SUCH PUBLIC EDIFICES AS POST-OFFICES, LIBRARIES AND OTHER MONUMENTAL BUILDINGS SHOULD On what Greek order are the columns based? What is the pointed head of the window called? What kind of stone courses are (The Cleveland Post-office and Federal Building) Nor should allusion be omitted to the citizen who is called upon, as a member of a board, to pass judg ment on the design of an important public building. It is unfortunate if a private house be bungled-calamitous in the case of a library or a city hall. In this connection we are impressed by the importance of architectural education as a civic obligation, as a duty to the community. Public money is being spent yearly throughout the country for the erection of important public buildings, yet architecturally, the public has never seen the buildings. It is by no means to be recommended, however, that public opinions on architecture be set up to overthrow professional opinions on architecture, excepting in the case of an incompetent "political" architect. It is rather the contention that public appreciation of architecture will result in securing better results through an understanding of what the architect is trying to do. The board may insist upon ruining the appearance of an important building in order to save a few thousand dollars, or may vote down the architect's project for a splendid monumental approach. If the members of the board, and the people themselves, were architecturally educated, the necessary funds would be forthcoming through public subscription. To appreciate the possibilities of a noble architectural idea is to desire its execution. In the second part of this book there will be attempted an introduction to that interesting, but unknown individual, the Architect. To understand architecture has been supposed to be a "gift," an implication of some peculiar talent or taste. This, however, may readily be proved an erroneous idea, for although architecture is no less an art than painting or music, it is different in certain salient particulars. A masterpiece of painting or of music is the result of inspiration-a masterpiece of architecture is the result of evolution. To understand painting or music is to understand their underlying inspiration— to understand architecture one need but understand the stages of architectural evolution which produced a given example. Nor should understanding be confused with enjoyment. Most receptive natures find enjoyment in art, in music, in architecture, in nature, in all that surrounds them; but their enjoyment is a thing of the senses, in which understanding plays no part. Knowledge raises their understanding to the level of intelligent appreciation. To see in all architecture a product of evolution, is to possess at once the key to its study. Obviously the art of building, at first more a necessity than an art, has from the dawn of civilisation been very closely linked with the development of the human race, and has, in a measure, influenced the people who created it. In this connection between human and architectural evolution there is more than a mere sentimental coincidence. Different kinds of civilisation, characterised by different religious and social developments all produced different architectural manifestations, sometimes new, often evolved from earlier forms. The prosperity of kingdoms, their days of degeneracy, and their downfall are mirrored by contemporary architectural monuments as vividly as in the words of contemporary historians. Being a work of the hand of man, architecture has always reflected the mind of man—and in this alone should lie much of its interest. No architecture of the past, perhaps, has been so little expressive as our own architecture of to-day, unless future ages are to read in it the commentary that "at this time" artistic ideas and ideals were in a transitional stage, the study and adaptation of earlier styles of other lands characterised North American architecture, and in the security of employing recognised and meritorious types, we had no desire to experiment, or to evolve originalia. A good many architectural critics have bitterly assailed the times because the American nation, since its earlier days, has created no characteristic architectural style. There are, however, two sides to this contention. Looking back over the evolution of architectural styles, it will be found that new styles arose only when old ones were out-worn, when conditions made them obsolete, or when some new social or religious change logically dictated new architectural forms. No new style was founded without reason, and solely because of a desire for novelty. In no case has any good come of an effort to be original solely for the sake of originality. The "Art Nouveau" was an illustration of this—an effort to evolve new forms for the sole purpose of breaking what certain restless spirits believed to be the monotony of existing artistic ideas. And the "Art Nouveau" movement is now remembered as an epidemic of ephemeral madness, leaving after it no trace or influence. It died because it had no reason ever to have been created, and because, in itself, it was not logical or legitimate. That the last century, almost, in this country has seen the development of no striking "national" architecture is not surprising, and should not be distressing. In architecture, above all other arts, it is the part of wisdom to proceed slowly, and to be very sure of each step. Sincere adaptations of old or ancient styles are much to be preferred if the alternative is a meaningless style evolved only as a tour de force-an attempt to prove an originality which does not exist. If this country is destined to produce a "style," recognisable as such, nothing could prevent it-our legacies of past styles from other lands would be as straws in the current. It has been so always. Nor can our present adaptations of many styles be construed as a contradiction to the idea of architectural evolution. It is a far more natural condition that many styles prevail in equal favour, than that one style should be paramount in this country at the present time. The present age is one of travel and of educationof photography and of illustration. And human nature is accountable for the selective proclivity. Every one of us instinctively cherishes some personal ideal of a country-house, for example, be it an Italian villa, an English manor, or a French château. That ideal would not be sacrificed for the sake of conformity to some "national" style of architecture. We would still take pages out of the picture-book of all past architecture. Italian villas are not, necessarily, consistent in their architectural style because the Italians were architecturally consistent. The men who built them, and for whom they were built, knew of no other type. They were not distracted by a variety of other, and perhaps equally pleasing, ideas, and consequently, by following the prevalent style, there was evolved a distinctive type. As proof of the effect which the selective proclivity of the individual may have upon architectural design, consider the architecture of England. In the matter of style there was not so much conservatism or consistency as has been supposed. Once the landed gentry |