Page:Scottishartrevie01unse.djvu/74

58 the evil is a deeper and more serious one — that it is not limited to architectural drawings, but extends to architecture itself.

Before we can accept the theory that the deserted condition of the architectural gallery is to be wholly accounted for by the absence of the buildings themselves, we must be persuaded that, viere it possible to have them present, they would be studied by all true lovers of art with an interest and an affectionate regard equal to that bestowed upon the paintings in the adjoining galleries ; or that, in the places where they stand they are so studied and lingered over. I am not sanguine enough to believe that they are so. Do the various buildings that are within the grounds exercise this attractive influence ? And I seek to apply the question to two buildings only, which are most favourable to that view of the question. Is the Bishop's Castle regarded with that loving interest that a local building called back into life from the grave of past centuries might be expected to excite, were we to accept Mr. Honeyman's theory? Is the clever reproduction of a Dutch House, in which Van Houten's cocoa is dispensed, studied or lingered over with one tithe of the affectionate regard bestowed on a single picture of Maris or Israels? And yet these have much in them to attract the curious, a more numerous multitude than true lovers of art. But it may be urged that these are not real, that they are but representations, neither cleverer nor better than many of the architectural drawings, and equally false as far as true art is concerned. Then surely the University Buildings on Gilmorehill are sufficiently real ; and how many of the refined and cultured men who enter its gates daily, study or think of it as a work of art, though seeing it just where it stands? The Royal Exchange is sufficiently real ; and how many of the wealthy merchants who pass under its noble portico regard it, or think of it, as a work of art ? Yet many of these men are art patrons, with worthy sculptures in their halls and exquisite paintings in their rooms, and who shall say they are not, many of them, true lovers of art ? And what shall we say of gifted and successful painters who are content to live in houses innocent of architectural art? or of Royal Academicians voting for the election of Architect Associates on hearsay, without a knowledge of or opinion concerning their art work? Surely this, that even true lovers of art do not love all the arts equally; and there are many reasons, technical and other, why architecture must always have fewer admirers than the sister arts of painting and sculpture. Architecture is their elder brother, more practical and hard-headed than they, and less lovable than the softer, fairer sisters.

There seems, then, to be a weightier problem re- quiring solution than that Mr. Honeyman has dealt with, and which bears much the same relation to his that the substance does to the shadow. Will modern architecture bear the test of attractiveness which Mr. Honeyman applies to the exhibition of architectural drawings? And if it will not, is the inference inevitable, 'it is falsehood that inter- venes '? If the test and inference are true as applied to architectural drawings, can we escape them when applied to architecture? Or, is the test unfair and the inference untrue in one or both cases?

It appears to me that the lack of interest taken in architecture, outside the profession, whether it be in conventional drawings or in the buildings themselves, is due in large measure to the absence of any personal identity of the arcliitect with the art- work he produces. The personal identity of the artist with his work, of the producer with the thing produced, is a special characteristic of modern life and thought. The value attached to a picture, attributed to a great master, is determined rather by the presence or absence of an authentic signature, than by the intrinsic merit of the picture itself.