[Illustration: FIG. 40 C. D. M.]
To add interest to the picture, and more especially to give life to the shadows, several figures are introduced. It will be noticed that the cart is inserted at the focal point of the drawing to better assist the perspective.
It is but a few years since architects’ perspectives were “built up” (it would be a mistake to say “drawn”) by means of a T-square and the ruling pen; and if architectural drawing has not quite kept pace with that for general illustration since, a backward glance over the professional magazines encourages a feeling of comparative complacency. That so high a standard or so artistic a character is not observable in architectural as in general illustration is, I think, not difficult to explain. Very few of the clever architectural draughtsmen are illustrators by profession. Few, even of those who are generally known as illustrators, are anything more—I should perhaps say anything less—than versatile architects; and yet Mr. Pennell, who would appear to assume, in his book on drawing, that the point of view of the architect is normally pictorial, seems at a loss to explain why Mr. Robert Blum, for instance, can illustrate an architectural subject more artistically than any of the draughtsmen in the profession. Without accepting his premises, it is remarkably creditable to architecture that it counts among its members in this country such men as Mr. B. G. Goodhue and Mr. Wilson Eyre, Jr., and in England such thorough artists as Mr. Prentice and Mr. Ernest George—men known even to distinction for their skill along lines of purely architectural practice, yet any one of whom would, I venture to say, cause considerable displacement did he invade the ranks of magazine illustrators. Moreover (and the suggestion is not unkindly offered), were the architects and the illustrators to change places architecture would suffer most by the process.
[Side note: The Architects’ Case]