New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1893-01-03
THE ARCHITECTURAL LEAGUE
BUILDINGS GOOD AND BAD.
SECOND NOTICE.)

Itself 10 purpose but perfectly expressive or that pur'
pose The last clause In the triple test is the hardest to
satisfy Curiously 1t Is the harder to satisfy In art
progress from the initiative to the creative. Your
painter can dress his figure and then charge the rest OF
the canvas with abusive accessories enough TO give You
his subjects role. The sculptor leaves you no less suf
fclcntly Informed to his models business In life,
though he has to concentrate his data than has
the painter The explanatory resources OF ictoria and
plastic art are obvious the kinds OF such art, military.
rural Industrial urban ecclesiastical, In the very
nature OF things unTs;akable; they coud not be ether
WISE But the kinds OF architecture. the kinds OF art
/! that initiates nothing how these 90 be dlstin-
guished Some OF the sub divisions OF architecture
plain themselves In pretty much the same way In any
country and although racial habits. climate and stages
OF social development play havoc with any hard and
fast plan OF historical tabuiation-a mCaeval home
often wore the aspect Of fortress-tc observer Of
| modern buildings seldom need speculate long
| rs to whether the structure ut which
| he Is looking Is dwcliDc-house or
church. But subtract n certain namber OF building,
city houses, country houses, ails, churches and build
| ings for heterogeneous commercial purposes. and
through The vast trong OF buildings left II + possible
TO wander without always learning from external evil
dence their place in the scheme OF creation Libraries.
museums OF all sorts, hospitals, asylums. post
| Offices, custom houses, theatres. opera houses,
| club houses why Is 1t that these arc fire.
iuently on IA level with dead wall as far rs
suggcstiN eness Is cOnccrncdl The dead wall T.
| charaoterful for that matter. II shows what It IS
The acsdcs Of many buildings absolutely dnmb. II
| they are not Misleading.
| Some reflections Of this sort ar iucvltaIe
before the batch OF World Fir buildings
| pictured In the Agricultural Leagues exhibition.
These buildings. proposed in each 10 represent
some state-there are some seventeen designs the
walls-are not rs important the huge structures OF
which drawings were exhibited last year. but they
provoke considerable interest the Official utteranccs
In architecture 1t were. OF the varions localities
And II IS instructive TO the different attitudes OF
the designers. IL ID thu, the State buildings
at the Fair should exhibit official character udiciouSy
clothed in motives expressive OF local customs ana or
rs far possible, the unique spirit OF The occasion
Mr.. \. Page Brown has produced very happy design
| FOR the California building. He ha, taken the low
arches tile roofs and picturesque dome, Of the adobe
architecture of the Southwest and confined them in
structure which has the largcnesS and dignity requisite
| in state building and exactly the gaia appearance
most appropriate In fair like that 20 be held at
Chicago No one could fail 10 pcrc, i've that this build
Ing represents California. that II represents not IA vii
lage. but STAT, and that II Is essentially fair
building. Tho NewYork building BY Me,srs McRlm.
Mead a. White. IS another example OF tact IN archI
| lecture. ours j. nothing II not an advanced and
| stately commonwealth Whatever represent, must
h" ample In dimensions. substantial and monumental.
and is building o; This description which We ar. {,
have at the Fairan Italian dos II recalling the WIZ
|
t)ucEc, Of ornate detail here and there note OF clc
gancc and liehincs 10 the simple and charm Of
| huc p0poi Tons The choice OF sty,c could NJ. have
Teen lett"r than it has been in til, Tho state
has 10 distinctive architecture. W. Cl-in y In
our bailinc operations. But build n .cacrods scale
and this building, ia one Of tho numerous STYLES
have adopted IS eloquent Of liberal cultivated
policy. We are 10 be congratulated upon having
| ESCAPED n colonial design. That ml.ht not NJ
| naturally have suggested iiscli but tie stylc was
much better left 10 the states IN which Il how Ia. n
greater vitality than II has with AID in which Il
Is more truly typical. one would expect 10 ind The
classic details OF early period IN design, for
Connecticut and Rhode Island. n d. ina .hsni f.
the drawing, Of Mrssrs. Cole aud Chandler for the FOR
mcr state. and OF Ne srs stone. carp ut"r mad Wilson
for Tie latter. II viii be remarked however, that
these architects have missed IT,. cNpr, ,,ion - ne
Official idea and I'm The same way that M"rs. Peabody
and Stearns have mscd II. Thc latter miss 1t Is
making their Massachusetts building a structure Of
tlsn old New England village type. This building I,
delightfully."- charactcrin Of IT, state T. bring, the
quiet streets OF Cambridge to the mind at once, but
that is indeed rs disadvantage: II !, FIR removed
from the spirit Of the Fair. II were aiming 80
make the state building strictly Illustrative II tie
country. the street OF all Illustrative 81
the world AT the Paris Expedition. this might do, but
that Is no. the idea u The different commi,,l
understand II. Tins the chalet proposed f,r New
| Hampshire by Mr.. George u. Howe siticS MS
bound 10 be Inadequate, IL not incongruous. al the
Fair. though doubt It would be admirable a New
| Hampshire lJ and Mr.. g. A. Clifford In his design
for Ncw.Jcrscy and Mr. W. r. 1i4eg, IN his for con
nocticut have produced architecture domestic too
suggestive OF the country home boarding house to
make proper effect at Chicago The Pennsylvania
building by Mr.. r. L. Lonsdalc. the Texas binding by
| Mr.. J. II. Gordon. and tho Iowa building by McsSrs.
Josscyn and Taylor Uhc latter n ren.cled affair
nondcscrpt and inapt. they typical. AMI they
show grasp OF the necessities ~ the occa Ion TIE
result Of analysis Of the different designs IS that
| In only two cases have The character of
| state building at the Fair been understood and eN
pressed and the eternal fitness of things observed.
hanging near Mr.. Browns California building Is
another design by him which raises nice question
OF adoption. In this case II Is not much the fitness
OF the adoption II Is the professional morality Of II
| which gives us pause. II Is familiar fact that the
tower Of the Madison Square Garden. built by Msrs.
McKm, Mead and White, would never have been
erected in Just The style that had not The 1ifad
at Seville existed before It. and We have grown 80
accustomed TO regarding Europe as lcsima" spring
OF Inspiration that If The architects Of this bean
| uful tower had not put good deal Of themselves
| into II no would have thought Of crying plaiar
Ism. But the central tower Of Mr.. browns design
for market Mt Lima is unfortunately more suggestive
| OF the Ncw-York than OF the Spanish tower. In
| uinsIcaly the design for the market Is excellent
and that the architect might perhaps justlhably pro-
| fest Is the main point. The competition Is good
and the southern characteristics everywhere applr
ent are In their rlghfnl place IN Peruvian town.
| Eut the startling resemblance OF The tower TO the
Americanzed Glrada Is somewhat disturbing. II
would have been better II Mr.. Brown had been more
Org nal for others have shown him. originality /,
not inconsistent with the utilization OF old IDEAS
The tower OF Mr. Bruce Prices Baltimore AUDI
orlumn derives from the campanilc OF r. Marks nj
Venice yet II is an ndivduallzed piece OF work.
| Tho designer o. n tall tower has n difficult problem
TO solve and II Is wonder that he vaclllates De-
tween certain accepted Italian, spanish and English
models but he can nevertheless be original II he
| wants 10 be so: he has considerable scope Inc
architects TO be pitled those who are asked 70
aeagn one-Ided towers. There is something Dlhetic