The American Architect
VOL. CXV
Wednesday, May 28, 1919 Number 2266
A Review of The Post-War Committee’s
Activities at the Nashville Convention
By Robert D. Kohn, F. A. I. A.
I
T would be quite impossible in a brief article to give any adequate impression of the discussions that took place on the items of the Post-War Cofnmittee’s program at the recent convention of the Institute in Nashville. The transactions of the Institute, when published, will contain a fairly complete report, but it is worth while attempting to give the impressions of one member of the committee who is very deeply interested in the whole matter.
To begin with, the convention unquestionably went on record as approving the continuance of the work of the committee. This was shown by the vote recorded on the recommendation of the Board of Directors that the Institute be allowed to draw from its reserve fund if necessary in order to carry on this work, as well as certain other important work for the coming year. The vote required a twothirds majority. While it secured that majority by a narrow margin, a vote of 82 to 40 was really most satisfactory because of the fact that many who voted against the appropriation did so because they thought that the expenses of the committee should be drawn from current funds and not because they disapproved the committee’s work. A direct and clear vote on the issue as to whether or not the Post-War Committee was to continue its investigations would apparently have secured the almost unanimous vote of the convention.
The Post-War Committee held a meeting before the convention and one immediately afterwards. At these meetings consideration was given to many hundreds, indeed possibly close to a thousand, communications received from architects throughout the country in response to the questions contained in the program. A very large share of these replies came from men who were not connected with the Institute, thus indicating that the inquiry had aroused a very general interest on the part of the profession at large. The three sessions of the
convention particularly devoted to a discussion of the various items of the program were full of interest and in the opinion of many of those present brought out the most vital and lively discussions that have been heard for many years.
There was considerable delay in getting to the subjects assigned for the first evening session because a good part of the time allotted for the meeting was taken up by an admirable address delivered by Mr. John Bell Keeble, a distinguished attorney of Nashville. His professional message was inspiring and dealt principally with the distinction between the business attitude and the professional attitude toward life. His analysis of the social point of view in the practice of law and architecture was most welcome and highly appreciated.
Mr. Dunning’s admirable introduction to the detailed discussion of the Post-War Committee program, followed by an address by Mr. Medary of Philadelphia, the chairman of the evening, set the pace at so high a standard that it was really difficult thereafter to get the modest delegates to express themselves freely. Before the evening was over, however, an enlightening debate had taken place on the possibilities of expansion of the architect’s service, the self education that comes through his greater participation as a citizen in public work, and the methods by which he can make his importance in relation to the problems of building more quickly felt. There was no attempt on the part of the speakers to place the architect on a pedestal as a perfect being and to blame the public for all the ills of the profession. There was hardly a speaker who did not frankly say that the architect would have to make his own services more efficient and more complete if he wished to put himself right with the public.
Owing to the desire of the convention to give an earlier opportunity for the discussion of educational problems than had been provided by the program,
Copyright, 1919, The Architectural & Building Press (Inc.)
VOL. CXV
Wednesday, May 28, 1919 Number 2266
A Review of The Post-War Committee’s
Activities at the Nashville Convention
By Robert D. Kohn, F. A. I. A.
I
T would be quite impossible in a brief article to give any adequate impression of the discussions that took place on the items of the Post-War Cofnmittee’s program at the recent convention of the Institute in Nashville. The transactions of the Institute, when published, will contain a fairly complete report, but it is worth while attempting to give the impressions of one member of the committee who is very deeply interested in the whole matter.
To begin with, the convention unquestionably went on record as approving the continuance of the work of the committee. This was shown by the vote recorded on the recommendation of the Board of Directors that the Institute be allowed to draw from its reserve fund if necessary in order to carry on this work, as well as certain other important work for the coming year. The vote required a twothirds majority. While it secured that majority by a narrow margin, a vote of 82 to 40 was really most satisfactory because of the fact that many who voted against the appropriation did so because they thought that the expenses of the committee should be drawn from current funds and not because they disapproved the committee’s work. A direct and clear vote on the issue as to whether or not the Post-War Committee was to continue its investigations would apparently have secured the almost unanimous vote of the convention.
The Post-War Committee held a meeting before the convention and one immediately afterwards. At these meetings consideration was given to many hundreds, indeed possibly close to a thousand, communications received from architects throughout the country in response to the questions contained in the program. A very large share of these replies came from men who were not connected with the Institute, thus indicating that the inquiry had aroused a very general interest on the part of the profession at large. The three sessions of the
convention particularly devoted to a discussion of the various items of the program were full of interest and in the opinion of many of those present brought out the most vital and lively discussions that have been heard for many years.
There was considerable delay in getting to the subjects assigned for the first evening session because a good part of the time allotted for the meeting was taken up by an admirable address delivered by Mr. John Bell Keeble, a distinguished attorney of Nashville. His professional message was inspiring and dealt principally with the distinction between the business attitude and the professional attitude toward life. His analysis of the social point of view in the practice of law and architecture was most welcome and highly appreciated.
Mr. Dunning’s admirable introduction to the detailed discussion of the Post-War Committee program, followed by an address by Mr. Medary of Philadelphia, the chairman of the evening, set the pace at so high a standard that it was really difficult thereafter to get the modest delegates to express themselves freely. Before the evening was over, however, an enlightening debate had taken place on the possibilities of expansion of the architect’s service, the self education that comes through his greater participation as a citizen in public work, and the methods by which he can make his importance in relation to the problems of building more quickly felt. There was no attempt on the part of the speakers to place the architect on a pedestal as a perfect being and to blame the public for all the ills of the profession. There was hardly a speaker who did not frankly say that the architect would have to make his own services more efficient and more complete if he wished to put himself right with the public.
Owing to the desire of the convention to give an earlier opportunity for the discussion of educational problems than had been provided by the program,
Copyright, 1919, The Architectural & Building Press (Inc.)