Victorian Architecture
Jul. 25th, 2004 11:21 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Drooping eyelids cut short an interesting, wide-ranging conversation with
sorenr last night. Now- 12 hours later- I'm taking it up again.
We'd gotten on to Victorian architecture. I grew up in the 50s and 60s, when the critical consensus (only just beginning to break up) was that Victorian architecture was florid and hideous. People like Sir John Betjeman said different, but they were all teddy bear-hugging eccentrics, weren't they?
I've never wholly overcome that early conditioning. I go and stare at Manchester Town Hall and try to love it and never quite succeed. It's grand, but where's the soul? And all that machine-tooled ornament is just too crisp and regular. There was a programme the other day about Tower Bridge. Dan Cruikshank (whom I admire) spent an hour trying to convince me that it's a wonderful building, but, sorry, it still looks kitsch to me.
Now Victorian engineering- that's something else. I worship Brunel. I love the ghost of the Crystal Palace. I marvel over the Forth Bridge. But the Civic and Ecclesiastical architecture of the period just doesn't do it for me. It's not that it's ugly- it isn't- it's just that it's insincere, it's play-acting. It's a chap in mutton-chop whiskers putting on tights and tabard and strutting about.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
We'd gotten on to Victorian architecture. I grew up in the 50s and 60s, when the critical consensus (only just beginning to break up) was that Victorian architecture was florid and hideous. People like Sir John Betjeman said different, but they were all teddy bear-hugging eccentrics, weren't they?
I've never wholly overcome that early conditioning. I go and stare at Manchester Town Hall and try to love it and never quite succeed. It's grand, but where's the soul? And all that machine-tooled ornament is just too crisp and regular. There was a programme the other day about Tower Bridge. Dan Cruikshank (whom I admire) spent an hour trying to convince me that it's a wonderful building, but, sorry, it still looks kitsch to me.
Now Victorian engineering- that's something else. I worship Brunel. I love the ghost of the Crystal Palace. I marvel over the Forth Bridge. But the Civic and Ecclesiastical architecture of the period just doesn't do it for me. It's not that it's ugly- it isn't- it's just that it's insincere, it's play-acting. It's a chap in mutton-chop whiskers putting on tights and tabard and strutting about.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-25 04:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-25 06:04 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-25 07:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-25 05:18 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-25 06:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-25 06:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-25 06:51 am (UTC)Are you an Audrey Hepburn fan by any chance?
no subject
Date: 2004-07-25 07:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-07-27 07:10 am (UTC)There's Victorian and Victorian. I have always rather liked the earlier stuff and I like the centre of Newcastle with is quite hadsome. But the on-the-verge-of-Edwardian stiff I agree is vile.
I am learning to warm to the Georgean style though I think that lacks soul - like much of the 18th c it was the visible so much and for that reason I have never really warmed to the literature of the time.
no subject
Date: 2004-07-27 08:12 am (UTC)But I do like the Georgian style. They got the proportions just right I think. Georgian domestic architecture is beautiful.
So is much Victorian domestic architecture. It's the big, showy Victorian buildings- the town halls and the cathedrals, even the museums- that I just can't learn to love.