There is a presumptuous feeling in the breasts of those who, par excellence, assume the style and title of “Artists,” both in the Old and the New World, which it would be well to look into were it not that valuable time might thus be wasted on an exceedingly contemptible subject. We allude to the arrogation of eminence by those autocrats of the easel, who, not content with the undue position conceded to them by the vain and the frivolous who stilt themselves on their recognition of “high art,” and affect to govern the very laws of taste itself, go farther in the fulness of their ambition, and seek to ignore Architecture as an art. This outrage on common sense is not confined to America, it has been continuously practised, if not boldly promulgated, for over a century in London, by an institution bearing the absurd title of The Royal Academy, originally intended to foster and advance the interests of Architecture, Painting, and Sculpture, yet in forty elections, or rather selections, of Associates, that is, of those ordained to emblazon their names with the R. A., but four were Architects!
And, notwithstanding the studious efforts made by our profession to elevate our position and draw at least our share of public attention, we find that this Royal Academy and the rest of the aristocratic Dundrearifications, positively prohibit the appearance of architectural designs upon the walls of their National Galleries by crowding every available foot of wall space with easel-work, (we beg pardon—“paintings,”) ephemeral, unnatural, mannerized exudations of the “modern school,” that barely patronizes Nature as a stupid fact, which to be got round must be obliterated in gaudy coloring. But, shall Architects make bold to criticize these “Artists?” No, Painting is a sublime gift, by the magic touch of which the coarse inelegant canvas is made to put forth emanations of the etherial mind, which it were a pity to limit to the paltry boundary of a gilded frame!
What is Architecture?
Where would the art of Painting find a shelter, were it not for Architecture?
Do the gentlemen of the brush and palette ever look around and above at the walls, the ceilings, or even at the tessellated floor of the rooms where their small framed efforts are on exhibition, and suffer their overweaning vanity to acknowledge that Architecture is really something?
How many painters can properly depict it? How many?
The ignorance which urges the pre-eminence of Painting at the expense of Architecture is more to be pitied than contemned. And the public patronage lavished on the one and withheld from the other, is superinduced by the ease with which any one can assume to be a critical admirer of an art whose governing rules are imaginary rather than real or substantial.
Some see beauty in the fidelity which a painting bears to Nature. Others consider that very fidelity as slavish imitation. And a very general notion obtains amongst painters of “assisting Nature.” Now, Architecture stands upon the solid base of Truth. Without imitating, it borrows applicable ideas from Nature to be used in carrying out its designs. Nor is it merely the imaginations, limnings, as in the case of Paintings; those designs have to be executed. Construction then comes in as the solid, tangible, work of art, which shall defy the elements and render Architecture the protectress of Painting, without whose solid enduring defence the more fragile art would speedily decay and become unknown.
But, are not the professors and admirers of Architecture themselves to blame for the degraded position it holds to-day as an art, here and in Europe? Why is there not more practical enthusiasm, and altogether less contemptible jealousy, and ill-natured feeling, amongst all who claim to have an interest in this the grandest and most over-shadowing of the Arts?
If Painting must needs hold an exclusive position as regards the public exhibitions of what is most erroneously called the “Fine Arts,” why cannot Architecture and Sculpture assert their dignity, and give the public a chance to patronize them independently? The truth is that Architecture and Painting do not at all agree in sentiment; the one is a mere luxury, and no more; the other is a necessary art, adorned or unadorned. The one can be glanced at and instantly understood; the other demands the effort of the mind to study and to comprehend. In Painting, the eye is the arbiter; in Architecture, the eye and the mind must form the judgment. It is not what a merely pretty picture is displayed; it is—how would that design look in execution?