On some relations of science to architecture considered as a fine art / F.C. Penrose.

  • Penrose, F. C. (Francis Cranmer), 1817-1903.
Date:
[1852]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: On some relations of science to architecture considered as a fine art / F.C. Penrose. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    1/6 (page 125)
    highest degree of beauty, neither quality at all interfering with the other. We further learn that humble buildings should be simple and subordinate to, but not irrespective of, tbe more noble; that these should exhibit order and symmetry, but should differ among themselves in Character ; efficiency rather than beauty to be looked for in absolutely concealed construction, but ugliness scarcely to be tolerated under any circumstances in features exposed to the eye. The mere rule “ Decorate the useful,” although good as far as it goes, is inadequate, for the beauty should be a function of the use, and the use of the beauty. The Lecturer proceeded to inquire in what Styles of Architecture are found the best illustrations of the application of Scientific prin- ciples to aesthetic ends, — i. e. for the elaboration of beautiful form : observing with reference to the conventional rules which form the grammar (as it were) of each particular style, that these rules were subordinate to principles founded on science and common sense ;— that their object was to prevent confusion and ignorant caprice, and were made for the use of tbe architect and not for his embarrass- ment. The Architecture of Greece alone exhibits satisfactory evidences of the application of Science to Fine Art. The Romans actually gloried in the abnegation of the highest aims of art, and no peculiar refinements were to be found in their Architecture, even after the most diligent examination. The Architecture of the thirteenth century, with all its beauties, is so overrun with curious fancies, whether arising from carelessness or symbolism, that the abnormal varieties, which in Greek Architecture point out a principle, are in this stvle, in the majority of instances, mere caprice, as far at least as art is concerned. Alberti and Brunelleschi, and the great masters who revived classical art, who so wonderfully succeeded in adapting an ancient Architecture to tbe uses of their day, and who formed out of it a living style unshackled by timid retrospection, do not seem to have used any peculiar refinements; neither do their chief followers in this country, Inigo Jones and Sir Christopher Wren. Palladian Archi- tecture having fallen into feeble hands was, in this country, ejected by an ill-digested importation of Greek Architecture, to which it did not do justice, either in respect of artistic or of scientific treatment; but it chiefly failed from overlooking the proper use to which the Architecture of the Greek temple should be applied by us. “ It should be proposed as a standard of excellence, as an abstract model for our guidance, and not as one suitable for direct imi- tation.” The Architecture now in fashion is treated in a manner scarcely less retrospective than the last mentioned, and great as are its in- trinsic excellencies, is peculiarly unplastic and opposes itself to the exhibition of mechanical power or scientific refinement. The late attempts to revive Greek Architecture were much ham- pered by a feeling of the necessity of carrying symmetry to an extreme which is not found in the original.