Architect and engineer . essionally, as an index of commercial and social aspirationand status. All too rarely is a building conceived solely as a natural andfelicitous embodiment of its real reason for being. It is either shock- THE ARCHITECT AND ENGINEER 49 ingly neglected, suitalile apparently to no conceivable human purpose,or lavished with over-zealous attentions, as if to serve some unreal orulterior end. It must evoke invidious associations of cost, appearingobviously cheap or expensive. The commonest verdicts of populai-criticism are not concerned with a buildings appropriateness or be
Architect and engineer . essionally, as an index of commercial and social aspirationand status. All too rarely is a building conceived solely as a natural andfelicitous embodiment of its real reason for being. It is either shock- THE ARCHITECT AND ENGINEER 49 ingly neglected, suitalile apparently to no conceivable human purpose,or lavished with over-zealous attentions, as if to serve some unreal orulterior end. It must evoke invidious associations of cost, appearingobviously cheap or expensive. The commonest verdicts of populai-criticism are not concerned with a buildings appropriateness or beauty,but with its reputed resemblance to ten cents or a million dollars. For al)uilding costing five thousand dollars to look like five thousand is acommercial blunder or a social ineptitude. Thus does Americanarchitecture, oscillating between unconcern and over-concern, miss thecharming naturalness and inevitability characteristic of countries wheresimple things can be done in their proper manner and for their iKURGE WASHINGTON Washington Smith, Ar CALIF. The use of the term American architecture must not be interpretedas subscription to the, oft-repeated doctrine that there should or can bea uniform, tangible American style. If the populace errs in relegatingthe art to the status of herald or handmaiden of prosperity, fretiuentfacile critics are no less vulnerable in demanding a standardized (com-mercialized) product in the name of style. Since the histories con-cisely tabulate Ilomanesque of the Italian, French. Spanish, and Englishtypes, and so on, the same varieties of Gothic and of , there-fore the exigencies of systematic filing require the continued use of neatclassifications by periods and countries. The fallacy becomes apparentwhen we reject stock phrases to pry into reality. Were there, for in-stance, four or five distinct varieties of Renaissance? Depending upon 50 THE ARCHITECT AND ENGINEER the point of view, there may be said
Size: 1907px × 1311px
Photo credit: © The Reading Room / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookcentury1900, bookdecade1900, booksub, booksubjectarchitecture
