Page:Modern and contemporary Czech art (1924).pdf/110

 the ballast of traditional forms and instead of imitating, aimed at sober expression, developing the form only so far as was essential with reference to the object, the materials and the logic of the construction. They boldly entered for all the competitions and attacked all the problems necessitated by the sanitary improvements and other reconstructions in Prague—problems harder to solve in Prague than elsewhere, because of the valued antique features of the city. Paradoxically enough, these revolutionaries were more ardent champions of Prague antiquities than the official architects, who were often guilty of demolishing valuable relics of the past. At competitions, the younger men won prizes but did not obtain commissions. In the new streets driven through the old quarters, and on the great squares there arose a commonplace architecture of compromise, while the new school had to be satisfied with building in side streets or exhibiting abroad. It is only quite recently that they have succeeded in making their presence felt even on important sites.

During the past few years, however, by a perfectly natural evolution, even the new architecture has changed in character. At first fairly uniform, it has become diversified in accordance with varieties of temperament, and, since its triumph, has become richer in colour. If the principles we have set forth above are still followed in the main by all these artists, each individual is travelling by a different path towards the same goal. In the streets of Prague, in the provincial towns and the country resorts, we find buildings diverse in their aspect, yet closely akin. Gymnasia of the Sokols, with fine monumental lines adapted to a provincial environment, town halls, villas in the heart of the lovely Czech countryside, big factories at once original and practical in their plan, bathing establishments, bright and well-ventilated, flats and business offices in Prague—all these new erections have