THE
record by the artist’s own hand of his men- tal conception. Workmanship or techiique embodies all those peculiarities of expres- sion or treatment inseparably connected with the personality of the individual, which cannot be spontaneously reproduced or transmitted by another. Were we to accept this type of handicraft as the stand- ard for according architectural credit, to the same extent as we recognize it in painting, the architect would at once be put out of court in the matter of recog- nition.
The problem would seem to resolve itself into two considerations, which concern the relative importance of the imaginative and executive elements in painting, for in- stance, on the one hand, and in architec- ture on the other. In the case of painting, imaginative power is entirely dependent for its realization on the fashion in which selected scenic data in nature are recorded by the artist’s hand, reflecting through manual interpretation the angles of tem- perament. In architecture, a masterly con- ception might be equally well realized in a dozen or more localities by interchange- able subordinates; therefore the factor of production by the originator, which is vital in the painting, is negligible in archi- tectural work.
Is it not possible that our taste is of- fended more by the manner in which the architect’s name is sometimes affixed to his building than by its presence thereon? Precedent causes us to expect that the word or inscription figuring on a member of an edifice shall convey pertinent infor- mation—its name, the purpose of its cham- bers or halls, or the motive responsible for its erection. When we read an inscrip- tion placed more or less prominently on the base of a building to the effect that a certain person is its architect, we in- stinctively classify him within the cate- gory of what might be described as the domestic professions, whose members ad- vertise their calling by shingle or plate, to attract the patronage of stray clients. As commefgcial methods of this description are considered unethical in the aesthetic pro- fession, we instinctively feel that a profes- sional principle has been sacrificed for pecuniary ends.
In the upper west section of New York City a number of autographed apartment houses can be found for reference as test cases for the reader’s sensibility. These signatures impress one unfavorably by their undue prominence. Yet one often longs to
ARCHITECTURAL
174
RECORD.
know the authorship of an architectural masterpiece, to pay homage to the name of the artist whose great gift has found expression in perfect harmony and grace. Such incidents lead us to believe that, to attain the full complement of esthetic en- joyment, we desire a human association in connection with a great work.
The foregoing considerations, which had occurred to the writer at various times, grouped themselves after an examination of the seals reproduced in Lange’s work. The designers of seals, medals and coins during the moyen-age command our admi- ration by the utmost decorative science in adjusting the motif to the space. The ma- jority of these architects’ seals are beau- tiful emblems, appropriate, ingenious and laden with suggestion. Could they be translated into other media, such as stone, wood or clay, they would adorn the sur- face surrounding them. Were we to dis- cover such an emblem carved in low relief in some spot of secondary prominence, our interest would register satisfaction, in that our introduction to the architectural au- thor-had been effected in such pleasant fashion. In brick or stucco wall, an in- genious faience insert well placed chal- lenges our inspection and reveals by its polychrome symbols that it is the archi- tect’s signature of his work, impressing his mark thereon with a touch of beautiful and welcome color. These decorative architectural signatures could, and should, be protected by registration in the interest both of the owner and the public. Many of the ancient designs conform to a set plan, which consists of an inner circle in which is placed the shield or emblems and
an outer circle holding the name, fre- quently accompanied by the word “see!” (seal); in other cases the owner's initials
figure.
For many generations the architect has suffered the anonymous professional des- ignation of the domestic retainer, being referred to as “my architect”; a practice not in accord with the dignity of a cre-
ative profession. It is not customary to refer to “my portrait painter,” possibly for the reason that the identity of the
producer is the chief credential of value; in fact, in many instances the subject’s identity is quite subordinate to that of the painter. A corresponding condition should exist with regard to modern architectural works of equivalent merit.
The attitude of the daily press to the profession is an interesting reflection of
