ART. II.-Architecture, a Profession or an Art.

Edited by

R. Norman Shaw and T. G. Jackson. London, 1892.

HIS book seems to mark an epoch in the history of Art. For centuries no production of the press has given such ground for hope, or has appeared so sure a harbinger of future excellence in building work. The separation of a school of architects from their professional associates, together with this manifesto of the cause and meaning of their emphasized secession, is apparently momentous; a true architectural Hegira; and from it may date the proclamation of a renovated architectural faith, and the first recommencement of sincere, artistic, building handicraft.

The book, though fragmentary, or indeed in some degree because of its discursiveness and varied authorship, is highly interesting; it suggests ideas that to most contemporaries may be new, although they indicate the ancient axioms concerning art. The Essayists, now that they regain their liberty, address themselves in various directions, each with his special message to the world; but all re-echoing one another in their eloquent denouncement of the injury that art, and those who seek to practise art, are suffering from the bondage of professional and sordid custom and control. Set free from these, though yet perhaps imperfectly, they can assert their rising independence in a tone of exultation, as they, one by one, assume the lead towards the only way of genuine, homely, and imaginative building work.

Whatever may have been the previous inclinations of the several seceders, that which has immediately caused their movement is the introduction by the Royal Institute of British Architects of pseudo-architectural examinations, with diplomas, or certificates that the successful postulants are competent to build; with, further, the proposal to demand the sanction of the Legislature to this curious assumption; so that the sole entrance to the recognized profession shall be by the turnstile of the Institute. The result would be to admit not men of art alone, but to afford admission to a motley group of speculating builders, quantity computers, auctioneers, agents for empty houses, and surveyors curious about dilapidations, ancient lights, &c., who in their ambition would consider the false appellation 'Architect' an honour; and would strive, as if for wealth or virtue, to obtain a set or two of cabalistic capitals affixed to their

surnames.

The reason for the project has been carefully explained: it is benevolent. The public, it appears, are very ignorant of that

which most concerns them; and, from want of homely architectural education, they are, no doubt, very liable to error when selecting architects, or possibly surveyors, to design and superintend their building work. The Royal Institute of British Architects is much impressed by this continual public danger; and it generously offers its assistance to avert the evil. Yet it is by no means evident that members of the Royal Institute are specially endowed with insight to decide who is and who is not efficient and trustworthy as an architect. The great majority of real architects in the world's history were quite incapable of even understanding almost every question raised in an examination at the Institute; and under such a regimen as is now proposed, these perfect master-builders would have been excluded from all public practice of their noble handicraft.

The members of the Royal Institute of British Architects are, on the other hand, by no means great as artists, since they do not work, they only sketch and draw; whereas an architect is a chief working-man. The public patterns done by most members of the Royal Institute are a melancholy contrast to the handiwork of uncertificated classical and medieval builders. As a rule we may observe that when all building work was excellent in its appropriate form and decoration the imaginative workmen were unlearned men; and now, when quasi-architectural works have no artistic value, foolish learning is imposed upon aspirants as a precedent, needful means and method of professional

success.

We find that, to obtain the questionable honour of admission to the Royal Institute, a young probationer must give authentic proof of his ability in drawing and perspective.' Did the master workmen formerly, in times of ancient or of medieval art, make drawings in perspective; and because they never saw the Jesuits' volume on the science, are their works inferior to productions of the Royal Institute? Did Ictinus make authentic drawings in perspective' ere he gained admission to the Institute at Athens; and by certificate or by diploma was, with other workmen, qualified to build the Parthenon? Imagine the perspective draughtsmen at the Institute deciding that Ictinus could not be accepted, since he failed in the first needful element of architectural skill! Yet this forlorn Ictinus was an architect of such ability that members of the Royal Institute of British Architects are but as dust beneath him; and at best are merely drawing-masters, not true workers in the stone, like all the real architects of old.

'The examination is to be conducted by a Board of Fellows of the Institute.' But who is to examine the examiners? How

many

many of these Fellows of the Institute can draw perspective or can work in stone? The Royal Institute provides a necessary loophole here, and all practitioners before 1875' have been exempted from examination altogether; though examinations are declared to be the wholly needful measure of security for those requiring architects. The works of men in practice more than seventeen years ago are constantly before us; and we thus have evidence enough of incapacity in elderly practitioners, though members of the Institute. Why is not the fine sieve of an examination to be employed with them? Of younger men we may have hope; they are not yet well known to be incapable. Why should not these younger men, as they accumulate, determine to examine and perhaps eject their uncertificated seniors, as those who by the regulations of the Institute are not to be entrusted with the work of building?

All this serves to show how ineffective is the Institute as a protection for the public. But again, a candidate who may have entered into practice'-such is the absurd expression- since 1875, and before 1885, may submit the working drawings of any building erected from his design and under his superintendence, with a drawing of a building,' still in perspective, and a sheet of ornament.' That is to say, a jobber, of whatever kind, who has an opportunity to build, may hire a draughtsman to make working drawings, or to copy them, and these would be accepted as entirely professional. The drawing in perspective' and the sheet of ornament' may also be vicarious productions. Who would be too curious about the authenticity of drawings that an architect of seven years' practice might 'submit'? And is it to be wondered at that the élite of the more conscientious architectural artists, young and old, are quitting or repudiating this pretentious Royal Institute of British Architects?

6

The meaning therefore is that 'architects,' who may be anybody that can pass a short examination on a set of subjects mostly of no use at all to builders, and which, when not actually professional, are below the level and ability of many a School Board child, would be admitted to impose their incapacity upon the public; a diploma of the Institute being chiefly a certificate of architectural absurdity. It would thus seem that the true object of this double loophole is to admit a fair proportion of dull men into the Institute, to serve as a mere platform for a class of people who in such associations become prominent as talkers; men who may be sometimes taken seriously by their taciturn supporters, and are mostly thus mistaken by themselves. An Act of Parliament would be a sort

of

of recognition of these pseudo-architectural loquacities; who curiously pose as if their Institute had something in it. Judging by the public works and utterances of its distinguished members, nothing more hollow can be found within the utmost range of metropolitan society; and now that these seceders have deliberately pierced the inflation, it may happily subside, and thus give place to something really helpful to the building arts. In this case none perhaps would be more gratified than many present members of the Institute who have their natural share of architectural discernment; they would be relieved of the offensive sham that constantly distracts them, and might. gain that higher self-respect that comes of independent thought and dignified association. Young men of education might then undertake to work as artisans and real architects upon their various buildings; free from sordid care and spurious gentility, and anxious only for the excellence and beauty of their handicraft. The leadership of building work would be abundantly distributed; and happiness would correspondingly extend. Thus, all these strictures on the Institute are never hostile to its members; who indeed are proper objects for benevolent solicitude, and must personally share our worthiest consideration and respect. It may be, therefore, hoped that those who are at present left behind, as members of the Institute, will feel how much superior is the course, how much more hopeful is the prospect, of the late seceders; who, while seeking to do justice to themselves, desire to separate the real from the sham, the efficient from the impotent, the workman's art of building thoughtfully and well from 'sketches in perspective' and from sheets of ornament'!

Since architecture is a practical art, action, not learning, is the first requisite; the work of the mason, not the pedantry of the sciolist. 'The Programme of Work to be done in the presence of Moderators' is useless as a test of architectural ability. There are in this programme historic questions, interesting to the reading man, but not of any moment to the artist; sanitary subjects, such as should be known to every householder; a few matters of construction, that could at any time be learned; and practical details, concerning which the hodman, the mere labourer, or the artisan, without examination, would be of more authority than any member of the Institute. What is the value of the history of the Pyramids, their design and construction,' or of all the history that is known of architecture, to the young working man, or even to a master of the workmen ? At the Institute Examinations, recently, four 'General Questions' have been given; and here

are

99.66

are two of them:-1. Explain, and illustrate by sketches, the following terms:-" Amphiprostyle," "Atrium,' "Aumbyre," "Brattishing," "Crenelle," Crenelle," "Extrados," "Frieze," "Hagioscope," "Machicolations," "Tympanum.' And again:3. Give the dates at which the following architects lived, and mention one of the principal works of each :-Ictinus, Anthemius of Tralles, William of Sens, Nicolo da Pisa, Arnofo di Cambio, Thomas of Canterbury, Bramante, John of Padua, John Thorpe.' As well examine candidates for missionary work upon the names of Hebrew sacrificial implements, the legislation in Leviticus, Phoenician Meteorology, or on the names and genealogies of Israelitish Kings. No single answer is of any value to an architect, or would in the least secure the public from professional imposture. For men of leisure questions such as these may be amusing; but the men of highest architectural ability might never answer one of them. Indeed the Institute proceeds to say that 'Candidates are not expected to answer all the questions,' amounting to about seventy, besides sketches and drawings, but are to attempt at least three of the General Questions,' of which we have just quoted two. The more intelligent artistic members of the Institute must know that these examinations are but a delusion, and in every sense an imposition, whose true object is to give a fiction of importance to their Institute by thus inflicting a ridiculous and needless task upon the inexperienced young men who annually seek to enter their profession; and whose friends are mystified by this nonsensical parade of frothy sciolism. If wise parents wish to make a youth a real architect, they should avoid the Institute entirely. First give him tools; and then a piece of stone or wood to try his hand upon. If he succeeds, then place him in the shop of a contractor, where he may both see and learn all kinds of work, and may have practice of the most improving kind. Become a finished hand, and having exercised his brain with moderate reading and with ample thought, and being well conducted and trustworthy, accidents apart, he will not wait for opportunity; he will be sought for, urgently; and ere he reaches twenty-five, not only will he be in full command, but he will have a school and pupils of his own, who, happy in their work, will pity the poor fellows who had lost themselves in that great cavern of despair whose entrance is the Royal Institute of British Architects.

The respective methods of the medieval working masons and the modern draughtsman are now prominently illustrated at St. Mary's, Oxford. There the spire was built 600 years

ago;