cism has been expressed in concrete form. Something of this sort appears in the Journal of the Institute for November, 1918, in an article by V. A. Matteson, of the Construction Division of the Army, a part of which we quote:
By a sort of process of disintegration, various fields of endeavor have been started in the past half-century which we have been responsible for saying were not architecture but engineering in some form. The result is that the term engineering” covers a multitude of activities, but the term architecture,” which should be the broader term, has been confined to very narrow limits. It has been decreed by ourselves that, in order to be architecture at all, our work must have some claim to relationship with “art.” Science has been used in connection with the work of the Construction Division, but not much, if any, of what is commonly called “Art” (with a capital A). Therefore, by our own definition, by the limitations we have ourselves set, by public opinion which we have molded, and by our own narrow conception of what a master builder” should be, architects, according to popular definition, have not been of much service to the Construction Division, as compared with those who are commonly called engineers. On the other hand, if we consider that any man who has knowledge of the art and science of building, and puts that knowledge to practical, professional service as a master builder, is an architect, then we may say that the Construction Division is almost entirely composed of the most able architects that the world has produced.”
This appears to be a fair indication of the attitude of Government officials and coincides in the main with similar views heard in conversation and expressed in certain writings appearing in engineering publications not now at hand from which to quote.
Aside from the assumption of the role of artist” in place of “master builder” the gist of the accusations against the architect is that he is often visionary, unbusinesslike, and incompetent to design in detail whatever work of engineering is required in his building. These faults are frequent enough, but neither architects nor engineers are always perfect. Our critics lose sight of the fact that in laying out the general plans, the architect provides for and solves the main features of each engineering problem involved in construction, leaving the details of these and many other parts of the construction for subsequent elaboration.
It is his function to incorporate with his own work that of each of the various technical experts so that in the completed building the parts which each provides will fit in and work together as the parts of a single machine. He must do this in such
a manner as to satisfy the financial requirements of the owner, the physical needs of the tenant and the aesthetic sense of the community.
The training of the architect usually includes a study of the fundamental principles of engineering, but it is true that he is not often an expert in the sense applied to the engineer, nor is this necessary. It must be remembered that there are often eight or nine distinct phases of engineering necessary in modern buildings of any magnitude, each of which requires a preparatory period of four years to qualify as an expert, and experts in one branch are seldom similarly qualified in another. It would manifestly be impossible for any one man, either architect or engineer, to qualify as an expert in all branches during the span of a single life. Besides a certain knowledge of engineering an architect must have a working familiarity with a dozen or two of the building and industrial trades, to say nothing of decorative painting and sculpture. If not a universal expert himself, he can co-operate with other specialists, and this co-ordination of effort is absolutely necessary in the conduct of modern building operations, whether under the direction of the engineer or architect. If by the former, he will find it necessary himself to depend in equal degree upon the assistance of experts in other lines of work.
Engineering has a better standing as a profession because it has established a definite standard of education for those who practice it. It is much more difficult to do this for the architect, owing to the great diversity of information he must acquire, but a similar definite standard of education must be required before architecture can be maintained as a profession at all. Facts brought out by the war have, however, caused an almost universal doubt as to the efficacy of present methods of education in many other branches of human endeavor as well, and probably much study and effort will be necessary before our educational institutions can be made properly to fulfill the requirements of modern life.
At the present time the education of the engineer, whether military or civil, includes no study of the aesthetics of construction, and this probably accounts for the extreme ugliness of most structures purely utilitarian in character and especially of most buildings designed by engineers.
It has recently become fashionable to minimize the value of the aesthetic element in a structure and yet at the present time the whole world bewails the destruction of thousands of buildings throughout Europe because of the loss of their acknowledged beauty which has for long been a prolific source of income to the countries possessing them. Beauty
By a sort of process of disintegration, various fields of endeavor have been started in the past half-century which we have been responsible for saying were not architecture but engineering in some form. The result is that the term engineering” covers a multitude of activities, but the term architecture,” which should be the broader term, has been confined to very narrow limits. It has been decreed by ourselves that, in order to be architecture at all, our work must have some claim to relationship with “art.” Science has been used in connection with the work of the Construction Division, but not much, if any, of what is commonly called “Art” (with a capital A). Therefore, by our own definition, by the limitations we have ourselves set, by public opinion which we have molded, and by our own narrow conception of what a master builder” should be, architects, according to popular definition, have not been of much service to the Construction Division, as compared with those who are commonly called engineers. On the other hand, if we consider that any man who has knowledge of the art and science of building, and puts that knowledge to practical, professional service as a master builder, is an architect, then we may say that the Construction Division is almost entirely composed of the most able architects that the world has produced.”
This appears to be a fair indication of the attitude of Government officials and coincides in the main with similar views heard in conversation and expressed in certain writings appearing in engineering publications not now at hand from which to quote.
Aside from the assumption of the role of artist” in place of “master builder” the gist of the accusations against the architect is that he is often visionary, unbusinesslike, and incompetent to design in detail whatever work of engineering is required in his building. These faults are frequent enough, but neither architects nor engineers are always perfect. Our critics lose sight of the fact that in laying out the general plans, the architect provides for and solves the main features of each engineering problem involved in construction, leaving the details of these and many other parts of the construction for subsequent elaboration.
It is his function to incorporate with his own work that of each of the various technical experts so that in the completed building the parts which each provides will fit in and work together as the parts of a single machine. He must do this in such
a manner as to satisfy the financial requirements of the owner, the physical needs of the tenant and the aesthetic sense of the community.
The training of the architect usually includes a study of the fundamental principles of engineering, but it is true that he is not often an expert in the sense applied to the engineer, nor is this necessary. It must be remembered that there are often eight or nine distinct phases of engineering necessary in modern buildings of any magnitude, each of which requires a preparatory period of four years to qualify as an expert, and experts in one branch are seldom similarly qualified in another. It would manifestly be impossible for any one man, either architect or engineer, to qualify as an expert in all branches during the span of a single life. Besides a certain knowledge of engineering an architect must have a working familiarity with a dozen or two of the building and industrial trades, to say nothing of decorative painting and sculpture. If not a universal expert himself, he can co-operate with other specialists, and this co-ordination of effort is absolutely necessary in the conduct of modern building operations, whether under the direction of the engineer or architect. If by the former, he will find it necessary himself to depend in equal degree upon the assistance of experts in other lines of work.
Engineering has a better standing as a profession because it has established a definite standard of education for those who practice it. It is much more difficult to do this for the architect, owing to the great diversity of information he must acquire, but a similar definite standard of education must be required before architecture can be maintained as a profession at all. Facts brought out by the war have, however, caused an almost universal doubt as to the efficacy of present methods of education in many other branches of human endeavor as well, and probably much study and effort will be necessary before our educational institutions can be made properly to fulfill the requirements of modern life.
At the present time the education of the engineer, whether military or civil, includes no study of the aesthetics of construction, and this probably accounts for the extreme ugliness of most structures purely utilitarian in character and especially of most buildings designed by engineers.
It has recently become fashionable to minimize the value of the aesthetic element in a structure and yet at the present time the whole world bewails the destruction of thousands of buildings throughout Europe because of the loss of their acknowledged beauty which has for long been a prolific source of income to the countries possessing them. Beauty