The Architectural Review and American Builders' Journal, Aug. 1869 — John Shaqi
The Architectural Review and American Builders' Journal, Aug. 1869Various
General
The Architectural Review and American Builders' Journal, Aug. 1869
Various
Architecture -- Periodicals
it is allowed to run into large tubs filled with water, and thoroughly
washed and allowed to settle. The last or finishing operation is to
place it in large copper pans, heated by steam, when it is dried; from
thence taken to the color grinder, where it is mixed in oil ready for
the painter’s use.
PAINTERS AND ARCHITECTS.
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?
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account