Concerning Archi tecture

H· R. HITCHCOCK

PHOEBE STANTON * MARK GIROUARD

I·M•RICHARDS

Essays on

Archi tectural

Wri ters and Writing

presented to

Nikolaus Pevsner

edited by

P·FERRIDAY John Summerson

JOHN FLEMING

FRANK JENKINS MAURICE CRAIG

KERRY DOWNES * PAUL THOMPSON

HUGH CASSON JOHN PIPER

].MORDAUNT CROOK ALEC CLIFTON-TAYLOR

H·M·COLVIN JOHN HARRIS

R·D·MIDDLETON BASIL F .L.CLARKE

S.LANG

IlEYNER HANHAM

ALLEN LANE THE PENGUIN PRESS

R00017 77016

COPYRICHT © ALLEN LANE THE PENGUIN PRESS 1968FIRST PUBLISHED IN 1968

BY ALLEN LANE THE PENGUIN PRESS, VICO STREET, LONDON W [THE EDITOR TO NIKOLAUS PEVSNER

JOHN

My DEAR NIKOLAUS,

Here, [or your birthday, is a collection of essays composedfOr you by some of

your friends. All are about writers and writings concerned with architecture,

across three hundred years. The collection has, therefOre, something of the

character of a family album - the family of writers, past and present, who

have been and are dedicated and industrious observersof architecturalfabrics,

inquiring into the how, why, and when offabrics~'the art, philosophy, and craft

of fabrics; and the mystery of fabrics considered in the mesh of time. We,

members of that family, salute you as a very excellent brother. We honour

you fOr what you have achieved among us and in the world at large and wishyou all happiness.

Yours ever,

London, january 1967

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN

THE TyE:: pBL\;:I: nC;MBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

W. S. COWELL, IPSWICHBOUND By MANSELL L

, ONDON N IDESIGNED BY HANS SCHMOLtER

�..

On Architectural Journalism

BY HUGH CASSON

FEW people like architects. Fewer still perhaps like journalists. Both, in the publiceye, share to an equal degree the faults of incompetence and vanity. It might thereforebe thought that the architectural journalist would by his profession suffer a doubleodium. This, however unjust, might be true if he were more often encountered ormore widely read. The truth is that he is a rare bird, and the layman normallytakes only a superficial interest -ifany at all- in what he writes. Architectural journal-ism is still written largely for architects, and the battles, however ruthless, and thegames, however childish, are mostly domestic ones. This does not mean that theyare not serious or important to the participants.

It must be remembered that the main object of the architectural press _ small a,small p - is the same as that of any other human organization or individual, whetherit be a steel plant or a poet. It is to stay in business. Not of course at any price. Nojournal as pusillanimous or catchpenny as that would deserve to survive. But clearlyif it is to inform, influence, or inspire it must continue to exist. Architectural journa-lists (who deceive themselves no more nor less often than anyone else) know this.They may speak of higher aims, they may sincerely believe in them, or in theirluckier moments even act upon them or attain them, but they know that economicfacts are as inexorable and unavoidable as press-day. This means that imperfectionand incompleteness (the lot, says Cyril Connolly, of all creative writers) will betheir lot too, bur in an even greater and more frustrating proportion, since the pres-sures are so regular and unrelenting. What then drives them to do what they do,so often with such skill and insight and enthusiasm? Certainly not a love of architects.Architectural journalists - and the feeling is frequently reciprocated _ do not muchlike architects. They find them ignorant, vain, fussy, quick to grumble, ungrateful,and ungenerous, 'puffing', said John Betjernan, 'out the opinions of the DailyExpress'. From this it is sometimes inferred that architectural journalists must growto hate the art they write about. The reverse is probably true. Like drama or music

2j8

ON ARCHITECTURAL JOURNALISM

critics, they must spend most of their lives evaluating reinterpretations of well-wornthemes, and a passion - the love of architecture - that can demand and survive suchceaseless consummation is and must be strong indeed. There may of course be otherchains that bind them to their wheel; a fascination perhaps for the building processand all its complex technicalities, a desire maybe to get ideas across or to ride 'hobby-J ' 'iorses ,or no more than the urge for self-expression found by chance in one type of

paper more easily than another.Perhaps it is best not to inquire into motives. The driving force behind creativity,

however modestly expressed, may, or may not, be admirable. What matters is theend-product _ the ideas expressed, the fact or event truthfully recorded, the techni-cality lucidly explained. None of this is as easy to do as it looks, and considering thatmany architectural journalists receive training neither in architecture nor in journal-ism, it is a tribute to their skill and persistence that the standard achieved is so high.

It may be argued that all those who write in specialist papers for specialists to readhave no real need, other than that of personal pride, to arrest the attention or topolish their style. The readers after all - whether they be pigeon-fanciers or archi-tects, motorcyclists, anglers, milliners, or engineers - are with them from the start.There is no necessity to allure or to dazzle. The readers need make no effort tounderstand the language, to catch the allusions, to recognize the personalities. Tothem the appearance of their magazine or a critical column is like another instalmentof a TV serial, compulsive because unsurprising. They are as familiar with the actas they are with the make-up. Goodness knows how often they have heard the jokes.Repeatedly, readers of architectural journals will tell you how empty of interest,how boringly repetitive, how consistently unimaginative in presentation is thematerial set before them. The leader written by the fatigued hack who can expressan opinion on any subject in 600 words flat - but no more and no less; the multi-authored notes and comments, facetious or portentous, the querulous correspon-dence, the technical sections filed but never read, the illustrated jobs by rival (there-fore enemy) designers ... the ads, the ads, the ads. Yet, if pressed, every architectwould probably admit in private that each time he pries open the latest issue, a senseof excitement or at least of heightened anticipation still hastens his fingers, and hewill not settle to his work until he has at least glanced through the contents.

What does he expect, and as a rule receive? Three things. First, a record as full andaccurate as possible of important or interesting new buildings, domestic and foreign,as they are built. This provides the raw material of architectural history. Secondl~,technical information for the use of all those working in the building industry. ThiSis a reference book of data, which is constantly brought up to date. Thirdly, somespace allotted for criticism, discussed elsewhere in this book, 'belles-lettres', history,travel and discussion around the allied arts including interior, industrial, and land-,scape design.

259

HUGH CASSON

The comparative space allotted under these headings obviously varies accordingto the type of journal and its readership, to the frequency with which it appears, andto editorial policy; but with something like 250 periodicals (excluding student squibsand house-magazines) regularly published in this country which deal with building,nobody in that industry could claim that if he was ill-informed it was the fault of themagazines. Too often this does not prevent him from regarding technical journalismas a parasite upon the industry it serves. If indeed this be his opinion, then he iswrong. For apart from the three services listed above there is a fourth, because lesseasy to define or to evaluate often the less recognized - the contribution made toarchitecture by the guiding of opinion and the initiating of thought. It is true thatleadership in architectural thinking comes in its truest form from practising architects,and is best expressed in their work. But such people are rare and their buildings asa rule few in number, and it is equally true to say that in the nineteenth century theworld of architecture was as much dominated by the writings of Pugin, Ruskin,William Morris, as it was by the buildings of Barry, Scott, Waterhouse, or NormanShaw. Which in fact are the milestones? The True Principles _ 'the thunder ofwhich', wrote Gilbert SCOtt, 'roused me from my slumber' _ or the Palace ofWestminster, the silver tongue of Ruskin or the Oxford Museum? The Ecclesio-lagist or All Saints, Margaret Street? or (to jump the years) the manifestos of Sam'Elia or the Einstein tower? The question may be unanswerable but it is not toO

ludicrous to put. The history of architectural journalism, although barely 1;0 yearsold.is, in fact, a proud one and worth a quick glance - necessarily brief since the earlyphases are described elsewhere in this book by Mr Jenkins.

Apart from the pattern books, the first genuine architectural magazine that oneresearcher, Ian McCallum, was able to discover was published in Berlin in 1829. Thiswas followed in 1834 by J. C. Loudon's Architectural Maga{ine, and a few yearslater (1842) by The Builder. This was edited by Joseph Hansom, the first of a greatseries of architect-editors (Godwin, Statham, H. V. Lanchesrer) who ruled thatpaper for seventy-five years until 1917, when the first professional journalist,Mr W. T. Plume, took Over. For thirty years The Builder had the field largely to

itself. Public health and railway construction were regularly dealt with, Mr Godwinwrote the sparky editorials, and the wood engravers, Mr Laing and, later, Mr Hodgkin- the Kidder-Smnhj of the 1840S - provided most of the illustrations: as rigid, pre-cise, and hardedged as the subjects they recorded. By 1870 Mr Hodgkin had handedover his engraver's tools to Mr Heaviside, but the style remained competent, im-p,ersonally uncha~ged, although challenged by the two-colour lithography of a newrival - The Architeci (founded 1869). The real spokesman for the new movement:way from Christia~ity and towards cosiness was The Building News, edited andIllustrated by Maurice B. Adams, a Bedford Park resident noted for his grisly. ,competence in current stylistic mannerisms of the period. By 1900 The Builder and

260

ON ARCHITECTURAL JOURNALISM

The Building News were virtually indistinguishable from each other, though thetext of the f~rmer was perhaps the livelier and the illustrations in the latter, many byRaffles Davidson and C. E. Mallows, of better quality. The spokesman for the avant-garde had by now become The Studio, which every month illustrated examples ofarchitecture and applied art in the new manner from Berlin, Vienna, and Brussels,as well as examples by the home team of Mackmurdo, Smith & Brewer, Vaysey,and Baillie Scott. Here you will find C. 1. Cowper's Palace Gate House, Kensington,furniture by \,\Talter Cave, interiors by G. M. Elmwood. Drawings by Beardsley andPennell were interspersed with articles on the design of gasoliers or Japanese sandgardens, and some photographs by Baron Corvo of naked Sicilian boys provokeda lively controversy on 'The Camera - Friend or Foe?' ('No doubt beneficial',said Millais: 'of the greatest use', said Alma Tadema: 'a fatal blow', said Frith.)Whether friend or foe, it certainly conquered, and until the outbreak of the GreatWar it recorded only too faithfully the weedy Baroque of the Edwardian era. After1920 Howard Robertson and F. R. Yerbury began to whip TIle Architect and BuildingNews into the lead with their regular reports from Northern Europe - the Scandi-navian expressionism that swept the drawing boards of the twenties was virtually thework of The Architect and Building News. In 1927 came Frederick Erchells's transla-tion of Towards a New Architecture, followed quickly by Silver End, Finella, Craw-fords, and the first works of Wells Coates, Emberton, and Fry. In T934 MortonShand could already write a history of the movement, which by 1935 was in fullswing. By now Queen Anne's Gate was in charge - publicizing, battling (rememberRuislip, Amersham, and Chipperfield?) - the dogged unquestioning champion untilthe Second world War of Modern Architecture.

The last twenty years are too near and too familiar to be analysed, but certainconclusions may perhaps be drawn from this superficial survey. Here are some of

them.First, the architectural periodicals can reasonably be proud of their contribution to

the development of architecture. Few architects have done as much either at H.Q.

or in the field.Secondly, while many of the ideas that they fostered and disseminate.d were n?t

outstandingly original (some of them indeed continued to reappear at intervals III

almost identical language), basic truths can always afford restatement and, as Lethabyremarked, it is the prophet's aim 'to be abolished in absorption: ..

Thirdly, the humbler services rendered to architecture and bUtl~lOg by th~ maga-zines, e.g. campaigns for higher office efficiency, hav~ ?een carrt~d out faithfully,even sometimes perhaps at the risk of boring, antagomzlO?) or losing readers.

Lastly such is the rivalry and variety of editorial attitude between the many. . ' . 11 . f vi omewhere gets heard. There seems

periodicals that virtua y every POlOt 0 view sto be no evidence, in the last hundred years at least, that any worthy cause was,6,

HUGH CASSON

refused support, any articulate spokesman refused a hearing, any outstanding pieceof design overlooked. Judgements may, in retrospect and out of context, seemmisguided and absurd, hut at least the case was heard.

This is a record to be proud of. Where have they failed us, other than in the normalfaults, endemic to journalism, of inaccuracy, mischief, log-rolling, failing to checksources, and the temptation to flippancy and generalizing? Increasingly perhaps intwo ways - cowardice in the face of currently sacred cows (Godwin would neverhave pulled his punches as some editors do today)' and the lack of adventurousnessin presentation. Magazine design has changed enormously in the last ten years, butarchitectural magazines have looked much the same for thirty years (just look attypical issues of any magazines for 1936, 1946, and 1956 and see what, if any,changes you can spot). Challenging this particular charge, some editors wouldprobably reply that this conservatism is due to the bottomless vanity of theirarchitect readers, who will complain instantly, and at length, if their buildings arenot always illustrated in the most conventional, flattering, and unrealistic light _dramatically posed, empty of people (how significant is this I), as trimmed andtouched-up as a society portrait or a dog-food ad. This may explain: it does notexcuse. The charge still stands. There are other complaints that can legitimately belaid at some editorial doors - equally perhaps at the architects' door? They are thecult of personalities rather than of ideas, resulting in the sins of king-making andcourt intrigue; blind worship (rather than proper respect) for facts, leading to anover-reverence for those who claim to understand problems rather than for thosewho try to solve them; the pursuit of novelty for its own sake, thus encouragingthe peacock that never lies far concealed within the architect; scarcity of scholarship(for an allegedly learned profession, we seem to be satisfied with too much light-programme level in our reading); and, saddest of all, perhaps, since it seems todayinevitable and incurable, the virtual disappearance from the editorial chair of thepractising architect - or, as the modern editor would probably and rightly call him,the amateur journalist. For him - opinionated, involved, individualistic, as happywith the typewriter as with the T-square - the modern self-effacing, highly efficientprofessional editor is no substitute. But perhaps this paragon of the past never existed.Few architects who are good at their Own job seem to be able to speak or to writedearly about it. The roll-call of those who could may be impressive, ranging as itdoes from Godwin, Viollet-le-Duc, and T. G. Jackson to Goodhart-Rende} andLe C?~busier, but it is lamentably short. Nevertheless, it is always to such articulatepractrtroners who know by training and experience how architecture is actually

. I. Has any cri~ic yet dare~ t~co~plain in public of the dogmatic inhumanity of Le Corbusier'swmdowless hospital now buildmg In Venice? Only the June f9<J5 issue of Demus admitted thatthe absence of windows' might ca ' b d

. use some concern, ut concluded in the end there was no neeto worry WIth such a masterly hand at the wheel. The true genius has no need of the sycophant.

262

ON ARCHITECTURAL JOURNALISM

produced that the architect will in the end prefer to turn for understanding andperceptive comment. This is not to say, of course, that those who have never 'done'can never 'understand'. This would be as ludicrous as it is false. The illuminationsl~e~ by .the outsider can, by its rigorous and ranging brilliance, often bring into~lVld rehef. ~reas conveniently or lazily left obscured by the more professionallyInvolved cnuc. Nevertheless most architects perhaps instinctively feel that no scholar-ship or brilliant turn of phrase can substitute for this basic knowledge acquired -chow-ever briefly or inexpertly - upon the drawing board.

Luckily perhaps for us a high proportion of those who write for architecturalmagazines in this coumry have, in fact.received, and profited from, such training, andthe contrast between their work and what appears, for instance, in some Americanmagazines is noticeable. The latter may, at its best, be livelier, or at its worst moretheatrical, but, too often, it lacks the bone of a discipline once learned. This innerknowledge of tbe architectural process is not so vital for those who write for thelay press - where the reader will respond at once to qualities of perception, visualsensitivity, scholarship, and above all enthusiasm, and will take professional know-how for granted or as irrelevant. Such extra-mural journalism, as it were, is a com-paratively recent feature of the lay press. But now no weekly or Sunday-posh iswithout its regular architectural correspondent, and even the dailies find space forthe occasional discussion of architecture outside the real-estate columns. This iswholly to be welcomed, inaccurate, frivolous, or uncomprehending as such commentmay sometimes appear to be. Architecture is now considered almost as seriously asballet or TV, and architects, although almost universally loathed in the flesh, rankhigh, it is said, in the popularity polls as heroes of magazine-fiction. Again this isall to the good. The view, favoured by many architects, that architecture is an anpractised in private by consenting adults is not one that does much good for archi-tecture and serves only to exacerbate the latent hostility which lurks within allarchitect-public relations and occasionally shows itself in unnervingly venomousforms. The serious and sympathetic architectural journalist can be of great help here,but there is much yet to do before the bridges of understanding are secure. Scientistsoften complain _ with some justification ~ that whereas those moving in educatedsociety are expected to know the names and work of a dozen or so second-ratewriters or artists, they are normally hard put to it to think up the name of more thanone top scientist. Architects, perhaps less justifiably, but w~th equal i~ritation, willfind that even the most sophisticated of critics - happy to discourse with equal easeand at equal length upon the merits of a picture, a poem, or an o~era - are whenfaced with the assessment of a building instantly adrift, groping miserably for any~d~mo~rmiliat~float~~~d~~moore~reinwthcirdepth. The truth is unfortunately that architecture, although the most commonlyencountered of the arts, is at the same rime the most difficult fully to comprehend, and

26)

HUGH CASSON

most difficult to explain. All the more credit to those who struggle in this field - theirgreatest value perhaps being in the way that they drag the aft of architecture out ofthe temple in which the priests and professional scribes would be only too happy tokeep it immured.

Too many scribes in the temple: too much' in-talk': too much writing with anudge or wink to the knowing - these contemporary diseases common to all thearts are ultimately degrading and rightly rejected by the public. The artist shouldbe the true outsider, not the 'inside-outsider', locking himself up in the prefects'room with his fags. It is above all the architectural journalist's job to open thewindows and clear the air a bit. It's not easy to do this, for as we have already seen,journalism is a suspect profession and the magazine a tainted weapon. 'All magazines',said Tennyson, 'demoralise literature.' 'People who write for the Press', saidSomerset Maugham, 'lose the facility of seeing for themselves.' 'Journalism', wroteCyril Connolly, 'is the deadliest of weeds that benefits only the amateur or theslothful in search of quick returns.' The gods thunder and even mortals squeak thesame tale. To the world at large, Fleet Street is still Grub Street. 'Hack' is the kindestof the adjectives applied to those who work there. The image of the furtive, whisky-sodden reporter and the ruthless, power-drunk editor remains as bright as it wasfifty years ago. Many journalists would perhaps prefer it to remain so, for it acts asa useful and brightly coloured cloak beneath which they can get on undisturbedwith their job. This is understandable but dangerous. It implies where it does notactually signify contempt for the reader; and this in any writer is the ultimate andunforgivable sin. Carelessness and cliches can be forgiven in work that is not, orshould not be, intended for immortality. The true professional always knows hisplace and is proud of it. 'I am a journalist,' cried H. G. Wells, 'I refuse to play theartist and if sometimes 1 am an artist it is a freak of the Gods. What I write goesnow and will probably die.' Hear, hear to that. A sense of urgency of what 'goesnow', an enthusiasm for his subject, a background of knowledge, and a respect forhis reader - these, when allied to the more modest virtues of competence, punctuality,and a quick turn of phrase, are the qualities that an editor looks for in his pro-fessional staff. Such qualities are rarely combined in one man, but when found, andgiven space to move around in, then architecture will be truly served, in a \vay thatevery practising architect should recognize and respect. Another window will havebeen opened, another tiny, but vital, victory scored against apathy and ignorance.Two cheers then (to borrow Mr E. M. Forster's formula) for the architecturaljournalist. Reserve the third until he fully deserves it.