The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1904-02-28

GNOST buildings are ugly. Any build
ing might be interesting and ar
~ tistic even If not costly. The
IsSxSV question of cost does not affect
- the artistic excellence of a city,
a town or a building Otherwise. Washing
ton street. In Boston. would not be one OF
the ugliest streets in the world, nor would
much OF Broadway. New York. be so very
crude. II 1t were a question of money,
State street. Chicago, and Fourth street.
Cincinnati, would be beautiful indeed. Lon
don. despite its few beautiful buildings of
which we see pictures, is in the main a
brutally ugly city. Havana is the most
beautiful city on the American continent.
Yet II has never been a relatively wealthy
city. It's beauty is thai OF simplicity. Of
refinement of form and color. There is
complete freedom from crude pretense.
But a person need not view this matter
by cities or great streets. Let him look
out OF his window at home. Let him look
up and down the street as he leaves his
own front door,, and he can but recognize
the striking fact that most houses are
ugly No building is ugly and no street is
ugly for lack OF money. The most expensive
building In a community Is usually far
from being the most beautiful. The rich
ran in a country town nearly always ex-
presses himself in terms OF p~retentious
lklIncSS WHICH TIC uAlQ Int DtIQllLu1
house is commonly one of moderate cost,
one with graceful, simple lines, good form,
refined details and quiet coloring.
II we prove that there is no excuse for
ugliness, and, on the other hand, realize
that most houses are ugly, how great is
our offensei 1t is without excuse. This
IS most easily proved by a simple example.
Two friends build houses on neighboring
streets. One is pleasing. convenient. we'll
built. The other Is crude, pretentious, in
convenient, and will soon be in need OF
aDa harauGa Of the largo amount of fraU-
lie, so-called decoration. Each house cost
approximately $1,000. Each has the same
number of rooms. IN ough the ugly house
has more waste space-is less intelligently
planned. Each OF these houses contains
about the same amount of material and la
Dor. Material and labor are the only ele-
ments which make The cost OF a building.
One may well ask why one of these build
tngs Is beautiful and the other very preten-
tious and ugly. Anything which Is true
OF a whole building must be true OF a de-
the difference in these two structures and
the spirit which affected their building IL
may be well 10 consider the front door of
each
A CONTRAST IN DOORS.
The artistic house had a plain. quartered
white oak door. The natural grain OF the
wood is beautiful and quiet. The surface is
free from holdings and carving. The knob
and cscutcheOn are Of dark bronze and
both are plain. The glass in the upper part
of the door is white In color and set in
lead. with a light. straw-colored border
around its margin. On the inside OF the
door 5 a silk drapery, refined in color and
simple In figure. The woodwork is rubbed
down TO a dead finish. If one will stop TO
think of IT. there Is nothing more express
slye OF quiet dignity and straightforward
ness than an entrance door OF native oak.
honestly made and simply formed. This
door is beautiful and IL is not expensive.
With this good form. appropriate but not
nApaGGar1x costly. IaOaraffan ,fuh@ =. ,raa1
ration may accentuate the beauty, but IL
IS not necessary The use OF ornament is a
matter OF individual preference
Now as 90 the door or the other house.
II. too. is OF oak. but the grain is crude.
pronounced and accentuated by a dark
reddish-brOwn filler, over which is a