The New York herald., 1922-03-19


drawing together of the worlds art,
its destruction at the disintegration
of the empire and its new growth is
here made very clear. The whole
process is like that which occurs
when from ground made fertile by
the decay of older vegetation a
strong tree arises, to be cut down in
the height of its strength; but from
its living roots new shoots arise in
their turn to become great trees, of
the same species, but of n different
habit of growth from their parent.
OF these shoots the last and the
strongest is the architecture of the
United States, to which the last sec
ton of Part l is devoted.
1t is natural that minor errors,
| both of fact and of conclusion, should
creep into any work of such wide
scope as this, written by one man.
| Naturally to US Americans his brief
chapter on architecture in the United
| States is of especial interest, but
when he says that "the progress OF
architecture in a new country un-
| trammeled by tradition must
always be of great interest
| he repeats an error into which many
other writer's on American art have
fallen. American art has never been
and is not to-day untrammeled by
| tradition. Were we Americans di-
rect descendants from the aboriginal
| inhabitants of the United States and
were our architecture autocthonous
We might expect a completely new
| development. The fact remains, how
ever, that we are mixed European
race, with the traditions Cf not with
the examples) of the architecture of
our ancestors, and these traditions
have naturally been followed. Sir
| Banister Fletcher continues: Present
day developments, which have taken
place on somewhat independent lines.
have been strangely similar and wide
| ly different from those prevailing in
countries with older civilizations"
I believe that the causes of the di-
vergencies of our architecture from
those of the older countries are due
| rather to the fusion of European
| ideas than to an original and spon-
taneous development in the United
States. The difference of the ma
| terial in which we are accustomed to
| work has unquestionably influenced
| the art to some extent; notably in
| the very free use of wood in Colonial
times, good taste led to a tightening
of proportion and a grace of detail
which is distinct from the European
art and which has reacted upon our
stone architecture. In Colonial times
also the poverty of the country re-
quired our designers to depend upon
the mass and proportion of their
buildings and upon the development
of holdings rather than upon decora-
| tive ornament. Our Colonial archi-
| lecture was notable for its clean cut
and pure design at a period when
rocco art was prevalent in Europe,
and the very great success attained
has been unquestionably a good in
fiuence in modern times. The classic
art OF our public buildings Of to-day
is very much simpler and more
severe than that of similar buildings
of England or France, and probably
we lead the world in design Of this
character; but these things are after
all comparatively slight Emergencies
| from the modern trend Of architec-
| tural design, and we are in many
ways more intimately connected with
both England and France, more fa-
miliar with their art, more interested
in it than is the Englishman with the
art of France. or the Frenchman
with the art of England.
Sir Banister Fletcher displays con
siderable familiarity with the princi-
pal American architects of the nine
teenth and twentieth centuries and
| their more important works. A few
slight errors. such as a description
of the Madison Square Theatre in
New York as a skyscraper, when the
tower of the Madison Square Garden