nance of a Committee on Public Information was favored, as its duties might properly be carried forward by the Committee on Publications.
This marks the end of a committee that was organized at a time, or, more exactly speaking, while the Tarsney Act repeal was being acted on by committees of Congress. The daily press throughout the country was full of the most misleading statements as to the practice of architecture. It was then the opinion of The American Architect, and it is yet of the same opinion, that there should be a committee of the Institute to set abroad a propaganda of education and by personal appeal to publications that were guilty of misstatements seek to correct them. This committee is now dead, and its history is that it never was made by those placed on it, what it was really intended to be, a committee on the formation and dissemination of correct information of the public. During the past two years this committee, if it had conceived a proper idea ot what it really was brought to life for, would have been able to give a valuable service.
A series of documents and resolutions were presented to the convention and on motion referred to appropriate committees.
Among these was the matter of a resolution concerning the architectural improvement of farm buildings, in which the board of directors in its report expressed warm approval. George W. Maher, chairman of the delegates from the Illinois Chapter, and prominently identified with this movement, addressed the convention. Mr. Maher’s contention was that the subject of farm buildings was a distinct one and should not be confused with matters of industrial housing or town planning. A motion providing for a separate committee on farm buildings was put and carried.
At half-past-four the convention adjourned to accept an invitation to view a collection of portraits and objet chart assembled in the Parthenon in Centennial Park by the Nashville Art Association. About one hundred delegates, many accompanied by their wives, made the journey to the park, where they were received and entertained by a special committee.
The Parthenon is located in a picturesque park in the environs of Nashville. Here the Art Commission has gathered an interesting collection of portraits, mainly of historic interest, and many relics and heirlooms of the oldest families of the State of Tennessee.
In order that the discussion of the Post-War Committee’s program might be carried forward apart from the routine convention business, it was arranged that the various sessions should be held in the evenings, commencing at eight o’clock.
The importance of these meetings is such that
they will be reviewed in following issues of The American Architect.
Evening Session
The evening of the first day was given over to a meeting of the Post-War Commiteee. Mr. Milton B. Medary, Jr., presided.
That the work of this committee is considered of first importance by the delegates is shown in the fact that with few exceptions every one was in attendance. The debate on the various topics taken up was a serious and thoughtful consideration of elements of architectural practice that are now considered the vital things in the reorganization of the profession.
In his opening address Mr. Medary briefly outlined the reasons that were put forward by those who were responsible for the creation of this important committee. The movement has extended outside the membership of the Institute and every effort has been made to attract architects everywhere to the discussion of these important problems.
Preliminary to the discussion as planned, Mr. John Bell Keeble, a distinguished member of the Bar of the State of Tennessee, was introduced. Mr. Keeble spoke on the Relationship of the Professions.
President Kimball next addressed the meeting. He spoke on Professional Principles. He said.:
In considering the professional aspect of the Post-War Committee’s inquiry, we are by its circular invited to treat the subject as one of relationship. “Are we in right relation with those we serve—the public?” “Are we in right relation with those with whom we serve—all those who help us to build?” “Are we in right relation with those who parallel our service in our own and our brother professions ?”
It is my province to point out the part professionalism does, and may, play in all this. That we may arrive at something tangible, we must, at least for argument’s sake, come to common ground on the thing we are talking about. What is this principle we call professional, and which we are all so willing to have associated with architectural practice? To me it is what remains after you eliminate the art we have chosen to patronize, and the commerce which we are forced to practice in order to patronize that art. It is the third corner of the architectural triangle.
ART—our art—Architecture—gives its name to our calling and the objectives to our life’s study, and to some the very God we worship.
COMMERCE—That life may be sustained, we serve with great fidelity that corner of our cadre which has to do with the quid pro quo, and in its service we are forced to cultivate a side of us that can but be destructive of the thing on which our art depends. Here I find the great paradox that we are living—living with such indifferent success; both elements as intensely selfish as they are involving, the one working to the limit to nullify the other. It is a good example of that “cancellation of effort” which accounts for much professional ineffectiveness.
There remains the third corner—the professional element —universally approved and respected, meagerly understood, however, and but weakly followed. As a principle it seems
This marks the end of a committee that was organized at a time, or, more exactly speaking, while the Tarsney Act repeal was being acted on by committees of Congress. The daily press throughout the country was full of the most misleading statements as to the practice of architecture. It was then the opinion of The American Architect, and it is yet of the same opinion, that there should be a committee of the Institute to set abroad a propaganda of education and by personal appeal to publications that were guilty of misstatements seek to correct them. This committee is now dead, and its history is that it never was made by those placed on it, what it was really intended to be, a committee on the formation and dissemination of correct information of the public. During the past two years this committee, if it had conceived a proper idea ot what it really was brought to life for, would have been able to give a valuable service.
A series of documents and resolutions were presented to the convention and on motion referred to appropriate committees.
Among these was the matter of a resolution concerning the architectural improvement of farm buildings, in which the board of directors in its report expressed warm approval. George W. Maher, chairman of the delegates from the Illinois Chapter, and prominently identified with this movement, addressed the convention. Mr. Maher’s contention was that the subject of farm buildings was a distinct one and should not be confused with matters of industrial housing or town planning. A motion providing for a separate committee on farm buildings was put and carried.
At half-past-four the convention adjourned to accept an invitation to view a collection of portraits and objet chart assembled in the Parthenon in Centennial Park by the Nashville Art Association. About one hundred delegates, many accompanied by their wives, made the journey to the park, where they were received and entertained by a special committee.
The Parthenon is located in a picturesque park in the environs of Nashville. Here the Art Commission has gathered an interesting collection of portraits, mainly of historic interest, and many relics and heirlooms of the oldest families of the State of Tennessee.
In order that the discussion of the Post-War Committee’s program might be carried forward apart from the routine convention business, it was arranged that the various sessions should be held in the evenings, commencing at eight o’clock.
The importance of these meetings is such that
they will be reviewed in following issues of The American Architect.
Evening Session
The evening of the first day was given over to a meeting of the Post-War Commiteee. Mr. Milton B. Medary, Jr., presided.
That the work of this committee is considered of first importance by the delegates is shown in the fact that with few exceptions every one was in attendance. The debate on the various topics taken up was a serious and thoughtful consideration of elements of architectural practice that are now considered the vital things in the reorganization of the profession.
In his opening address Mr. Medary briefly outlined the reasons that were put forward by those who were responsible for the creation of this important committee. The movement has extended outside the membership of the Institute and every effort has been made to attract architects everywhere to the discussion of these important problems.
Preliminary to the discussion as planned, Mr. John Bell Keeble, a distinguished member of the Bar of the State of Tennessee, was introduced. Mr. Keeble spoke on the Relationship of the Professions.
President Kimball next addressed the meeting. He spoke on Professional Principles. He said.:
In considering the professional aspect of the Post-War Committee’s inquiry, we are by its circular invited to treat the subject as one of relationship. “Are we in right relation with those we serve—the public?” “Are we in right relation with those with whom we serve—all those who help us to build?” “Are we in right relation with those who parallel our service in our own and our brother professions ?”
It is my province to point out the part professionalism does, and may, play in all this. That we may arrive at something tangible, we must, at least for argument’s sake, come to common ground on the thing we are talking about. What is this principle we call professional, and which we are all so willing to have associated with architectural practice? To me it is what remains after you eliminate the art we have chosen to patronize, and the commerce which we are forced to practice in order to patronize that art. It is the third corner of the architectural triangle.
ART—our art—Architecture—gives its name to our calling and the objectives to our life’s study, and to some the very God we worship.
COMMERCE—That life may be sustained, we serve with great fidelity that corner of our cadre which has to do with the quid pro quo, and in its service we are forced to cultivate a side of us that can but be destructive of the thing on which our art depends. Here I find the great paradox that we are living—living with such indifferent success; both elements as intensely selfish as they are involving, the one working to the limit to nullify the other. It is a good example of that “cancellation of effort” which accounts for much professional ineffectiveness.
There remains the third corner—the professional element —universally approved and respected, meagerly understood, however, and but weakly followed. As a principle it seems