this apathetic attitude on the part of the State induces a like apathy in nearly all our controlling bodies, municipal and the like, where the last consideration is almost invariably the artistic implications of any course of action proposed.
Attempts have been made to remedy this by the formation of voluntary bodies recruited from those who possess a wider and more cultured outlook than our rulers, but the difficulties these are confronted with and the snubs they receive form a melancholy story. Even when they have done their best, our general standard of art in public undertakings ranks far below that of other European countries with much fewer opportunities and smaller resources. This is not due to our inferior capacity for the practice of the arts, but to the lack of recognition by the State of its duty towards their encouragement.
But to return to the specific instance now under discussion, what result may be anticipated from the refusal of the Ministry of Transport to bring an architect into consultation over the problem of Charing Cross Bridge? If the engineers report that the scheme is in their opinion a practicable one, they are bound to accompany this report with at least a sketch design for the bridge they have in mind. Now it is a regrettable fact that, owing to the unfortunate divorce between architecture and engineering in our day, engineers have been left to, solve practical problems without considering the factors of proportion and scale, while architects who understand the latter have lost the faculty for dealing with structural conceptions of a comprehensive character. Therefore if, as may be expected, the design produced represents a practical solution, it is more than likely that it will none the less be æsthetically inappropriate, and in a form that no architect could possibly render suitable, without entirely recasting it, a process that would involve the same collaboration in the end that might have been secured at the beginning. Besides, it will be much more difficult to get this done by reason of the fact that while it is not difficult for experts in two branches to collaborate, it is a different matter when one of them has prepared a design which the other wishes to remodel. The first is inclined to resent changes, and the second will inevitably have his imagination hampered by what has already been done.
It will, after what we have said, be fairly clear that the R. I. B. A. took the right view in making the claim that they did; the only point on which the wisdom of their action may be doubted is as to the body they approached. Ought it not to have been the Government as a whole rather than the Ministry of Transport? The Ministry of Transport is a body with specific functions, unrelated, in the popular mind, to any of the arts; it was deputed by the Government to appoint an engineer: it did so, and may have rightly assumed that there its functions ended. This might have been its reply but for the fact that it would perhaps have led to an undesired result. Thus the R. I. B. A. has been side-tracked, and will find it difficult to make a fresh start.
That it ought to make a fresh start we feel little doubt; the matter is too important to be left in its present position, as if it is the future of London may be seriously prejudiced. Considering the possible alternatives — we have, first, unqualified condemnation which can hardly be imagined as probable; secondly, a condemnation on economic grounds which would certainly not be accepted as conclusive; and, thirdly, an acceptance as practicable structurally and economically which would yet be open to the objections previously recited. No other result seems likely, and in any case no finality can be anticipated, as neither the opponents nor the supporters of the scheme will rest satisfied with a verdict framed on such an inadequate reference if it goes contrary to their own views.
Professional Societies
The Royal Academy Prize List
The Royal Academy annual prizes were awarded at the distribution on Saturday last as follows:
An Architectural Design — Landseer Prize, £20, and Silver Medal: C. S. W. Strange.
An Architectural Design (1) £10 and Silver Medal: J. A. Schofield; (2) £5 and Bronze Medal: H. C. Parmer.
Design for Public Building Decoration — (1) Landseer Prize, £30, and Silver Medal: Edith A. Saunders; (2) Landseer Prize, £10, and Bronze Medal: Lilian D. Saunders.
Composition in Sculpture — R. A. Gold Medal and Edward Stott Travelling Studentship of £200: Lilian E. Birch.
Model to a Design — (1) Landseer Prize, £30, and Silver Medal: Alice B. Tippin; (2) Landseer Prize, £10, and Bronze Medal: Ethelwyn Baker (ineligible, having received same prize before).
Two Models of Busts from Life — £5 and Silver Medal: A. J. Marshall.
Model from the Antique — £5 and Silver Medal: A. J. Marshall.
Design in Relief, containing Figure and Ornament — £10 and Silver Medal: A. J. Marshall.
Set of Three Models of a Figure from Life — (1) Landseer Prize, £30, and Silver Medal: Alice B. Tippin; (2) Landseer Prize, £20, and Bronze Medal: A. J. Marshall.
Landseer Scholarships in Painting and Sculpture — £40 a year, each tenable for two years — In Painting: Dorothy M. Barber, E. C. M. Hall and Edith A. Saunders; in Sculpture: Alice B. Tippin.
Historical Painting — R. A. Gold Medal and Edward Stott Travelling Studentship of £200: Marjorie Brooks.
Landscape Painting — Turner Gold Medal and Scholarship, £50: Lilian D. Sawyers.
Landscape Painting — Creswick Prize, £25, and Silver Medal: Violet. P. Gould.
Composition in Colour — £5 and Silver Medal: L. H. Wells.
Two paintings of a Figure from Life — (1) £10 and Silver Medal: Violet P. Gould; (2) Bronze Medal: Marjorie Brooks.
Portrait Study of a Lady in Evening dress, showing Arms and Hands — Arthur Hacker Prize, £30, and Silver Medal: Elsie D. Hewland.
Painting of a Head from Life, life size — Arthur Hacker Prize, £20, and Silver Medal: Lilian D. Sawyers.
Set of Four Drawings of a Figure from Life (best finished drawing of a head in any set) — (1) not awarded; (2) £5 and Bronze Medal: R. D. Greenham; (3) £5: L. H. Wells.
Drawing from the Antique — £5 and Silver Medal: R. D. Greenham.
Lecturing at the Royal Society of Arts last Monday on ‘‘The Old Adelphi, ’’ Mr. A. R. Powys said he had
little hope for the future of the famous Terrace. The site was extremely valuable — so valuable that the buildings standing there had little financial relation to it. Unless it was bought and maintained by some millionaire who was not asking for a big return, or unless the present owners of the leases formed themselves into a company and purchased the property, it was likely that in a few years Londoners would see a great change on the river front. The threat to Waterloo Bridge and the threat to the Adelphi, which two places, with Somerset House, formed the most beautiful scene in London, was one which must make nervous every Londoner who loved his City.
Attempts have been made to remedy this by the formation of voluntary bodies recruited from those who possess a wider and more cultured outlook than our rulers, but the difficulties these are confronted with and the snubs they receive form a melancholy story. Even when they have done their best, our general standard of art in public undertakings ranks far below that of other European countries with much fewer opportunities and smaller resources. This is not due to our inferior capacity for the practice of the arts, but to the lack of recognition by the State of its duty towards their encouragement.
But to return to the specific instance now under discussion, what result may be anticipated from the refusal of the Ministry of Transport to bring an architect into consultation over the problem of Charing Cross Bridge? If the engineers report that the scheme is in their opinion a practicable one, they are bound to accompany this report with at least a sketch design for the bridge they have in mind. Now it is a regrettable fact that, owing to the unfortunate divorce between architecture and engineering in our day, engineers have been left to, solve practical problems without considering the factors of proportion and scale, while architects who understand the latter have lost the faculty for dealing with structural conceptions of a comprehensive character. Therefore if, as may be expected, the design produced represents a practical solution, it is more than likely that it will none the less be æsthetically inappropriate, and in a form that no architect could possibly render suitable, without entirely recasting it, a process that would involve the same collaboration in the end that might have been secured at the beginning. Besides, it will be much more difficult to get this done by reason of the fact that while it is not difficult for experts in two branches to collaborate, it is a different matter when one of them has prepared a design which the other wishes to remodel. The first is inclined to resent changes, and the second will inevitably have his imagination hampered by what has already been done.
It will, after what we have said, be fairly clear that the R. I. B. A. took the right view in making the claim that they did; the only point on which the wisdom of their action may be doubted is as to the body they approached. Ought it not to have been the Government as a whole rather than the Ministry of Transport? The Ministry of Transport is a body with specific functions, unrelated, in the popular mind, to any of the arts; it was deputed by the Government to appoint an engineer: it did so, and may have rightly assumed that there its functions ended. This might have been its reply but for the fact that it would perhaps have led to an undesired result. Thus the R. I. B. A. has been side-tracked, and will find it difficult to make a fresh start.
That it ought to make a fresh start we feel little doubt; the matter is too important to be left in its present position, as if it is the future of London may be seriously prejudiced. Considering the possible alternatives — we have, first, unqualified condemnation which can hardly be imagined as probable; secondly, a condemnation on economic grounds which would certainly not be accepted as conclusive; and, thirdly, an acceptance as practicable structurally and economically which would yet be open to the objections previously recited. No other result seems likely, and in any case no finality can be anticipated, as neither the opponents nor the supporters of the scheme will rest satisfied with a verdict framed on such an inadequate reference if it goes contrary to their own views.
Professional Societies
The Royal Academy Prize List
The Royal Academy annual prizes were awarded at the distribution on Saturday last as follows:
An Architectural Design — Landseer Prize, £20, and Silver Medal: C. S. W. Strange.
An Architectural Design (1) £10 and Silver Medal: J. A. Schofield; (2) £5 and Bronze Medal: H. C. Parmer.
Design for Public Building Decoration — (1) Landseer Prize, £30, and Silver Medal: Edith A. Saunders; (2) Landseer Prize, £10, and Bronze Medal: Lilian D. Saunders.
Composition in Sculpture — R. A. Gold Medal and Edward Stott Travelling Studentship of £200: Lilian E. Birch.
Model to a Design — (1) Landseer Prize, £30, and Silver Medal: Alice B. Tippin; (2) Landseer Prize, £10, and Bronze Medal: Ethelwyn Baker (ineligible, having received same prize before).
Two Models of Busts from Life — £5 and Silver Medal: A. J. Marshall.
Model from the Antique — £5 and Silver Medal: A. J. Marshall.
Design in Relief, containing Figure and Ornament — £10 and Silver Medal: A. J. Marshall.
Set of Three Models of a Figure from Life — (1) Landseer Prize, £30, and Silver Medal: Alice B. Tippin; (2) Landseer Prize, £20, and Bronze Medal: A. J. Marshall.
Landseer Scholarships in Painting and Sculpture — £40 a year, each tenable for two years — In Painting: Dorothy M. Barber, E. C. M. Hall and Edith A. Saunders; in Sculpture: Alice B. Tippin.
Historical Painting — R. A. Gold Medal and Edward Stott Travelling Studentship of £200: Marjorie Brooks.
Landscape Painting — Turner Gold Medal and Scholarship, £50: Lilian D. Sawyers.
Landscape Painting — Creswick Prize, £25, and Silver Medal: Violet. P. Gould.
Composition in Colour — £5 and Silver Medal: L. H. Wells.
Two paintings of a Figure from Life — (1) £10 and Silver Medal: Violet P. Gould; (2) Bronze Medal: Marjorie Brooks.
Portrait Study of a Lady in Evening dress, showing Arms and Hands — Arthur Hacker Prize, £30, and Silver Medal: Elsie D. Hewland.
Painting of a Head from Life, life size — Arthur Hacker Prize, £20, and Silver Medal: Lilian D. Sawyers.
Set of Four Drawings of a Figure from Life (best finished drawing of a head in any set) — (1) not awarded; (2) £5 and Bronze Medal: R. D. Greenham; (3) £5: L. H. Wells.
Drawing from the Antique — £5 and Silver Medal: R. D. Greenham.
Lecturing at the Royal Society of Arts last Monday on ‘‘The Old Adelphi, ’’ Mr. A. R. Powys said he had
little hope for the future of the famous Terrace. The site was extremely valuable — so valuable that the buildings standing there had little financial relation to it. Unless it was bought and maintained by some millionaire who was not asking for a big return, or unless the present owners of the leases formed themselves into a company and purchased the property, it was likely that in a few years Londoners would see a great change on the river front. The threat to Waterloo Bridge and the threat to the Adelphi, which two places, with Somerset House, formed the most beautiful scene in London, was one which must make nervous every Londoner who loved his City.