Observe the architecture of our Country House. If it has been built in
England during the last three hundred years, the style is probably that
bastard Greek or Roman which we call Renascence architecture; if the
Country House was built in America during the last thirty years, it is
as likely as not a Tudor residence with traces of castle fortification
left here and there on the façade. On the walls there will be plenty
of paintings; indeed a whole gallery may be devoted to them. In all
probability, however, the paintings have been created in other times by
men long since dead, and in other countries: there may be a portrait
by Rembrandt, a Persian miniature, a print by Hokusai. Some very fine
element in the structure, a fireplace or a bit of panelling, may have
been removed piece by piece from the original Country House in England,
Italy, or France; even as many features of the original Country House
were quarried, perhaps, from some mediæval abbey. The very china
that we use upon our tables nowadays is a Country House importation
which took the place of pewter and earthenware; and wall paper is
another importation. From feature to feature everything is derivative;
everything, in the last analysis, has either been stolen or purchased
from the original makers; and what has not been stolen or purchased has
been basely copied.
The insatiability of the Country House to possess art is only equalled
by its inability to create it. In the Country House, the arts are not
married to the community, but are kept for its pleasure.
Let there be no confusion as to either the facts or the ideal we are
examining. There is a vast difference between that fine mingling of
traditions which is the very breath of the arts, as the lover of
classic Greek statuary knows, and the rapacious imperialistic habit of
looting the physical objects of art which has been the essence of the
Country House method in modern times, even as it seems to have been
a couple of thousand years ago in the Roman villa. A genuine culture
will borrow steadily from other cultures; but it will go to them as
the bee goes to the flower for pollen, and not as the beekeeper goes
to the hive for honey. There is a creative borrowing and a possessive
borrowing; and the Country House has in the main limited itself to
possessive borrowing. The Country House ideal, in fact, is limitless
possession: so the great Country House masters have five or six houses,
perhaps, in their name, although they need but a single one to cover
their heads.
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.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account