themselves to blame, but where a ‘‘considerable proportion” have failed to interpret the rules correctly, then it is obviously the fault of the rules themselves which have not been defined with sufficient clarity. Unfortunately the assessors do not deign to particularise which of the conditions were violated by the candidates. In fact the report is singularly free of any statement which could possibly be regarded as a critique of the designs submitted. Yet the competitors would have valued a considered judgment of the designs on the part of the assessors, who might at least have briefly indicated the grounds on which the twenty-seven premiated schemes were arranged in three grades. The report, as actually presented to us, does indeed contain the statement that the assessors “examined the designs, ” but gives no evidence in the form of criticisms or commentary such as would convince us that all or any of the designs have been the subject of detailed analysis. One
cryptic sentence especially deserves to be quoted: “With regard to the carrying out of the programme, the fact that the designs show fundamental differences in their conception of the scheme is explained by the evolutionary phase through which contemporary architecture is now passing. ’’ The redundant “now” is but a trifle which need not seriously
offend, but is there not a flagrant illogicality in the suggestion that differences in the interpretation of the “programme” is due to the “evolutionary
phase of modern architecture”? This latter cause may have been responsible for the lack of homogeneity in style which was exhibited in the various schemes, but the “programme” was, or should have
been, determined in detail by the assessors themselves. And why drag in a reference to this ‘‘evolu
tionary phase? ” The jury were not required to write a general essay upon contemporary architecture, but to explain and justify their own award. LEAGUE OF NATIONS COMPETITION. FIRST GROUP AWARD.
No. 118. — Mr. Nils Einer Eriksson, Architect, Stockholm.
LEAGUE OF NATIONS COMPETITION. FIRST GROUP AWARD.
No. 118. — Mr. Nils Einer Eriksson, Architect, Stockholm.
cryptic sentence especially deserves to be quoted: “With regard to the carrying out of the programme, the fact that the designs show fundamental differences in their conception of the scheme is explained by the evolutionary phase through which contemporary architecture is now passing. ’’ The redundant “now” is but a trifle which need not seriously
offend, but is there not a flagrant illogicality in the suggestion that differences in the interpretation of the “programme” is due to the “evolutionary
phase of modern architecture”? This latter cause may have been responsible for the lack of homogeneity in style which was exhibited in the various schemes, but the “programme” was, or should have
been, determined in detail by the assessors themselves. And why drag in a reference to this ‘‘evolu
tionary phase? ” The jury were not required to write a general essay upon contemporary architecture, but to explain and justify their own award. LEAGUE OF NATIONS COMPETITION. FIRST GROUP AWARD.
No. 118. — Mr. Nils Einer Eriksson, Architect, Stockholm.
LEAGUE OF NATIONS COMPETITION. FIRST GROUP AWARD.
No. 118. — Mr. Nils Einer Eriksson, Architect, Stockholm.