193. Thirdly. No stone quoining, or presence of any contrasting color,
should be admitted. Quoins in general (though, by the by, they are
prettily managed in the old Tolbooth of Glasgow, and some other antique
buildings in Scotland), are only excusable as giving an appearance of
strength; while their zigzag monotony, when rendered conspicuous by
difference of color, is altogether detestable. White cornices, niches,
and the other superfluous introductions in stone and plaster, which some
architects seem to think ornamental, only mock what they cannot mend,
take away the whole expression of the edifice, render the brick-red
glaring and harsh, and become themselves ridiculous in isolation.
Besides, as a general principle, contrasts of extensive color are to be
avoided in all buildings, and especially in positive and unmanageable
tints. It is difficult to imagine whence the custom of putting stone
ornaments into brick buildings could have arisen; unless it be an
imitation of the Italian custom of mixing marble with stucco, which
affords it no sanction, as the marble is only distinguishable from the
general material by the sharpness of the carved edges. The Dutch seem to
have been the originators of the custom; and, by the by, if we remember
right, in one of the very finest pieces of coloring now extant, a
landscape by Rubens (in the gallery at Munich, we think), the artist
seems to have sanctioned the barbarism, by introducing a brick edifice,
with white stone quoining.
Pages:
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190