Page images
PDF
EPUB

regard to re-vaccination: In Egypt, from 1882 to 1895, there were 233 cases and 25 deaths from small-pox among the re-vaccinated troops, or an average annual attack rate of 3004, and a death-rate of 322 per million. In the Indian army, also re-vaccinated, during the same period, there were 691 cases and 68 deaths, the rates being 768 and 76 per million respectively; while unvaccinated Leicester, during those fourteen years, had only 446 cases and 29 deaths, the rates being 204 and 13 per million. This comparison is unfair to Leicester, seeing that the army is composed of picked men living at a comparatively insusceptible period of life.

The decision of Mr. Long in this matter is indefensible and absolutely mischievous, as it diverts attention from the real scientific preventive of personal and municipal cleanliness to the broken reed of a futile and dangerous process.

PUBLIC HEALTH.

THE TRAGEDY OF ARCHITECTURE.

PUBLIC appreciation of architecture might almost be described in one word, as nil; and, although such a conclusion would be most generally correct, it would ignore the flights of passing fancy and fashion in relation to the great building art. It is safe to say that there is no real public appreciation of architecture for the simple reason that it has ceased to be an art, and has developed into a fashion. And we don't appreciate a fashion; we admire it for a time, because it tickles our palate, it captivates our idiosyncrasies; then we let it die out and be forgotten. We have styles in architecture just as we have styles or fashions in dress, and the fluctuations of popular taste are as capricious in the one as in the other. The reign of fashion is one of the most arbitrary and senseless forms of government to which human beings have ever subjected themselves; all individuality is crushed, so that we go on blindly following some passing whim like a flock of sheep. And in architecture this despotism is no less idiotic and offensive than in dress. One style is in vogue now, then another, and so our buildings are erected first in this style and then that, all because we want something fresh; a change from the monotony of our everlasting streets-those hideous monuments of our latter-day civilisation. The question of variety in street architecture does not affect the contention that our buildings are erected in styles not because one particular mode is more suited to the nature and purposes of the erection, or better adapted for the climate, or even more nearly expressive of our modern civilisation and sense of refinement and culture. Then why? For the simple reason that " craze must be pandered to, we must give evidence of an "improved" taste, and incidentally provide profitable work for the architect and for the labouring classes. Of course, it is the cloven foot of commercialism, and from a utilitarian standpoint it may be right, but morally and aesthetically is it right? It cannot be! The structure should be honestly expressed by the façade; it is what is behind which should suggest the front, which, after all, is but a screen to hide the interior. In modern construction what is behind does not seem to affect either the architect or the client; the building is, from the front, what it appears to be. But it isn't!

[ocr errors]

A house with an Italian front does not imply necessarily an Italian house, or one with a Moorish front anything appertaining to

the Moors. No! It may be that the interior is the most commonplace and prosaic; and it often is. The introduction of variety into architecture of course is commendable, but only where it is honest and expressive of the nature of the structure. It is worthy and welcome that our streets should have some diversity. Too long they have been the nightmares of a pampered and petted conventionality. But surely when all thoughts of convenience, utility, and honest adaptability are thrown on one side in our effort to produce an eccentric line of façades, we have passed from the boundary of sense to absurdity.

Looked at from the point of view from which buildings are generally judged nowadays, it is a pity that such erections have to be put to any use. Could they only be arranged and taken care of in the precincts of some huge art gallery or museum, they would prove good specimens of human "effort," and be no longer the butt of the faultfinder and satirist. Then were this the object and end of the building designer, and houses built to look at and not to live in, architects and their clients would be at peace, and towers, turrets, façades, windows and doors could be designed without risk of causing inconvenience, ridicule and contention. But we live in a day when everything must be practical amongst the upper classes, as well as amongst the usually called "common people"; the practical man is dictator with a sway as influential as it is effectual. But, strange to say, that, as regards architecture, all sorts of incongruous things are permitted and even encouraged, evidently because they are the latest, most modern, smart, or up-to-date. Towers, turrets, battlements and mouldings are designed where unnecessary, windows where they are not needed, and ornament plastered on where it is absolutely meaningless and silly. Thus there is a constant series of squabbles between architect and client, builder and tenant. And it is to be expected that such will happen and continue to happen so long as this strange craving is pandered to.

The most elementary student of the history of architecture is aware that ornamentation and utility can be combined to produce the most perfect buildings. Then why should these essentials be separated? Without close combination no really successful building can be produced: nothing but a medley of inharmonious disorder. There is a broad distinction between architecture and mere

[ocr errors]

building construction. A building without art is simply construction, as a body is dead that is without life. John Ruskin, in his "Seven Lamps," says: "The creations of architecture, being not essentially composed of things pleasant in themselves, but of inert substance, depend for their dignity and pleasurableness, in the utmost degree, upon the vivid expression of the intellectual life which has been conceived in their production. Thus all things become noble, or ignoble, in proportion to the amount of energy of the mind

It would

of man which has visibly been employed upon them." seem preposterous to enlarge on this, after an era of work by Ruskin, Morris, and others. But there are times when one almost thinks that they have lived in vain. Yet it cannot be !

It is the failure to realise the difference between construction and architecture which leads to the creation of these building Frankensteins, and the diffusion of such perverted views broadcast amongst the people. The true aim should be the proper combination of æsthetics with construction. A factory or warehouse, plain and unadorned, is not architectural. It may answer its purpose, for common needs, but that is not the point. There should be a rhythm or a kind of symbolism in its lines which will influence the thoughts of the observer, otherwise it will be a lifeless and inanimate object, deadening rather than elevating, depressing rather than invigorating. Again to quote Ruskin: "Architecture is the art which so disposes and adorns the edifices raised by man, for whatever uses, that the sight of them may contribute to his mental health, power and pleasure."

The story of architecture through all the ages has been the story of man's attempt to adapt his life to his environment. Indeed, it is the unwritten law of progress, and architecture has always been the reflex of national character. The Greeks gave the evidence of their almost superhuman fineness of intellect and taste in the architecture of their temple. They understood their art, with its balance of voids and solids, contrasts of light and shade, horizontal and vertical line, plain and decorated surfaces, subtlety of curves, exquisite proportions and precisions, &c. Therefore they succeeded. The Romans, apart from the Greek adaptations introduced by Dilettanti, exhibited their national feeling in the solidity and strength of their edifices-buildings reflecting the vastness of their empire, built not for a day but for all time, a symbol of Imperial destiny and Roman eternity.

The American Indian in his wigwam, the Assyrian in his house of clay, the Roman in his villa, and the man of the middle ages in his castle, are but types of civilisations influenced by climate, natural and geographical conditions, soil, land produce, temperature, rainfall, manner of living, &c., and evolving themselves into classes of society visibly expressed by their dwelling-places. The influence of environment on architecture is readily realised when we think of the reason why the Assyrian built of clay, the Greek of stone, and why the mediæval noble lived in a fortified palace. It was because of the abundance of clay in Assyria, of stone in Greece, and because of the unsettled state of the country in the middle ages, that such was the prevailing method in these various nationalities at their respective times.

As time progressed the economic and social influence of trade

and commerce was apparent, and felt by all sections of the people. Society was revolutionised by the vast changes taking place. The enforcement of law caused the disappearance of the old fortified dwellings, and a free, peaceable, social life was inaugurated which brought about small dwelling-places and villas instead of great huddled collections of houses under the protection of a citadel or fort. Out of the diverse operations of natural conditions each architectural style originated and each form had an evolution of its own which was as distinct and as easily traced as progress in any other art or attainment. Common sense, truth, utility, and simplicity were the foundations upon which all the great phases of architecture of old were built; but they were disregarded, and one by one thrown to the winds with reckless abandon, so art developed into fashion and architecture fell. There was the gothic and monastic spirit which raised buildings as memorials and evidence of a great and long-continued effort to christianise the world; and there was the Renaissance spirit, which sought to revert to the civilisation and morality of Paganism. Between the two, the degradation of architecture came, and the spirit of modern architecture-if it can be said to have one is little better than a reflection of any and every other age, but never of its own. Could the tragedy of architecture be more complete ?

In the congested and breakneck state of our present civilisation, what should be the legitimate influence of natural conditions on architecture is quite neglected. We are not disposed to "waste our time," for instance, over exactness in regulating the lines of perspective of our buildings, nor do we use curved lines instead of straight ones to counteract the visual distortion.

When one is practising in a city where land has reached untold value, it is quite evident that there will not be so many chances of utilising the site as there would have been but for this initial difficulty. History affords no parallel to the extraordinary value of land in the cities at the present day. The compression of multitudes into small areas has created problems almost bewildering in embarrassment. But there are many details in our national architecture which might be much more intelligently treated in spite of this, and if they were, the reproach on architecture which at present exists might be to a great extent removed.

Prior to the great Industrial Revolution which was the characterising feature of the Victorian Era, architecture had only problems presented by Nature to face; life was simple, and what artificiality existed was little and inconsequential. But with the introduction of machinery, mechanical contrivances entered intimately into everyday life, revolutionising all forms of building and bringing about untold complexity in architectural problems. Steam, electricity, and free education produced a society different to any that had

« PreviousContinue »