Composition of tribunals. If the programme be clear and distinct as to the object aimed at, and the maximum cost to be incurred, while it leaves considerable latitude as to the means by which the object may be attained; and if the reasons for the judgment be fully given by the judges under their hands, and published—a point of great importance, though it appears to have been hitherto quite overlooked-then advantage may surely be expected from the judicious obtention of the opinions both of amateurs and artists, upon the merits of the competing designs. But the whole number of ultimate judges should in no case be large-a too common fault in our own recent experience. During public exhibition expression cannot be given to too many or to too free opinions, but the final decision should rest with a few. The problem to be solved in the composition of tribunals of this kind has been well stated by one of the most distinguished of the French writers on art, in these words: "Le concours a pour objet principal d'oter aux ignorans le choix des artistes pour les travaux publics, et d'empecher que l'intrigue n'usurpe les travaux dus au talent. Il faut donc d'une part que les artistes ne puissent point intriguer, et de l'autre que les ignorans ne puissent point choissir."* In English experience respecting public works, both the occurrences here so strongly deprecated have taken place in perfection. Artists have intrigued and ignorant persons have chosen; and competitions, instead of having brought the remedy, have too often been the very means of working out these deplorable results. In this respect, as in commissions upon public records, * M. Quatremêre de Quincy, in the Encyclopédie Méthodique—Architecture, § Concours. and the governing boards of museums, rank and station in the persons appointed have been too much regarded to the neglect of special qualification for the business in hand. A valuable witness before the Arts' committee, who has been already quoted on other topics, thus replied to the question, "What has been the pervading character of such commissions as have been appointed to decide upon competitions for public works in England?—I apprehend, from the history of architecture in this country, that the aristocratical principle of our government has been especially illustrated in those respects, and we have always, therefore, found patronage and the opinion of persons in authority prevailing, in a great measure, over public opinion and merit."* It has been suggested as a good subsidiary mode of obtaining opinions in matters of artistic competition, to resort to a practice which obtained amongst the Greeks of collecting the votes of the competitors themselves.+ Each artist might have two votes, which he should authenticate with his name. By this, says Mr. Cockerell, "you not only enlist his judgment but his generosity, and give him the opportunity of that addi Αριστεία. * Mr. Cockerell's evidence before committee on Arts and Manufactures, II., g. 2208. "Venere autem, et in certamen laudatissimi, quanquam diversis ætatibus geniti, quoniam fecerant Amazonas: quæ cum in templo Ephesiæ Dianæ dicarentur, placuit eligi probatissimam, ipsorum artificum, qui præsentes erant, judicio, cum apparuit eam esse, quam omnes secundam a sua quisque judicassent. Hæc est Polycleti, proxima ab ea Phidiaæ, tertia Ctesilai, quarta Cydonis, quinta Phradmonis."-C. PLINII, Nat. Hist. Lib. xxxiv., 19.-Edit. Harduin. Tom. ii., p. 649. Paris, 1641. Ev. o. 2201. The whole of Mr. Cockerell's evidence on this subject will well repay a careful perusal. Competitions-open or select. tional merit. You will get in that way the opinion of persons certainly competent, because they have gone through all the study and all the detail, and must at once be struck with the successful solution of the problem." It has been thought that not the least of the difficulties connected with the question of competitions, more especially for buildings, lies in determining whether or not they should be, strictly speaking, public at all: that is, whether they should be limited to a certain number of competitors invited for their known talents, or open to all the world: and it is not surprising that the opinions of many of the most eminent professors incline to the former course. The architect who has just been quoted, says on this subject:* "It is obvious you must induce the most eminent practitioners to enter into that [the competition], and they will not do so if they have not some regard paid to their experience. If all persons are invited of all ages, young and old, with and without experience, an old professor feels himself rather dishonoured by the company he finds himself in, and he will not accept the competition,....you lose therefore the benefit of his opinion....... The regulations of your competition I apprehend should be, that the competitors should be in the first place known as eminent in their particular walks, that they should have practised a certain number of years, that they should have gone through a regular course of study," &c. But when asked if he would exclude from the competition all who had not practised for a certain time, and gone through a certain course of instruction; and as if perceiving the impolicy and injustice of such a restriction, Mr. Cockerell adds: "I would not entirely limit it, because I conceive it may be possible that a very young practitioner may have ability sufficient to entitle him to enter into such a competition; in that case I suppose he may have a right to challenge the committee who drew out the programme to admit his services; he may put forward his pretensions, and it is then for the committee to judge whether he is likely to be a proper competitor." This has very much the appearance of trifling. If it be both unwise and unjust altogether to exclude the yet unknown artist from the opportunity of displaying his talents, it is surely neither very wise nor very just to make such an opportunity contingent upon the chance of his satisfying a committee before-hand that he is a proper competitor. Nor is it easy to see where lies the detriment or dishonour to the established artist in a competition ever so open, provided it be honestly conducted. The objection seems to depend entirely upon some latent misgiving as to the fairness of the judges. A committee appointed to enquire into this subject by the Institute of British Architects very fairly admit that "the arguments advanced in favour of [open] competition are sufficiently forcible. Emulation is said to be the soul of excellence in the arts and sciencesthe recognized talents of the elder professor are supposed to be maintained in activity and progressive improvement, and his employers to be protected from the routine manner, which security in public patronage and private practice are too apt to produce:—while an opportunity is afforded to the young aspirant to take that place in public estimation to which his talents may entitle him..... The motives by which the experienced and conscientious professor is impelled to enter into competition are undoubtedly of a mixed character. The love of his art, the pride of authorship, emulation, the hope of professional distinction, and the prospect of pecuniary advantage, all have their share in inducing him to embark a certain venture of his time, talents, and labour upon an uncertain chance of a return."* The true ground, I apprehend, on which the policy, in most cases, of open competitions is to be maintained, consists in their tendency to bring into the field the largest amount of talent which can be brought to bear upon the object in view. If the regulations be fair, and the judges well chosen, the already eminent architect, or sculptor, will never be likely to lose the legitimate advantages of his reputation and experience; -if he enjoy more than these, it is a mischief. Undoubtedly it will, in all cases, after the choice of designs, be the duty of the judges to obtain evidence of the executive ability of the artist, if theretofore it have been comparatively unknown. In general, then, it would seem, from the evidence before us, that the points to be chiefly attended to in the regulation of artistic competitions, may be thus summed up: 1. The programme should be clear and definite as this programme, the best professional opinions Report of the Committee appointed to consider the subject of public competitions for architectural designs, Jan. 24, 1839; pp. 5-9. On this point see the same report, p. 12. |