00000466 |
Previous | 466 of 496 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
404 APPENDIX, 17.
counter to the spirit of all I have ever written, though without
referring to me; but the references to the "Seven Lamps" I
should not have answered, unless I had desired, generally, to
recommend the book, and partly also, because they may serve
as examples of the kind of animadversion which the "Seven
Lamps" had to sustain from architects, very generally; which
examples being once answered, there will be little occasion for
my referring in future to other criticisms of the kind.
The first reference to the "Seven Lamps" is in the second
page, where Mr. Garbett asks a question, "Why are not convenience and stability enough to constitute a fine building?"—
which I should have answered shortly by asking another, " Why
we have been made men, and not bees nor termites:" but Mr.
Garbett has given a very pretty, though partial, answer to it
himself, in his 4th to 9th pages,—an answer which I heartily beg
the reader to consider. But, in page 12, it is made a grave
charge against me, that I use the words beauty and ornament interchangeably. I do so, and ever shall; and so, I believe, one
day, will Mr. Garbett himself; but not while he continues to
head his pages thus:—"Beauty not dependent on ornament, or
superfluous features." What right has he to assume that ornament, rightly so called, ever was, or can be, superfluous? I have
said before, and repeatedly in other places, that the most beautiful things are the most useless; I never said superfluous. I said
useless in the well-understood and usual sense, as meaning, inapplicable to the service of the body. Thus I called peacocks and
lilies useless; meaning, that roast peacock was unwholesome
(taking Juvenal's word for it), and that dried lilies made bad
hay: but I do not think peacocks superfluous birds, nor that the
world could get on well without its lilies. Or, to look closer,
I suppose the peacock's blue eyes to be very useless to him; not
dangerous indeed, as to their first master, but of small service,
yet I do not think there is a superfluous eye in all his tail; and-
for lilies, though the great King of Israel was not " arrayed"
like one of them, pan Mr. Garbett tell us which are their superfluous leaves ? Is there no Diogenes among lilies ? none to be
found content to drink dew, but out of silver ? The fact is, I
never met with the architect yet who did not think ornament
meant a thing to be bought in a shop and pinned on, or left off,
| Title | The stones of Venice - 1 |
| Creator | Ruskin, John |
| Publisher | J. Wiley |
| Place of Publication | New York |
| Date | 1889 |
| Language | eng |
| Type | Books/Pamphlets |
| Title | 00000466 |
| Type | Books/Pamphlets |
| Transcript | 404 APPENDIX, 17. counter to the spirit of all I have ever written, though without referring to me; but the references to the "Seven Lamps" I should not have answered, unless I had desired, generally, to recommend the book, and partly also, because they may serve as examples of the kind of animadversion which the "Seven Lamps" had to sustain from architects, very generally; which examples being once answered, there will be little occasion for my referring in future to other criticisms of the kind. The first reference to the "Seven Lamps" is in the second page, where Mr. Garbett asks a question, "Why are not convenience and stability enough to constitute a fine building?"— which I should have answered shortly by asking another, " Why we have been made men, and not bees nor termites:" but Mr. Garbett has given a very pretty, though partial, answer to it himself, in his 4th to 9th pages,—an answer which I heartily beg the reader to consider. But, in page 12, it is made a grave charge against me, that I use the words beauty and ornament interchangeably. I do so, and ever shall; and so, I believe, one day, will Mr. Garbett himself; but not while he continues to head his pages thus:—"Beauty not dependent on ornament, or superfluous features." What right has he to assume that ornament, rightly so called, ever was, or can be, superfluous? I have said before, and repeatedly in other places, that the most beautiful things are the most useless; I never said superfluous. I said useless in the well-understood and usual sense, as meaning, inapplicable to the service of the body. Thus I called peacocks and lilies useless; meaning, that roast peacock was unwholesome (taking Juvenal's word for it), and that dried lilies made bad hay: but I do not think peacocks superfluous birds, nor that the world could get on well without its lilies. Or, to look closer, I suppose the peacock's blue eyes to be very useless to him; not dangerous indeed, as to their first master, but of small service, yet I do not think there is a superfluous eye in all his tail; and- for lilies, though the great King of Israel was not " arrayed" like one of them, pan Mr. Garbett tell us which are their superfluous leaves ? Is there no Diogenes among lilies ? none to be found content to drink dew, but out of silver ? The fact is, I never met with the architect yet who did not think ornament meant a thing to be bought in a shop and pinned on, or left off, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| B |
|
| C |
|
| G |
|
| H |
|
| M |
|
| T |
|
| U |
|
| Y |
|
|
|
