........,SAVING _____ FACE "" ___ .,...,..,.. ......... -........... ---~""--~ y,....,,..,___flool-........~~~~~~~ -·-...... o...M~-· .... t-s...... -..-....a_,.~ ......... , __..__ • ,_ ______ a.- ... _ ~.._._..,...... .. ,,. c. -----.••!IIIIo»- • ., ...'!~ ...... .. ...,.... _ ........ ~- ,,. ...... _............ a-.-.Qoo~os.oo.--·,..,......_ __, __ ... ......-t~oflhl '-·---­..... , Ill..-.--.. ...... :::-:=..:::-:::::_Qt.,._ Michela n gelo Saba t i no Eric Arthur: Practical Visions A master of any art avoids excess and defect, but seeks the inter­ mediate and chooses this- the intermediate not in the object but relatively to us. (Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics , Book IJ , n. 6) orced to contend w ith the aftermath of the Age of Histori­ Fcism, the practice of contemporary architecture has oscillat­ ed unrelentingly between anxiety over the new and desire for Fig. 1. Saving Face (University Theatre fayade / 10 Bellair Avenue Condominiums, 100 Bloor continuity with the old. Consequently, it is not surprising that Street West) Luis Jacob, 2001 . the act of remembering has often been more opportunistic than (digital print from set of six, 38. 1 x 30.5 em) opportune. Why remember Eric Ross Arthur, the New Zealan­ der who, fo llowing architectural studies in England, immigrat­ ed to Canada in order to teach at the University of Toronto? Why is an exhibition that assesses the work and legacy of Arthur as architect and educa tor opportune today? Did his practi ca l vi­ sions - a combinati on of ambitious idealism and astute rea l­ ism - make a significant contribution to twentieth century Canad ia n architectural culture? Was Arth ur more than a local hero or charismatic opinion maker? If so, how was his role dis­ tinctive in relationship to other architects in Canada of his gen­ eration? For those w ho are familiar with the impact of Arthur in Toronto and across Canada during a producti ve professional li fe that spanned from the early 1920s to the earl y 1980s, the answers to these questions are typica ll y affirmati ve. However, for those recent generations fo r w hich hi s name is unknown, the answers Michelangelo Sabatino was trained as architect and architectural historian in are less obvious. This exhibition is fo rmulated as a response to Venice, Italy. He is presently completing his Ph.D. in the Department of Fin e these questions. Its aim is to soli cit d iscussion within a disparate Art, University of Toronto. audience composed of novices and connoisseurs, by addressing This essay was written to accompany the exhibition Eric Arth ur : Practical two primary aspects of Arthur's professional and cul tural iden­ Visions presently on view at the Fawlty of Architecture, l.Jmdscape, and De­ tity: his role as architect and educa tor. This exhibition also in­ sign, University of Toronto. Th e show opened November 22, 2001 and will vestiga tes complementary activities such as his work as writer, close 0 11 january 31, 2002. ac ti vist and preserva ti onist. This exhibition would li ke to demonstrate that the importance of Arthur's contribution lies principally in his attempt to interrelate these many acti vi ti es as part of a cultural project w hose scope went fa r beyond the con­ ventional confines of the architectura l profession. Most defenders of the Arthur legacy emphasize his roles as historian of 18'" and 19'" cen tury buil dings in Ontario and as preservationist. However, on closer examinati on of his w riting, jSSAC I jSEAC 26, n'" l , 2 (2001 ) ; 33-42. it is apparent th at the title of historian is somewhat 33 JSSAC I JSEAC 26. n ~ 1. 2 C2001) inappropriate and misleading, and tends to compete unfairl y his built work. Furthermore, compared to the masterworks of w ith Arthur's primary identity as architect. When Arthur was twentieth century architecture and city planning, Arthurs work not designing he was a writer interested in the history of build­ appears modest. Rather than express a judgem ent that fails to ings of Ontario, the province in which he exercised the majority capture the histori cal specificity of Arthur's w ork, it is more pro­ of hi s practice. Arthur wrote from the viewp oint of a practi cing ducti ve to ask why he - clearl y informed about the broad spec­ architect. Arthur was not a "pure" historian and this explains trum of contemporary architecture - would self-consciously why his writing about the past could - despite the perplexity of choose to design informed yet modest architecture. Arguably, for some architects - easil y coexist w ith his design acti vity. His Arthur, this was the result of his commitment to an edu ca ted Mod­ practice of history was not like the narrati ve form of the archi­ ernism and not simply arrived at by default. It is no coincidence tectural historian Peter Collins- to cite the example of another that from the very onset of his professional life Arthur was ex­ illustrious adopted Canadian- and was more akin to the "op­ tremely interested in the buildings (w hereby this term denotes ar­ erati ve criticism" discussed by Manfredo Ta furi in his seminal chitecture not designed by professionall y trained architects) of text Th eo ries and His tory of A rchitecture (1968). Arthur's writing on Ontario. It would seem that Arthur, raised in an austere Presby­ history shared more affinities w ith the straightforwardness of teri an family, endorsed the Aristotelian ethic of the "intermedi­ the chronicler than with the history of "changing ideals" dear to ate" that saw in the lack of "excess and defect" the quintessence Collins. Arthur wrote as a prac tising architect, not as a trained of mastery in art. Or, to borrow an expression used in the late historian. H owever he beli eved tha t he could teach architectural 1920s by the Italian art historian Lionello Venturi, Arthur ex­ design and history equally well, and he did so at the University pressed "pride in modesty". Paradoxicall y this self-imposed un­ of Toronto from the mid 1920s until his retirement in 1966. d erstatem ent has been d etrimental to the historical Throughout his teaching career Arthur taught several different understanding of his work, especia ll y now, in a moment when history courses ranging from "The Renaissance in italy, France the interest in architectural authorship has escalated to the de­ and England" to "Modern Architecture". He did so while teach­ gree of cult status. ing courses on "Housing" and "Architectural Design" in which, as he put it "Form, scale and proportion are studied ". Today, Architect and Educator with the rise of specialisati on in the fi eld of architectural history, Arthur left his native New Zealand and moved to England it is hardly possible to think that one could continue the Arthur w here he received his Bachelor of Architecture from the Li ver­ trajectory. pool University School of Architecture in 1922. Despite a few Even in the role of preservationist, Arthur revealed an iden­ heroic exceptions, the artistic and architectural culture that tity that was closer to that of architect than that of histori an. Arthur was exposed to in England immediately after the First Arthur was a discerning preservationist; he w as not interested in World War had yet to be reshaped by the radica l continental saving everything in the way a "pure" historian is often forced modernism of German refu gees. Notw ithstanding the rise of in­ to, but made strategic choices and was selecti ve in directing his dustry in the 18"' and 19'" century and the opportunities it af­ attention. Notwithstanding this, when he became involved in forded in the development of a new building culture, English preservati on projects he was objecti ve and chose to bring land­ architecture was still the domain of Victorian eclecticism and Ed­ m arks, as much as possible, back to their ori ginal state in a way wardia n classicism. Reluctant to embrace the Ne ues Ba uen, most which protagonists of creati ve restoration, such as the italian ar­ of England continued to indulge in the splendid isolati on of the chitect Carlo Scarpa, did not. Arthur most certainly would not anachronistic. The mainstream appreciation for the "calculated have endorsed the phenomenon of "Saving Face" that has de­ restraint" and the "educa ted architecture" of the Renaissance ad­ veloped in Toronto (although some notable exceptions do exist) vocated by Geoffrey Scott (Th e Architec ture of Hu111a nism, London in recent years whereby the historic building is virtuall y de­ 1914) and by John Betjeman (Ghas tly Good Tas te, London 1933) re­ stroyed and only the original fa<;a de is reintegrated into the new sp ectively played a significant forma ti ve role for Arthur building (see the work of contemporary Toronto-based artist throughout his professional life. Even when Arthur was to aban­ Luis Jacob featured as a coda to this exhibition) (Fig. 1). don cl assici sm he would always retain an interest in the virtue of The general awareness of Arthur's publications, his acti vism restraint, w hich the English acknowled ged as part of the Renais­ and his preserva ti on work seems greater than the awareness of sance legacy. his built ceuvre. There is, fo r exa mple, no systemati c catalogue of 34 MICHELANGELO SABATINO a ...su:o..;.. ... w FRO T ELEVATION /~1· E. N . I rlhnr, 1919 A UNIVERSITY ASSEMBLY HALL Fig . 2. "A University Assembly Hair. Eric Arthur, 1919. (cou rtesy of the University of Li verpool Library) Under the leadership of the architect and professor Charles Degree. Two of Arthur's student projects (published in Tile Liv­ Reilly, the Liverpool School was suspended in a precarious equi­ erpool University Architectural Sketchbook, 1920) reflect the Beaux­ librium between art and science, or to put it more directly, be­ arts teaching method of the Liverpool School.