Architecture & Building

Progress, Volume XII, Issue 3, 1 November 1916, Page 767

Architecture & Building

S. HURST SEAGER, F.R.1.8.A,

" What is Art, and who arc Artists ? " —No. 111.

It has been said that literature cannot fully convey the power of the other arts, and this is equally true of them all; each art has a power peculiar to it which cannot he conveyed by any other means than the art itself, thus neither descriptions nor definitions can carry us very far; for unless we know something of the thing defined it carries no meaning with it. It

is only by long study and observation that the definitions have been framed, and it is only by long study that the full meaning of them can be grasped. The more comprehensive the definition, the greater the knowledge necessary to feel its full force. Still it is of great advantage to have a comprehensive definition before us to guide us in our observations and lead us more directly to good results. Therefore let us remember one other which from its brevity and comprehensiveness ig of great value. “Art is Nature passed through the alembic of man.” It is hard to grasp the depth of meaning in this definition, nor is it much easier on learning that “alembic” is an old alchemist’s term for crucible — Art is Nature passed through the “crucible” of

[Note— Articles appearing on pages 767 to 775 arc published by arrangement with the New Zealand Institute of Architects.]

man. Illustrations will assist us in realizing its far reaching truth.

Let us first sec the process of passing natural supports through the alembic of man. There can be no better mode of realizing this than by means of a diagram (Fig. 1) which I copied some years ago from a book by Mr. Garbett, to whom I am indebted for an interpretation of it. We want a column, that is, a long body intended for transmitting pressure to or from a flat surface, and the expression we want to give is that of fitness to receive this pressure. Some nations have copied columns from trees, and some from men, but neither is imitating nature; on

the contrary, they are most unnatural, since Nature has not made either a tree or a man to serve the purpose of a column. Arc there then no columns in nature? Certainly there are. The limbs of all animals are columns, and the surface against which they press is the ground. The human arm uplifted to support a weight is also a column, and when pushing horizontally it is a horizontal column or strut. Now in comparing these natural columns, to discover what they have in common, we find: — First, that their transverse section has roundness, therefore we make the artificial column round. Second, we observe that they vary in length from four to ten times their greatest diameter, but that in animals remarkable for power and majesty they

do not exceed six times the said diameter. Therefore, when this character is aimed at, as for instance in the Grecian Doric temples, the columns arc confined to a length of between four and six diameters. Third, with regard to their longitudinal outline or profile, they have a general diminution from their origin to the ankle or wrist, that is, to a point near the surface against which they are applied. Therefore we make the artificial column diminish from its origin, that is its base, to a point near the surface to be sustained. This diminution is in a contrary direction to that of the legs of animals, because they issue from the object to which they belong, and apply themselves to a surface below; but the legs of a fixed structure should issue from the sub-structure, and apply themselves to the support of that above, otherwise they would appear to belong to the superstructure, as do the supports of furniture which is

made to be moved about. The position, therefore, of the column, is not that of the leg, but that of the uplifted arm. Fourth; another circumstance common to all models is that the diminution above noticed is not regular or in straight lines, but tends to convexity; i.e., the diminution at first slow, becomes more rapid towards the wrist or ankle; and this is accordingly imitated; the convexity or technically, entasis, being made much less than in the human example, because in that it is peculiarly great, and the object is not to imitate this or any other single model, not any particular limb, but the general idea of limbs, their central form avoiding all pecularities. If their outlines were, in universal nature, as frequently concave as convex, the correct imitation would be to make it straight; but this is not the case. Convexity predominates and slight convexity predominates over that which is more decided. Fifth, observe it to be a part of the nature

of limbs, that after passing the smaller part there is a rapid swelling to form the extremity, either the hand, or paw, or hoof, and this is represented by what we call the capital. This protuberance is, in nature, commonly eccentric with regard to the axis of the limb, projecting most on the side to which the animal looks, and very slightly, and often not at all on the opposite side. But this eccentricity is least in the most powerful animals, and is properly omitted in the column as having an obvious relation to a property not intended to be expressed, namely, locomotion, for the foot always projects most on the side towards which it moves; and as the capital is not to move, there is no natural example for its

projecting more on one side than another. Sixth, with regard to the outline of the extremity, we find it to be at first concave for a short distance, then becoming very slightly convex, and as it spreads the convexity slowly increases till it rapidly curves round and returns inward to a small distance. Such are the points common to every animal extremity when applied against a flat surface; and such are those which constitute the profile of the capital in that wonderful specimen of generalised imitation, the "Doric column, as seen in the finest of the Greek temples—the Parthenon, on the Acropolis at Athens (Figs. 1 and 2). This form, brought to perfection by Ictinus i'l the Periclean era4oo years, B.C.—has stood .unrivaled . for over 2,000 years, and to day we cannot improve upon what was

done by those noble Greeks at that time. In the example given and in others of the Doric order, they did not stand the column on a base —following in this the Egyptian prototype at Beni Hassan, The necessity for a base was not felt in the Doric order which expressed material force and strength. To express this strength absolute rectangularity was aimed at. For in the three kingdomsanimal, vegetable and mineral —all those examples possessing strength are distinguished by their various parts being nearly or quite at right angles to each other, and many optical refinements were introduced by the Greeks to ensure that this impression of squareness should be created. In the lighter more graceful lonic and Corinthian styles which followed the Doric in Greek art the base was rightly added. It

is worthy of mention that no feature, no principle, which they adopted has become obsolete; their work gave examples for all subsequent nations to make use of.

The Romans adopted the column from the conquered Greeks, but used it principally for decorating the face of works which did not need it for actual support. Thus in the fine arch of Constantine (Fig. 3.) at Rome, it is seen that the columns are simply applied to the surface of the work, and serve no other purpose than that of forming a ledge upon which figures are placed. The main work is done by the arches, and the columns are simply unnecessary appendages; they form no part of the construction of the work, and therefore violate a principle of truth which takes from it the right to be classed among works of the purest taste.

Very different is the use made of the column by the mighty builders of the 11th and 12th centuries. Look at the grand Norman naves of Durham and Gloucester Cathedrals (Fig. 4 and 5.) How simple yet how noble they are! And note in comparing them the extreme beauty of proportion seen at Durham where —dividing the whole height into 9 parts—have : Nave Arcade Trif orium Clerestory Durham 4 .3 2 Gloucester 5£ 11 2 The teaching of nature at Gloucester has been ignored. A simple numerical ratio not only pleases the eye in matters of form, but also satisfies the ear by creating pleasing harmonies in sound. In these examples the base and the capital remain, but the

subtle refinements of the Greeks have vanished; for in all Norman and later Gothic works, the columns are used only for the purpose of supporting arches. The face of these is, of course, vertical, and if the column were made to diminish, as in the Greek examples which support a flat entablature, the effect would be most unhappy. For in these Gothic buildings the columns are always seen as a . series, only one side being visible at a time, and if the profile were not vertical they would appear to be falling over. The diminution in all Gothic works is therefore very wisely omitted.

From the sturdy nobility of the early Norman works we reach by a gradual process such marvellous creations as Westminster Abbey (Fig. 6.). The rudenesses of the earlier examples have now disappeared, and here we see a grand bursting

forth into the lovely freshness of a new style, full of purity of force and vigour, expressing everywhere both constructive and artistic truth. Here, in the first half of the 13th century it reached its full power of expression. Our column has assumed a different

form, but the main principles are retained, and by means of the slender shafts around the central pillar, the eye is led higher and higher by easy gradations, past the capitals, along the graceful, noble arches; it dwells for an instant upon the wonderfully

beautiful triforium arcades, then up the delicate shafts beyond the clerestory windows, until it rests on the maze of intricate vaulting above. : I In Belgium I found a very good illustration of the necessity of following the rules deduced from Nature’s laws. Thus, in the Church of St. Jacques

at Antwerp (Fig. 7.) the principles we have found to govern columns are strictly adhered to, and the result is, in this respect at least, an artistic work—the work of an artist. The church is in nearly every other part identical with the Cathedral of Ghent (Fig. 8.) but you will see at once that this is far less beautiful, and at the same time you will

realise why it is so; you will see that these arches pass from the apex to the base without an intervening capital. The supporting clement is not defined from the part supported, and the effect is a lack of beauty. ' The builders failed to follow the laws which are'found to govern Nature’s works. Generalised imitation of nature, then, is the result of passing nature through the alembic of man; that is, the imitation of those qualities which are to be seen in every example of that which is to be imitated, leaving out all those qualities which are peculiar to the individual models. To draw the likeness of any particular man is not imitating nature, “for how can that be the nature of man in which no two individuals are the same?” To dis-

cover and draw all that is common to a certain class of men, omitting everything which is peculiar to each, this is imitating nature. I have dwelt at some length upon the methods to be adopted in imitating Nature’s columns or supports, because it is exactly upon the same principles that every noble work of Fine Art is produced. Artists seldom, if ever, try to generalise and embody the nature of a whole species. In each work they try to express some particular quality of mind or body, and their generalisation is confined to those individuals who possess this quality. Thus, the unknown Grecian artist or artists who created the wonderful statue of Venus, known as the Venus of Milo (Fig. 9.) (the name of the island on which it was found), sought to represent the quality of beauty as seen in woman; and to do this no . individual model was taken, but every part, every feature was imitated in

the manner 1 have spoken of, from those natural models in which beauty was seen, and by leaving out all those marks peculiar to the individuals a work of transcendent beauty results. And in representing the god Apollo (Fig. 10.) the same end was gained by exactly similar means; the qualities found among noble and handsome men were

selected and embodied in this statue, one of the most beautiful works of antique Sculpture extant. In all their gods the same expression of nobility and beauty is found, and it is only by their attributes that one is recognised from the other; as Mercury (Fig. 11.) is recognised by the small wings or

taleria on his —which indicate the speed with which this messenger of the gods could fly down to —and the "caduceus" which he carries as the emblem of the messenger of peace ! The Assyrians, too, when they wished to express the strength, intelligence and far-reaching power of the nation, did not copy any natural example, but embodied in a figure of their own invention those qualities found in various models. Thus, in -the highly- symbolic piece of sculpture standing at the entrance to the palace at Nineveh (Fig. 12.) we see the principles of rectangularity conveying the expression of great force and power, and the representation of wings indicates the extent of rule, for we are led to think of the keen-eyed eagle, which, borne aloft on its powerful wings, can view a vast extent of territory, and swoop down when it will upon its prey. Then we have the cloven hoof of the virulent bull, and above all the majesty of intellect of man. Although neither part of this so-called bull copies exactly the features of the natural object, whose qualities it is intended it should represent, still it represents them too closely to attain that unity of expression which a work of art should possess. Yet, while this is so, we cannot stand before those wondrous productions without feeling the force of the ideas they are intended to convey. Very different is it with the insipid looking animal of Landseer's (Fig. 13.) one of four at the base of Nelson's Column in Trafalgar Square. Here there is no passing through the "alembic," it is simply the copy of a natural lion in bronze. But it may be held that this being true to nature must be good. On the contrary, it is most unnatural. Nature never intended that lions should be cast in bronze, and set upon high blocks of granite; far greater pleasure would be conveyed by paying tribute to the noble animals themselves at the Zoological Gardens. There must be an expenditure of thought and feeling, as well as technical skill, if the work is to attain to the dignity of Fine Art. [Mr. Hurst Seager's series of interesting articles will be continued in subsequent issues. — Ed.]