Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

The Second Colin McWilliam Memorial Lecture: How Much Should We Respect the Past?

The Second Colin McWilliam Memorial Lecture: How Much Should We Respect the Past? What I have to offer are the views of a bystander on , in architecture, we should past. This question ought to fall into two parts— we should treat the buildings which we have already; and we should allow them, and the ideas of their makers, to influence the new buildings which we put up now. In fact, as I hope I shall s, those two parts have to be considered together. But why is it necessary to consider the question at all? In many departments of life, respect for the past goes without saying, for example in the law or, for the most part, in religion. In other fields, a respect for the past would seem extraordinary. The reason, I believe, is that, while for centuries the useful and the beautiful could be combined, the machine age has made the technical side of an architect's work more and more tempting, giving him and his client the power to astonish and to do too ; so that there is disagreement between architects (as well as between critics and clients) about whether architecture is now primarily a profession like engineering, which cannot be expected to pay attention to the http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Architectural Heritage Edinburgh University Press

The Second Colin McWilliam Memorial Lecture: How Much Should We Respect the Past?

SMITH, JOHN
Architectural Heritage , Volume 3 (3): 93 – Jan 1, 1992
Download PDF
10 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/edinburgh-university-press/the-second-colin-mcwilliam-memorial-lecture-how-much-should-we-respect-O5lhnC05UF

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Edinburgh University Press
Copyright
Copyright © Edinburgh University Press
ISSN
1350-7524
eISSN
1755-1641
DOI
10.3366/arch.1992.3.3.93
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

What I have to offer are the views of a bystander on , in architecture, we should past. This question ought to fall into two parts— we should treat the buildings which we have already; and we should allow them, and the ideas of their makers, to influence the new buildings which we put up now. In fact, as I hope I shall s, those two parts have to be considered together. But why is it necessary to consider the question at all? In many departments of life, respect for the past goes without saying, for example in the law or, for the most part, in religion. In other fields, a respect for the past would seem extraordinary. The reason, I believe, is that, while for centuries the useful and the beautiful could be combined, the machine age has made the technical side of an architect's work more and more tempting, giving him and his client the power to astonish and to do too ; so that there is disagreement between architects (as well as between critics and clients) about whether architecture is now primarily a profession like engineering, which cannot be expected to pay attention to the

Journal

Architectural Heritage – Edinburgh University Press

Published: Jan 1, 1992

There are no references for this article.