|
Main
- books.jibble.org
My Books
- IRC Hacks
Misc. Articles
- Meaning of Jibble
- M4 Su Doku
- Computer Scrapbooking
- Setting up Java
- Bootable Java
- Cookies in Java
- Dynamic Graphs
- Social Shakespeare
External Links
- Paul Mutton
- Jibble Photo Gallery
- Jibble Forums
- Google Landmarks
- Jibble Shop
- Free Books
- Intershot Ltd
|
books.jibble.org
Previous Page
| Next Page
Page 31
Surely if it be worth while troubling ourselves about the works of
art of to-day, of which any amount almost can be done, since we are
yet alive, it is worth while spending a little care, forethought,
and money in preserving the art of bygone ages, of which (woe worth
the while!) so little is left, and of which we can never have any
more, whatever good-hap the world may attain to.
No man who consents to the destruction or the mutilation of an
ancient building has any right to pretend that he cares about art;
or has any excuse to plead in defence of his crime against
civilisation and progress, save sheer brutal ignorance.
But before I leave this subject I must say a word or two about the
curious invention of our own days called Restoration, a method of
dealing with works of bygone days which, though not so degrading in
its spirit as downright destruction, is nevertheless little better
in its results on the condition of those works of art; it is obvious
that I have no time to argue the question out to-night, so I will
only make these assertions:
That ancient buildings, being both works of art and monuments of
history, must obviously be treated with great care and delicacy:
that the imitative art of to-day is not, and cannot be the same
thing as ancient art, and cannot replace it; and that therefore if
we superimpose this work on the old, we destroy it both as art and
as a record of history: lastly, that the natural weathering of the
surface of a building is beautiful, and its loss disastrous.
Now the restorers hold the exact contrary of all this: they think
that any clever architect to-day can deal off-hand successfully with
the ancient work; that while all things else have changed about us
since (say) the thirteenth century, art has not changed, and that
our workmen can turn out work identical with that of the thirteenth
century; and, lastly, that the weather-beaten surface of an ancient
building is worthless, and to be got rid of wherever possible.
You see the question is difficult to argue, because there seem to be
no common grounds between the restorers and the anti-restorers: I
appeal therefore to the public, and bid them note, that though our
opinions may be wrong, the action we advise is not rash: let the
question be shelved awhile: if, as we are always pressing on
people, due care be taken of these monuments, so that they shall not
fall into disrepair, they will be always there to 'restore' whenever
people think proper and when we are proved wrong; but if it should
turn out that we are right, how can the 'restored' buildings be
restored? I beg of you therefore to let the question be shelved,
till art has so advanced among us, that we can deal authoritatively
with it, till there is no longer any doubt about the matter.
Surely these monuments of our art and history, which, whatever the
lawyers may say, belong not to a coterie, or to a rich man here and
there, but to the nation at large, are worth this delay: surely the
last relics of the life of the 'famous men and our fathers that
begat us' may justly claim of us the exercise of a little patience.
It will give us trouble no doubt, all this care of our possessions:
but there is more trouble to come; for I must now speak of something
else, of possessions which should be common to all of us, of the
green grass, and the leaves, and the waters, of the very light and
air of heaven, which the Century of Commerce has been too busy to
pay any heed to. And first let me remind you that I am supposing
every one here present professes to care about art.
Well, there are some rich men among us whom we oddly enough call
manufacturers, by which we mean capitalists who pay other men to
organise manufacturers; these gentlemen, many of whom buy pictures
and profess to care about art, burn a deal of coal: there is an Act
in existence which was passed to prevent them sometimes and in some
places from pouring a dense cloud of smoke over the world, and, to
my thinking, a very lame and partial Act it is: but nothing hinders
these lovers of art from being a law to themselves, and making it a
point of honour with them to minimise the smoke nuisance as far as
their own works are concerned; and if they don't do so, when mere
money, and even a very little of that, is what it will cost them, I
say that their love of art is a mere pretence: how can you care
about the image of a landscape when you show by your deeds that you
don't care for the landscape itself? or what right have you to shut
yourself up with beautiful form and colour when you make it
impossible for other people to have any share in these things?
Previous Page
| Next Page
|
|