CAMERON MEMORIAL.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume 46, Issue 14142, 12 June 1920, Page 5

CAMERON MEMORIAL.

(To the Editor.) gir,—After reading in your paper a report on a design for a memorial entrance submitted to the Cameron Memorial Committee by Mr Falknor, a retired civil engineer, I made a point of subjecting the drawing to a critical inspection. It represents a considerable amount of persevering, painstaking studv, and a certain degree of inspiration on the part of the author. For this voluntary contribution of labour and thought/ Mr Falknor deserves the thanks and commendation of those concerned. But honestly, Mr Editor, his conception cannot bo classed as serious architecture. It offends all the canons of proportion, perspective, and composition of the noble classic style it travesties. Nor is this to be wondered at. The relative trainings of the engineer and the .architect, although kindred, aye distinct and separate, and in some respects wide apart. The engineer is essentially a specialist in structural mechanics, the problems he is faced with being almost entirely of a utilitarian nature. If he has to design a bridge or a dam he is concerned with tho strains likely to be imposed upon the strueturej and the scientific disposition of the corresponding stresses set up in the different members. Beauty is to him a foreign element which never enters into his calculations, and rightly so. A bridge, for instance, however beautifully it may bo proportioned or artistically decorated, would be a signal failure if it collapsed under a sudden strain., I don’t mean to say that a well-designed bridge, which is admittedly concerned with nothing but the carrying of loads is necessarily unbeautiful. One of the chief elements of beauty in a structure is simplicity. But ii’ it does chance to be pleasing to the eye it is not the result of deliberate design, but rather incidental to the proportioning of parts from a purely engineering standpoint. Tho architect, on the other hand, is as much concerned with the aesthetic beauty of bis conceptions as lie is with their ’utility. Not only is ho governed by the same structural laws as is tho engineer, but he has to stud the outline, the proportion of part to part, the intelligent placement of architectural ornament, tho harmony of colour, and effects of light and shade —all with a view to making the whole as picturesque and pleasing to tlio eye as he is capable of doing. • To develop his talent to tho full on the above lines,, the would-be architect has to devote years of study to his art, during w;hk'h time his‘ mentors sedulously. instil into his mind the desirability of beauty. • 5 I hate outlined as briefiy as is possible in a letter of this description the essential differences of the engineer and the. architect.. ‘This difference, to express .-if; in a word, is that structural engineering is a science, architecture an art.: Now the point I am coming to is this. Tho Cameron Memorial Committee are contemplating spending a considerable sum of money upon works of a monumental nature. In other words they propose to spend this money upon monumental architecture. Tf this is so would they not be wise to pause and reflect before they take any decisive steps as to the form this architecture is to take? If the sum is to run into some thousands, as I understand is the case, would it not be better for them to allocate a small proportion of that amount to enable them to receive expert judgment upon the matter? The work is obviously that of au architect, Then why not place the matter in the hands of the Institute of Architects, and make it a subject for open competition among the •‘>4o members of that body, and so ensure ai result representative of the best talent in the country?

If. Oil the other band, they act precipitately', and erect a monument which offends the eye of enlightened visitors to tbo town in years to eome, they will lay themselves open to very unfavourable criticism. Thanking you, Sir, for this valuable space,—l am, etc., F. E. GOODES.' Mastcrton, June 12th.