The American Architect
Vol. CXV
Wednesday, April 30, 1919 Number 2262
The Development of Craftsmanship
W
HILE we are setting about the reformation of our methods of architectural education, it would be wise, when that arduous task is well under way, also to organize for the education of the craftsman.
One of the most admirable reports ever presented by a committee of the Institute, was that of the Committee- on Education during the convention of 1912. In the course of that report it was stated:
“We may on paper create visions that rival those of Coleridge’s Kubla Khan; we may on arising from a weary drawing board, our creative task accomplished, say with Justinian (and believe ourselves in the saying) : Solomon, 1 have surpassed thee,’ but when vve see our drawings and our designs materialized in three dimensions we realize that, were we buried within their walls, the globetrotting New Zealander, a century hence, looking for our personal monument would hardly say with Sir Christopher’s eulogist, ‘Circumspice.’ In the good old days, when architectural monument was a plexus of all the arts, the architect was pretty much at the mercy of the craftsman and he still is, with a difference, for then every bit of sculpture or carving or metal work and joinery, and glass and needle work, when these latter came into play, enhanced the architecture, glorified it. and sometimes redeemed it as well; now either our carving is butchered, our sculpture and painting conceived on lines that defy their architectural ton, our stained glass defiant of every law of God, man or architect, or it is all reduced to a dead level of technical plausibility, without an atom of feeling or artistry—and we are glad enough to take it this way for the sake of escaping worse.”
After a lapse of now almost five years, the relationship of the architect to the craftsman has undergone little if any change. The fact that so little has been accomplished gives proof to the contention often made in these columns that the admirable reports of the Institute are too often purely academic, and chiefly, perhaps, through lack of proper execution, are nothing more than a waste of the best mental effort of their framers.
Despite the fact that we have not made progress in attaining a closer relationship between architecture and craftsmanship, there may, however, be pointed out men in the various crafts who by intelligent labor have by their own efforts elevated the dignity of their particular craft, but there the
matter rests. The schools of craftsmanship, like the schools of architecture, appear to be teaching but a small part of the essentially practical elements of their work. If it is asked just what cooperation architects might reasonably expect from the craftsmen, it might be said that they surely should not expect a slavish copying of a design originated in the architect’s office. Why should not the design originate with the craftsman? Does not a mechanical copying of another man’s artistic work dwarf originality and retard a free expression of ability? If the craftsman is trained, as he undoubtedly should be, in an exact knowledge of the material in which he works, is it not logical to assume that with an equal artistic training he should be better able to design and execute than some man whose ability lies in a clever faculty for design alone. It would seem therefore that the surest way for architects to promote a better craftsmanship would be to give the craftsman freer rein in these matters and let him produce the design, under the critical oversight of the architect. Perhaps it will be said that this cannot be done, that there are not enough men in this country sufficiently trained to undertake such work. If this is true, and perhaps it is, does it not at once point to the necessity for a finer development of the higher craftsmanship in this country? There does not appear to be a better opportunity for architects to lend assistance to work that will help them to attain the highest artistic ideals than in this direction.
Again quoting from the report already referred to;
“Every architect knows that the success or failure of his work depends largely on the craftsmen who carry it out and complete it with all its decorative features of form and color, and yet in a nation of 100.000.000 people, with a dozen schools of architecture, practically nothing is done toward educating these same craftsmen, and we either secure the services of foreign trained men, accept tenth rate native work, or go without. Take a case in point: It is decided to build a metropolitan cathedral with little regard to cost; plans are made; what then? If it is to be a great and comprehensive work of art, it needs—and exactly as much as it needs its archi
Copyright, 1919, The Architectural & Building Press (inc.)
Vol. CXV
Wednesday, April 30, 1919 Number 2262
The Development of Craftsmanship
W
HILE we are setting about the reformation of our methods of architectural education, it would be wise, when that arduous task is well under way, also to organize for the education of the craftsman.
One of the most admirable reports ever presented by a committee of the Institute, was that of the Committee- on Education during the convention of 1912. In the course of that report it was stated:
“We may on paper create visions that rival those of Coleridge’s Kubla Khan; we may on arising from a weary drawing board, our creative task accomplished, say with Justinian (and believe ourselves in the saying) : Solomon, 1 have surpassed thee,’ but when vve see our drawings and our designs materialized in three dimensions we realize that, were we buried within their walls, the globetrotting New Zealander, a century hence, looking for our personal monument would hardly say with Sir Christopher’s eulogist, ‘Circumspice.’ In the good old days, when architectural monument was a plexus of all the arts, the architect was pretty much at the mercy of the craftsman and he still is, with a difference, for then every bit of sculpture or carving or metal work and joinery, and glass and needle work, when these latter came into play, enhanced the architecture, glorified it. and sometimes redeemed it as well; now either our carving is butchered, our sculpture and painting conceived on lines that defy their architectural ton, our stained glass defiant of every law of God, man or architect, or it is all reduced to a dead level of technical plausibility, without an atom of feeling or artistry—and we are glad enough to take it this way for the sake of escaping worse.”
After a lapse of now almost five years, the relationship of the architect to the craftsman has undergone little if any change. The fact that so little has been accomplished gives proof to the contention often made in these columns that the admirable reports of the Institute are too often purely academic, and chiefly, perhaps, through lack of proper execution, are nothing more than a waste of the best mental effort of their framers.
Despite the fact that we have not made progress in attaining a closer relationship between architecture and craftsmanship, there may, however, be pointed out men in the various crafts who by intelligent labor have by their own efforts elevated the dignity of their particular craft, but there the
matter rests. The schools of craftsmanship, like the schools of architecture, appear to be teaching but a small part of the essentially practical elements of their work. If it is asked just what cooperation architects might reasonably expect from the craftsmen, it might be said that they surely should not expect a slavish copying of a design originated in the architect’s office. Why should not the design originate with the craftsman? Does not a mechanical copying of another man’s artistic work dwarf originality and retard a free expression of ability? If the craftsman is trained, as he undoubtedly should be, in an exact knowledge of the material in which he works, is it not logical to assume that with an equal artistic training he should be better able to design and execute than some man whose ability lies in a clever faculty for design alone. It would seem therefore that the surest way for architects to promote a better craftsmanship would be to give the craftsman freer rein in these matters and let him produce the design, under the critical oversight of the architect. Perhaps it will be said that this cannot be done, that there are not enough men in this country sufficiently trained to undertake such work. If this is true, and perhaps it is, does it not at once point to the necessity for a finer development of the higher craftsmanship in this country? There does not appear to be a better opportunity for architects to lend assistance to work that will help them to attain the highest artistic ideals than in this direction.
Again quoting from the report already referred to;
“Every architect knows that the success or failure of his work depends largely on the craftsmen who carry it out and complete it with all its decorative features of form and color, and yet in a nation of 100.000.000 people, with a dozen schools of architecture, practically nothing is done toward educating these same craftsmen, and we either secure the services of foreign trained men, accept tenth rate native work, or go without. Take a case in point: It is decided to build a metropolitan cathedral with little regard to cost; plans are made; what then? If it is to be a great and comprehensive work of art, it needs—and exactly as much as it needs its archi
Copyright, 1919, The Architectural & Building Press (inc.)