The American Architect
Vol. CXV
Wednesday, May 7, 1919 Number 2263
The Nashville Convention
Noteworthy Results Attained at Fifty-Second Annual Meeting of the American Institute of Architects, Held April 30 to May 2
THE FIRST DAY’S PROCEEDINGS
THAT the fifty-second annual convention of
the American Institute of Architects, held at Nashville, Tenn., April 30, May 1 and 2, was to be primarily a discussion of principles as set forth in the program of the Post-War Committee, was at the outset foreshadowed in the brief address of President Kimball. Every other matter taken up for consideration was only of relative importance in its bearing on that important program.
When, on the morning of April 30, the convention was called to order by President Kimball, there were present more than 130 delegates. The sessions were held in the Assembly Chamber of the State Capitol building, designed by William Strickland. Not for many years past has the Institute held a convention amidst surroundings so well suited to its purpose.
The delegates were welcomed to Nashville by Mayor Gupton. He said Nashville was at all times ready to extend a welcome to any organization whose work was in the interest of progress. He welcomed the architects to “The Athens of the South” and to a city noted for its good architecture. He expressed in a most cordial way the desire of the City of Nashville to show the very essence of Southern hospitality.
In the opening address by President Kimball, an address that was received with much satisfaction, some very important matters were outlined. He spoke as follows:
President Kimball s Address
In order that all the time possible may be devoted to the work of the Post-War Committee on Architectural Practice, the President’s address will be extremely brief.
In view of certain signs of the times and in deference to some of my own pet prejudices, I shall not wholly yield to —though I sympathize with the Post-War Committee’s well-earned right to every moment that can be spared from the imperative routine of the Convention.
On every side we meet the word “professional.” It
crops up in most unexpected and unaccountable places, and strange associations. In the circular of our Post-War Committee we find it used in connection with and to define a recently assumed attitude of the contractor toward his work, wherein under the guise of a growing professional tendency he seeks to disguise a desire to shirk old and irksome responsibilities. Almost over night our friends the brokers in real estate have put on, together with a general clean-up, new paint, etc., the title “Realtor” and a claim to complete graduation into the class professional. I call this a sign of the times and a distinctly unpromising one—one I attribute to those among us who, for the sake of a theory more Utopian than purposeful, would have us believe that commerce itself is in line to take on the garb of unselfish service, in spite of the margin of profit for which it exists.
I would sound a warning against the tendency for which this post-war sign seems to stand. If professionalism is to be protected from such exploitation, indeed if it is to endure—I believe its disciples must awake to this and the other menaces of the all-absorbing commercial tidal wave that seems to be upon us, and which, if history really does repeat, should warn us of that never-failing visitation of force that is the only answer when the selfish control of necessities of life reaches higher water mark.
It is a pet fancy that it might pay to oppose to the commercial menace through organization—the one thing that has never yet been organized—the one thing that by reason of its essential character, is, and always must be, absolutely non-commercial—I mean simon pure professionalism.
Why not gather for this defense all those callings where skilled service unselfishly rendered to others is the qualifying requisite? Not so small an array when you realize that standing up to be shot at for one’s country at thirty dollars per month qualifies and that khaki is the hallmark of preparation and skill.
Those versed in figures told us, some years ago, that by virtue of the sleeplessness of interest—the money (78 per cent of all there is) at that time in the hands of orte per cent of the people—would draw to itself the remaining twenty-two per cent within fifteen years of which some six years have already passed. This money means bread and when all of it has come under the control of one per cent of those to whom bread means life, is it unreasonable to look for one of those sanguine outbreaks of force that have, I believe, always resulted under those conditions since history began to be written? It is the thought of this which makes it seem worth while to try to oppose organized selfishness by unionizing for that purpose the one thing that has, I believe, never yet submitted to the fetters of organization.
I offer this as a post convention thought, and really—I ask you—is it such an impossible idea that the combined
Copyright, 1919, The Architectural & Building Press (Inc.)