tural drawings, and the majority of the best drawings
are not even executed by the ostensible authors
whose names appear in the catalogue; and, thirdly,
most people look at them under a totally false idea
of what they really are, and what they mean. The
deception may be unintentional, but being real, there
is no escape from its consequences — that is the point
we wish to emphasize.
We speak loosely of architects exhibiting 'ex- amples of their works,' and we annually see articles headed '"Architecture" at the Royal Academy,' and elsewhere, and there is small blame to the public if they are misled by such expressions, and if they utterly lose siglit of the fact that in the nature of things it is impossible that a work of architecture can be exliibited except where it stands. It seems almost as if architects themselves were in danger of falling into the same forgetfulncss. This would not merely be a mistake, but a calamity. Nothing jierhaps has done more to degrade archi- tecture both as a profession and as an art tlian the popular misconceptions which these exhibitions tend to foster; and the question wliether such exhibi- tions ought not to be entirely discontinued is one which demands the most anxious and careful con- sideration of every one who is really interested in the art. It is probable that for reasons quite apart from the interests of art such exhibitions will continue. It is therefore all the more incumbent on us on all fitting occasions to protest against the idea that they are exhibitions of architecture. They are exhibitions of drawings of arcliitecture, which, as we shall presently see, is a very different thing. Many of these drawings possess great artistic merit, even when the architecture they illustrate is contemptible, but it may be fairly suggested that if the interest is to turn on the work of Haig, or Brewer, or David- son, it would be very much better to leave these artists free to work at their best, among the monu- ments of Westminster or the terraces of Mont St. Michael, rather than under the harassing limita- tions which the modern designer is obliged to impose. But the very best efforts of the best artists cannot enable the architect to exhibit liis art in the same sense that the sculptor or painter exhibits his. The architect acknowledges no superior in the world of art, and before his masterpieces the greatest achievements of the sister arts sink into comparative insignificance, but in the modern exhibition he can- not possibly assert his pre-eminence. The truth is, that between the exhibition work of the architect and that of the painter or sculptor there is absolutely no analogy: so true is this, indeed, that it is not even possible to imagine corresponding limitations applic- able to each. If, for example, the sculptor could only exhibit a part of his statue — a half either way, or even a leg only, or a hand — he would not be in the same unhappy case as the architect represented by a perspective drawing; because he might stiU make what he did exhibit perfect — a faultless ex- ample of the sculptor's art; but the architect can only liope to make the perspective a faultless speci- men of another art altogetlier — the art of the etcher — not of the architect. The beauty of detail, the harmony, fitness, truth, sublimity, are not there, and cannot possibly reach the mind through the medium of ])en and ink. In the same way the ]jainter, if denied the use of colour and re.stricted to black and white, would not labour under the same kind of disadvantage as the architect. He would still be free to show his best in monochrome, and in spite of the limitation might produce a consummate work of art — the painter's art; but there is no such possibility open to the architect: a consum- mate specimen of his art can only appeal to the imagination and the emobions, through the medium of stone and marble, oak and cedar, gold and azure.
Again, whatever style may be adopted in illustrating a piece of architecture — whether etching, monochronie, or water-colour — the drawing is necessarily in a double sense conventional. It is conventional not merely in the sense that painting, sculpture, or architecture itself is conventional — namely subject to the restrictions which the materials employed by the artist impose; but in the further sense that it is a conventional way of representing a conventional thing. A painting is not; it is the thing itself. So is a piece of sculpture; so is a piece of architecture. But a drawing of any of these, however excellent in itself, is after all only a conventional representation of them. It is comparatively uninteresting and valueless, and the less it does justice to the original the less it is esteemed. No one who could paint would dream of resting his reputation on the popular appreciation of such imperfect presentments of his art. He, jealous for his art, would refuse to exhibit if he had always to submit to such misrepresentation; but the architect who exhibits has no alternative — he must, in short, submit to be misrepresented. Besides, it must not be forgotten that while it is possible to represent conventionally, by drawing, sculpture or painting, so completely as to give some adequate conception of the whole work, it is impossible so to represent a work of architecture. That can only be shown in part — probably an insignificant part. The immense difference which this makes will be readily understood by artists, but a simple illustration may not
