who, _par
excellence_, assume the style and title of “Artists,” both in the Old
and the New World, which it would be well to look into were it not
that valuable time might thus be wasted on an exceedingly contemptible
subject. We allude to the arrogation of eminence by those autocrats
of the easel, who, not content with the undue position conceded to
them by the vain and the frivolous who stilt themselves on their
recognition of “high art,” and affect to govern the very laws of
taste itself, go farther in the fulness of their ambition, and seek
to ignore ARCHITECTURE as an art. This outrage on common sense is not
confined to America, it has been continuously practised, if not boldly
promulgated, for over a century in London, by an institution bearing
the absurd title of THE ROYAL ACADEMY, originally intended to foster
and advance the interests of Architecture, Painting, and Sculpture, yet
in forty elections, or rather selections, of Associates, that is, of
those ordained to emblazon their names with the R. A., _but four were
Architects_!
And, notwithstanding the studious efforts made by our profession to
elevate our position and draw at least our share of public attention,
we find that this Royal Academy and the rest of the aristocratic
Dundrearifications, positively prohibit the appearance of architectural
designs upon the walls of their National Galleries by crowding
every available foot of wall space with easel-work, (we beg
pardon—“paintings,”) ephemeral, unnatural, mannerized exudations of
the “modern school,” that barely patronizes Nature as a stupid fact,
which to be got round must be obliterated in gaudy coloring. But, shall
Architects make bold to criticize these “Artists?” No, PAINTING is a
sublime gift, by the magic touch of which the coarse inelegant canvas
is made to put forth emanations of the etherial mind, which it were a
pity to limit to the paltry boundary of a gilded frame!
What is ARCHITECTURE?
Where would the art of PAINTING find a shelter, were it not for
Architecture?
Do the gentlemen of the brush and palette ever look around and above at
the walls, the ceilings, or even at the tessellated floor of the rooms
where their small framed efforts are on exhibition, and suffer their
overweaning vanity to acknowledge that ARCHITECTURE is really something?
How many painters can properly depict it? How many?
The ignorance which urges the pre-eminence of PAINTING at the
expense of ARCHITECTURE is more to be pitied than contemned. And the
public patronage lavished on the one and withheld from the other, is
superinduced by the ease with which any one can assume to be a critical
admirer of an art whose governing rules are imaginary rather than real
or substantial.
Some see beauty in the fidelity which a painting bears to Nature.
Others consider that very fidelity as slavish imitation. And a very
general notion obtains amongst painters of “assisting Nature.” Now,
ARCHITECTURE stands upon the solid base of TRUTH. Without imitating,
it borrows applicable ideas from Nature to be used in carrying out its
designs. Nor is it merely the imaginations, limnings, as in the case of
PAINTINGS; those designs have to be executed. CONSTRUCTION then comes
in as the solid, tangible, work of art, which shall defy the elements
and render ARCHITECTURE the protectress of PAINTING, without whose
solid enduring defence the more fragile art would speedily decay and
become unknown.
But, are not the professors and admirers of ARCHITECTURE themselves to
blame for the degraded position it holds to-day as an art, here and in
Europe? Why is there not more practical enthusiasm, and altogether less
contemptible jealousy, and ill-natured feeling, amongst all who claim
to have an interest in this the grandest and most over-shadowing of the
Arts?
If PAINTING must needs hold an exclusive position as regards the public
exhibitions of what is most erroneously called the “Fine Arts,” why
cannot ARCHITECTURE and SCULPTURE assert their dignity, and give the
public a chance to patronize them independently? The truth is that
Architecture and Painting do not at all agree in sentiment; the one
is a mere luxury, and no more; the other is a necessary art, adorned
or unadorned. The one can be glanced at and instantly understood; the
other demands the effort of the mind to study and to comprehend. In
PAINTING, the eye is the arbiter; in ARCHITECTURE, the eye and the
mind must form the judgment. It is not what a merely pretty picture is
displayed; it is—how would that design look in execution?
Most of people who go to a “Fine Art Exhibition” are superficial
observers. They glance at pictures by the hundred. Such are not the
persons from whose judgment ARCHITECTURE can expect even a recognition.
They have been bedazzled with the sheen of the gilded frames, and the
well laid-on varnish which bedizens the bright pigments of the gaudy
glare of Art, which they have just left, and are, of course, impatient
of the more staid and methodical elevations or perspectives, now
presented in a narrow crowded section to their view. They have not
time nor inclination to pause and consider them. They cannot bear to
lose the impressions made by the “sweet shaded alley,” the “dancing
streamlet,” or the “green reflective lake,” with that charming sky
that looks so much more like heaven than nature. No, it will not do
to exhibit ARCHITECTURE and PAINTING together, and it is time to
acknowledge this so often proven fact. The two must be distinct. Let
Architects put forth their powers, and show the community what their
Art really is, and what it is capable of. People will go expressly to
view an exhibition of Architectural designs, combined with Sculpture,
and take much pleasure in the visit, because their mind is prepared
for the occasion, and will not be distracted by a rival exhibition of
quite another effect. To say that the public generally will find no
pleasure in the consideration of Architecture is to assert that which
is disproved by fact. When the Commissioners, appointed to choose a
fitting design for the new Post Office at New York, threw open to a
limited number of visitors the inspection of the collection of designs,
the rooms were crowded each day of the exhibition, and innumerable
applications were made for tickets of admission. Had all the public
been allowed the privilege, no doubt it would have been universally
accepted. Yet that was but a very uninteresting display compared to
one in which the subjects would be manifold, and the scales various.
Not to speak of the freedom of display in color, which on the occasion
adverted to was necessarily confined to an extreme limit.
Why cannot our Architects have an independent exhibition? There is
nothing to be gained, but on the contrary every thing to be lost by
clinging to the skirts of the _painters_. An effort in this direction
could not fail to meet with the warmest support from our monied
citizens, who are constantly proving substantially their regard for
the progressive welfare of Architecture, by expending vast sums
in buildings. And we have no doubt, but that State Legislatures
would promptly and liberally aid any such effort to educate the
general public in an art so intimately connected with the history of
civilization.