shallow carving look deep, and it has been blindly imitated, as if it were an artistic discovery, by nearly all modern carvers. In the best work abroad, however, it is now rejected, and a first-rate Italian or German workman will get all the relief and contrast that he needs in a thickness of an eighth of an inch, carving the ground in the same way as the raised portions.
A PIECE of political acting, which reminds one of the demonstrations of our own cheap politicians, came to an
embarrassing end in Paris the other day. The subject of the appropriation to be made for work at the Louvre was under discussion, when a deputy jumped up, and indignantly protested against any appropriation being made to pay for the new work on the so-called “ Daru staircase, ” the decoration on which, he said, was “a blow in the face of truth and patriotism. ” It appeared, according to him, that the mosaic-worker had put on the wall “an allegorical figure representing German art, ” and he demanded that the picture should be immediately destroyed. Two other deputies, wishing to make sure that treason had been committed before they decreed the punishment, took the precaution to go and look at the decoration in question; and, on their return, asked the indignant orator what made him think that the figure represented German art. “ Because it holds in its hand a Gothic building, ” replied the patriot, who appears either to have imagined that the Gothic style was named after Goethe, or to have fallen in with Rosengarten’s peculiar notions as to the origin of mediæval art. The two investigators, however, explained to the Assembly that France had quite as good a claim as Germany to the invention of the Gothic style, even if the little edifice in the hand of the figure had been in that style, but, as a matter-of-fact, the style was French Romanesque. As this slight correction appeared to remove the last chance of giving the “ Prussians ” a thrust through the person of the unfortunate mosaic-worker, the matter was allowed to drop quietly,
QUITE a sensation was caused last winter in the School of Fine Arts in Paris by the announcement of a programme
for an important prize competition, the concours Godebœuf, which required the competitors to make designs for “ the metallic decoration of an elevator-car and its enclosure. ” The programme went on to say that elevators had been hitherto treated in a purely utilitarian spirit, but there was no doubt that they might furnish a motive for a graceful and elegant composition. When the designs came in, it was evident that the novelty of the programme had excited much interest, and that the students had worked with extraordinary zeal and success. Not only was the number of competing designs unusually large, but the quality was surprisingly good, so that the jury awarded sixteen medals, and seventy-one first mentions — more than four times the number usually given in this competition, and, besides this, officially communicated to the pupils its “ great satisfaction at the exceptional merit of the competing designs. ” More than this, after the competition was over, and the prizes and recompenses all awarded, a host of builders and elevator manufacturers appeared at the School, and, searching out the participants in the competition, bought from them a large number of the competing designs, and carried them off, no doubt to be carried into execution in scores of new buildings. It is hardly necessary to say that the announcement of a programme so modern in its character as this was a startling novelty in the School, which has the reputation of being obstinately conservative, but there are many evidences that a new and energetic influence is at work in the School affairs, and so successful an innovation is likely to be followed by others.
LA CONSTRUCTION MODERNE has begun the publi
cation of some well-written and interesting letters on architecture in the Argentine Republic, by M. Pedro Ciprandi, who appears to be quite familiar with the modern building of other countries, although, as he says, the Argentine architect finds no demand for novelties in the way of planning in his own practice. On the contrary, the ancient type of house, about as primitive in its arrangement, to our ideas, as the Indo-Germanic mansion of the period of the Aryan emigration, is still universally accepted, and an architect who should propose anything different to a client would be looked upon as a dangerous innovator. This type, naturally enough, appears to be derived
from the old Spanish or Moorish model of a house built, for security, around a court-yard, or patio, but as the lots in
Buenos Ayres, and the other principal cities, are shaped after the New York pattern, with a frontage on the street of about twenty-six feet, or ten varas, and a depth varying from a hundred feet upward, it is obvious that the introduction of a patio is a work of considerable architectural difficulty. However, as the Spanish-American must have his enclosed court-yard, which, in view of the stormy politics which prevail about him, he perhaps, has good reason for wanting, the problem is solved by placing it at one side of the lot, making it about twelve feet wide, and thirty feet deep, and, making an entrance to it by an archway under the front portion of the building, which occupies the whole width of the lot. At the back of the patio another section of the building extends entirely across the lot, and an archway through it gives access from the front court to the back yard, in which are situated the kitchen and its dependencies. The wide portion at the back of the patio is occupied, on the entrance floor, by the dining-room, while the street front is devoted to the parlor. The intermediate space is divided into bedrooms, which open on the court-yard, and derive their light from it, apparently through the open door, exactly as the bedrooms in the Roman houses were lighted from the peristyle. The members of a Roman family, however, could get from their bedrooms to the other portions of the house under shelter, by walking under the colonnades of the peristyle, while the Argentines, not having any peristyle, step from their chambers directly into the open air; so, to provide for inclement weather, doors are cut between the bedrooms and the adjoining rooms, by means of which, in case of a shower, people can be conducted from the parlor to the dining-room by passing through all the bedrooms on the first floor, which is often the only one.
LA SEMAINE EES CONSTRUCTEURS gives the
statistics for the present year of the School of Fine Arts in Paris. The School, as every one knows, comprises five sections, those of architecture, painting, sculpture, engraving and medal-cutting. Including all these sections, the school has now about one thousand and fifty-three pupils. Seven hundred and eleven of these — more than three-fifths, are in the section of architecture. A few of these study with relatives, or under some architect who does not usually take pupils, but nearly all are attached to some one out of the ten great ateliers more or less directly connected with the School. Three of these ateliers, directed by MM. Moyaux, Gaudet and Ginain, are officially attached to the School, and are maintained by the Government. These State ateliers accommodate about two hundred pupils. The rest are divided among the outside, or “free” ateliers, of which there are seven, that of M. Laloux, the successor of the lamented Andre, and those of MM. Raulin, Pascal, Douillard- Thierry, Sédille, Daumet and Girault, and Blondel. The section of painting, which has two hundred and nine pupils, comes next to that of architecture, although at a long distance. As in the section of architecture, there are three State ateliers, those of Gérome, Delaunay and Bonnat, to which are attached about one-third of the pupils. The rest are scattered among outside studios, of which those of Carolus Duran and Bouguereau are the most famous. In the section of sculpture are one hundred and nineteen pupils, two-thirds of whom are taught in the three State ateliers, those of Falguiére, Thomas and Cavelier; the others being scattered among many outside studios. Of the medal engravers there are five or six, and of the other engravers only eight.
THE French Government has responded with the highest courtesy and consideration to the invitation of the Americans to take part in the Exhibition at Chicago. A provisional Commission has been appointed, which, under the presidency of the Minister of Commerce, comprises such members as M. Hebrard, President of the Parisian Press Association; M. Antonin Proust; M. Georges Berger, the brilliant and indefatigable Chief Director of the Paris Exposition of 1889; M. Picard, of the Council of State; M. Alphand, Director of Public Works to the City of Paris; M. Larroumet, Director of Fine Arts; General Coste; M. Pallain, Director of Customs; M. Tisserand, Director of Agriculture; M. Cousté, President of the Parisian Chamber of Commerce, and many others; and is charged with the preparation of a plan for the participation of France in the exhibition.
A PIECE of political acting, which reminds one of the demonstrations of our own cheap politicians, came to an
embarrassing end in Paris the other day. The subject of the appropriation to be made for work at the Louvre was under discussion, when a deputy jumped up, and indignantly protested against any appropriation being made to pay for the new work on the so-called “ Daru staircase, ” the decoration on which, he said, was “a blow in the face of truth and patriotism. ” It appeared, according to him, that the mosaic-worker had put on the wall “an allegorical figure representing German art, ” and he demanded that the picture should be immediately destroyed. Two other deputies, wishing to make sure that treason had been committed before they decreed the punishment, took the precaution to go and look at the decoration in question; and, on their return, asked the indignant orator what made him think that the figure represented German art. “ Because it holds in its hand a Gothic building, ” replied the patriot, who appears either to have imagined that the Gothic style was named after Goethe, or to have fallen in with Rosengarten’s peculiar notions as to the origin of mediæval art. The two investigators, however, explained to the Assembly that France had quite as good a claim as Germany to the invention of the Gothic style, even if the little edifice in the hand of the figure had been in that style, but, as a matter-of-fact, the style was French Romanesque. As this slight correction appeared to remove the last chance of giving the “ Prussians ” a thrust through the person of the unfortunate mosaic-worker, the matter was allowed to drop quietly,
QUITE a sensation was caused last winter in the School of Fine Arts in Paris by the announcement of a programme
for an important prize competition, the concours Godebœuf, which required the competitors to make designs for “ the metallic decoration of an elevator-car and its enclosure. ” The programme went on to say that elevators had been hitherto treated in a purely utilitarian spirit, but there was no doubt that they might furnish a motive for a graceful and elegant composition. When the designs came in, it was evident that the novelty of the programme had excited much interest, and that the students had worked with extraordinary zeal and success. Not only was the number of competing designs unusually large, but the quality was surprisingly good, so that the jury awarded sixteen medals, and seventy-one first mentions — more than four times the number usually given in this competition, and, besides this, officially communicated to the pupils its “ great satisfaction at the exceptional merit of the competing designs. ” More than this, after the competition was over, and the prizes and recompenses all awarded, a host of builders and elevator manufacturers appeared at the School, and, searching out the participants in the competition, bought from them a large number of the competing designs, and carried them off, no doubt to be carried into execution in scores of new buildings. It is hardly necessary to say that the announcement of a programme so modern in its character as this was a startling novelty in the School, which has the reputation of being obstinately conservative, but there are many evidences that a new and energetic influence is at work in the School affairs, and so successful an innovation is likely to be followed by others.
LA CONSTRUCTION MODERNE has begun the publi
cation of some well-written and interesting letters on architecture in the Argentine Republic, by M. Pedro Ciprandi, who appears to be quite familiar with the modern building of other countries, although, as he says, the Argentine architect finds no demand for novelties in the way of planning in his own practice. On the contrary, the ancient type of house, about as primitive in its arrangement, to our ideas, as the Indo-Germanic mansion of the period of the Aryan emigration, is still universally accepted, and an architect who should propose anything different to a client would be looked upon as a dangerous innovator. This type, naturally enough, appears to be derived
from the old Spanish or Moorish model of a house built, for security, around a court-yard, or patio, but as the lots in
Buenos Ayres, and the other principal cities, are shaped after the New York pattern, with a frontage on the street of about twenty-six feet, or ten varas, and a depth varying from a hundred feet upward, it is obvious that the introduction of a patio is a work of considerable architectural difficulty. However, as the Spanish-American must have his enclosed court-yard, which, in view of the stormy politics which prevail about him, he perhaps, has good reason for wanting, the problem is solved by placing it at one side of the lot, making it about twelve feet wide, and thirty feet deep, and, making an entrance to it by an archway under the front portion of the building, which occupies the whole width of the lot. At the back of the patio another section of the building extends entirely across the lot, and an archway through it gives access from the front court to the back yard, in which are situated the kitchen and its dependencies. The wide portion at the back of the patio is occupied, on the entrance floor, by the dining-room, while the street front is devoted to the parlor. The intermediate space is divided into bedrooms, which open on the court-yard, and derive their light from it, apparently through the open door, exactly as the bedrooms in the Roman houses were lighted from the peristyle. The members of a Roman family, however, could get from their bedrooms to the other portions of the house under shelter, by walking under the colonnades of the peristyle, while the Argentines, not having any peristyle, step from their chambers directly into the open air; so, to provide for inclement weather, doors are cut between the bedrooms and the adjoining rooms, by means of which, in case of a shower, people can be conducted from the parlor to the dining-room by passing through all the bedrooms on the first floor, which is often the only one.
LA SEMAINE EES CONSTRUCTEURS gives the
statistics for the present year of the School of Fine Arts in Paris. The School, as every one knows, comprises five sections, those of architecture, painting, sculpture, engraving and medal-cutting. Including all these sections, the school has now about one thousand and fifty-three pupils. Seven hundred and eleven of these — more than three-fifths, are in the section of architecture. A few of these study with relatives, or under some architect who does not usually take pupils, but nearly all are attached to some one out of the ten great ateliers more or less directly connected with the School. Three of these ateliers, directed by MM. Moyaux, Gaudet and Ginain, are officially attached to the School, and are maintained by the Government. These State ateliers accommodate about two hundred pupils. The rest are divided among the outside, or “free” ateliers, of which there are seven, that of M. Laloux, the successor of the lamented Andre, and those of MM. Raulin, Pascal, Douillard- Thierry, Sédille, Daumet and Girault, and Blondel. The section of painting, which has two hundred and nine pupils, comes next to that of architecture, although at a long distance. As in the section of architecture, there are three State ateliers, those of Gérome, Delaunay and Bonnat, to which are attached about one-third of the pupils. The rest are scattered among outside studios, of which those of Carolus Duran and Bouguereau are the most famous. In the section of sculpture are one hundred and nineteen pupils, two-thirds of whom are taught in the three State ateliers, those of Falguiére, Thomas and Cavelier; the others being scattered among many outside studios. Of the medal engravers there are five or six, and of the other engravers only eight.
THE French Government has responded with the highest courtesy and consideration to the invitation of the Americans to take part in the Exhibition at Chicago. A provisional Commission has been appointed, which, under the presidency of the Minister of Commerce, comprises such members as M. Hebrard, President of the Parisian Press Association; M. Antonin Proust; M. Georges Berger, the brilliant and indefatigable Chief Director of the Paris Exposition of 1889; M. Picard, of the Council of State; M. Alphand, Director of Public Works to the City of Paris; M. Larroumet, Director of Fine Arts; General Coste; M. Pallain, Director of Customs; M. Tisserand, Director of Agriculture; M. Cousté, President of the Parisian Chamber of Commerce, and many others; and is charged with the preparation of a plan for the participation of France in the exhibition.