The architecture of humanism; a study in the history of taste

INTRODUCTION

7

must be

separated, in thought, (^iticism of the

Ijistoricaltypefailstoapply

anidealand

consistent

analysis,for

theinsufficientreasonthatthe practice

of

architecturehas, of necessity,

been neithercon-

sistentnor ideal.

Such criticism isnot necessarily

misleading. Its fault

is more often that it leads

nowhere. Its

judgments may be individuallyaccu-

rate,butit affords usnogeneral

view,foritadopta

nofixed position.

It isneithersimple,norcompre-

hensive,nor

consistent. Itcannot,

therefore,furnish

atheoryofstyle.

'^he_second_tYEP of criticism is more

dangerous.

Forthesakeofsimplicity

it laysdownsome

'

law

'

ofarchitgcturaltaste.

Good designinarchitecture,^

itwillsay, should

'

express the usesthe buildingis

intended

to serve

'

;

'itshould faithfully state the

factsofitsconstruction,'

oragainit should

'

reflect

thelifeof

anoblecivilisation.' Then,havingmade

theseplausibleassumptions,itdrivesitstheorytoa

conclusion, dwellson

theexamples that supportits

case, and is willing, forthe sake ofconsistency,to

condemnallarchitectureinwhichthe theoryisnot

confirmed. Such general anathemas are

flattering

alike to the author and his reader. They greatly

simplify
the subject.

They have a show of logic.

Buttheyfailtoexplain

whythestylesofarchitecture

whichtheyfinditnecessarytocondemn

haveinfact

been created and admired.

Fashion consequently