It is but a few years since architects' perspectives were "built up" (it would be a mistake to say "drawn") by means of a T-square and the ruling pen; and if architectural drawing has not quite kept pace with that for general illustration since, a backward glance over the professional magazines encourages a feeling of comparative complacency. That so high a standard or so artistic a character is not observable in architectural as in general illustration is, I think, not difficult to explain. Very few of the clever architectural draughtsmen are illustrators by profession. Few, even of those who are generally known as illustrators, are anything more—I should perhaps say anything less—than versatile architects; and yet Mr. Pennell, who would appear to assume, in his book on drawing, that the point of view of the architect is normally pictorial, seems at a loss to explain why Mr. Robert Blum, for instance, can illustrate an architectural subject more artistically than any of the draughtsmen in the profession. Without accepting his premises, it is remarkably creditable to architecture that it counts among its members in this country such men as Mr. B. G. Goodhue and Mr. Wilson Eyre, Jr., and in England such thorough artists as Mr. Prentice and Mr. Ernest George—men known even to distinction for their skill along lines of purely architectural practice, yet any one of whom would, I venture to say, cause considerable displacement did he invade the ranks of magazine illustrators. Moreover (and the suggestion is not unkindly offered), were the architects and the illustrators to change places architecture would suffer most by the process.
The Architects' Case That the average architect should be incapable of artistically illustrating his own design, ought, I think, to be less an occasion for surprise than that few painters, whose point of view is essentially pictorial, can make even a tolerable interpretation in line of their own paintings. Be it remembered that the pictures made by the architect are seldom the records of actualities. The buildings themselves are merely contemplated, and the illustrations are worked up from geometrical elevations in the office, very, very far from Nature. Moreover, the subjects are not infrequently such as lend themselves with an ill grace to picturesque illustration. The structure to be depicted may, for instance, be a heavy cubical mass with a bald uninteresting sky-line; or it may be a tall office building, impossible to reconcile with natural accessories either in pictorial scale or in composition. These natural accessories, too, the draughtsman must, with an occasional recourse to his photograph album, evolve out of his inner consciousness. When it is further considered that such structures, even when actualities, are uncompromisingly stiff and immaculate in their newness, presenting absolutely none of those interesting accidents so dear to the artist, and perhaps with nothing whatever about them of picturesque suggestion, we have a problem presented which is somewhat analogous to that presented by the sculpturesque possibilities of "fashionable trousering." That, with such uninspiring conditions, architectural illustration does not develop so interesting a character nor attain to so high a standard as distinguishes general illustration is not to be wondered at. It is rather an occasion for surprise that it exhibits so little of the artificiality of the fashion-plate after all, and that the better part of it, at least, is not more unworthy than figure illustration would be were it denied the invaluable aid of the living model. So much by way of apology.
The Architects' Point of View The architectural perspective, however, is not to be regarded purely from the pictorial point of view. It is an illustration first, a picture afterwards, and almost invariably deals with an individual building, which is the essential subject. This building cannot, therefore, be made a mere foil for interesting "picturesqueries," nor subordinated to any scenic effect of landscape or chiaroscuro. Natural accessories or interesting bits of street life may be added to give it an appropriate setting; but the result must clearly read "Building, with landscape," not "Landscape, with building."
Much suggestion for the sympathetic handling of particular subjects may be found in the character of the architecture itself. The illustrator ought to enter into the spirit of the designer, ought to feel just what natural accessories lend themselves most harmoniously to this or that particular type. If the architecture be quaint and picturesque it must not have prosaic surroundings. If, on the other hand, it be formal or monumental, the character and scale of the accessories should be accordingly serious and dignified. The rendering ought also to vary with the subject,—a free picturesque manner for the one, a more studied and responsible handling for the other. Technique is the language of art, and a stiff pompous phraseology will accord ill with a story of quaint humor or pathos, while the homely diction that might answer very well would be sure to struggle at a disadvantage with the stately meanings and diplomatic subtleties of a state document.
Rendering of Detail It would be well for the student, before venturing upon whole subjects, to learn to render details, such as windows, cornices, etc. Windows are a most important feature of the architectural drawing, and the beginner must study them carefully, experimenting for the method which will best represent their glassy surfaces. No material gives such play of light and shade as glass does. One window is never absolutely like another; so that while a certain uniformity in their value may be required for breadth of effect in the drawing of a building, there is plenty of opportunity for incidental variety in their treatment.
A few practical hints on the rendering of windows may prove serviceable. Always emphasize the sash. Where there is no recess, as in wooden buildings, strengthen the inner line of sash, as in Fig. 41. In masonry buildings the frame and sash can be given their proper values, the area of wood being treated broadly, without regard to the individual members. The wood may, however, be left white if required, as would be the case in Colonial designs. In either case the dark shadow which the sash casts on the glass should be suggested, if the scale of the drawing be such as to permit of it. Do not try to show too much. One is apt to make a fussy effect, if, for instance, one insists on always shading the soffit of the masonry opening, especially if the scale of the drawing be small. Besides, a white soffit is not a false but merely a forced value, as in strong sunlight the reflected light is considerable. If the frame be left white, however, the soffit ought to be shaded, otherwise it will be difficult to keep the values distinct. In respect of wooden buildings there is no need to always complete the mouldings of the architrave. Notice in Fig. 41 that, in the window without the muntins, the mouldings have been carried round the top to give color, but that in the other they are merely suggested at the corners so as to avoid confusion. Care should be taken to avoid mechanical rendering of the muntins. For the glass itself, a uniformly flat tone is to be avoided. The tones should soften vaguely. It will be found, too, that it is not advisable to have a strong dark effect at the top of the window and another at the bottom; one should predominate.
 | |
| FIG. 41 | C. D. M. |
The student after careful study of Fig. 41 should make from it enlarged drawings, and afterwards, laying the book aside, proceed to render them in his own way. When he has done so, let him compare his work with the originals. This process ought to be repeated several times, the aim being always for similarity, not for literalness of effect. If he can get equally good results with another method he need not be disconcerted at the lack of any further resemblance.
The cornice with its shadow is another salient feature. In short shadows, such as those cast by cornices, it is well, if a sunny effect be desired, to accent the bottom edge of the shadow. The shadow lines ought to be generally parallel, but with enough variation to obviate a mechanical effect. They need not be vertical lines,—in fact it is better that they should take the same slant as the light. If they are not absolutely perpendicular, however, it is well to make them distinctly oblique, otherwise the effect will be unpleasant. A clever sketch of a cornice by Mr. George F. Newton is shown in Fig. 42. Notice how well the texture of the brick is expressed by the looseness of the pen work. Some of the detail, too, is dexterously handled, notably the bead and button moulding.
The strength of the cornice shadow should be determined by the tone of the roof above it. To obtain for this shadow the very distinct value which it ought to have, however, does not require that the roof be kept always much lighter than it. In the gable roof in Fig. 57, the tone of the roof is shaded lighter as it approaches the eaves, so that the shadow may count more emphatically. This order may be reversed, as in the case of a building with dark roof and light walls, in which case the shadow may be grayer than the lower portion of the roof, as in "B" in Fig. 44.