New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1918-02-10

eStaOllShed! 1T was not to make Amer
lean architects into little dcvotees of
the Italian Renaissance. 1t was to en-
rich their minds, to steady their iudg-
ment, to fertilize their taste, to give
them keener sense Of the rectitude of
art. Our architecture has improved BY
leaps and bounds because SO many of
the men who make it have as their
dearest possession profound respect
Tor their mystery, sincere idealism
They have believed, as we were saying
at the outset, that they were artists,
not tradesmen. Well, of late, divers
things have developed to threaten their
high resolution. They have to reckon,
Tor example, with the man who was
born amid the horrors of horsehair fur
niture, and perhaps for that very rea-
son is keen upon dying only in the odor
of kind of Medicean sanctity.
The epoch of decorative antiquities,
of what the irreverent call "iunk. !"
brought in possibilities too rich, as
some architects have employed them. to
be despiscd. But it also introduced
something like a menace. Architecture
has been swamped in decoration. in
plcturesqucness, in sheer exotic luxury.
taste, to which simplicity is as the
breath of life, has been smothered in a
mass OF antique stuffs, furniture, sar-
cophagi and goodness knows what i'm
pedimenta. And now this Fictitious
sentiment is creeping into construction.
great country place is made to look
less like home than like a place of
nampoyant entertainment. One thinks
OF Marie Antoinette and her friends
at court, f1inging themselves into an
imitation of farm life. 1t was yery
pretty, of course. But it wasn't farm
lie. This new style Of architecture
that we have in mind is likewise very
pretty. But there is nothing at all
American about it; nor is there any
thing convincingly architectural. 1t is
scenic, not constructive.
Which brings us once more to that
queer pageantry in the leagues exh;.
Dltlon which was discussed in this
place week ago. 1t makes, as we said
then, good peep show, and this can
not completely obscure the things ex-
hibited that are worth while. We have
terreted out, as the foregoing obser-
vations have shown, certain number
OF purely architectural compositions
1t is tolerably easy, also, to get at the
sculpture, at the works by Messrs. Cal
der, French and Bartlett, by Miss Long
man, Miss Scudder, Miss Shonnard and
Miss Frishmuth, which make, as it
happens, one of the most engaging
features of the occasion. The moment
one hunts up the details, in fact, it is
obvious that the league has brought
together quantity Of admirable ma
terial. Mr.. Gardner Hale's enchanting
tresco in the old Italian manner, the
decorations by Mr.. Crisp, the Batik
tapestries by Mr.. Hartman, the curious
masks by Mr.. Benda these and a hun
dred other pieces unquestionably re
| pay oC1 uIlIy anu inc anu1aCturCS
yield as full a harvest, from the silks
of the Cheneys to the superb marble
mantcl exhibited by Patterson and
Eisele. But what does it profit these
productions that they are flung into a
Kaleidoscope ensemble, tricked out
with the properties of the playhouse
until every nuancc of color, every re
finement of form, every individual
quality of design, is lost as in rau-
cous riot? What chance has taste in
such hullabaloo? The very principle
which the Architectural League should
seek most earnestly to inculcatc is
here most signally violated 1t is moi
merely a question of how the thing has
been done; it is the question, rather
of its having been done at all. If tn,
architect is a Snowman for the trades
then it is all very we'll, there is nc
more to be said. But if he is an artist
pure and simple, as Mckim was, ther
let him stick to his art
HOUSE F