“MODERN” DESIGNING

Evening Star, Issue 22450, 22 September 1936, Page 2

“MODERN” DESIGNING

SOME CRITICISMS ANSWERED Criticism of contemporary architecture, which is inaptly termed modern, has not been infrequent of late. Among those to enter the lists in challenging mood (says the Melbourne ‘Age’) were several members of_ this State’s Legislative Assembly, during a debate some little time ago, and the latest adversary to new styles is a leading member of the profession in Sydney, whose opinion is backed by his own personal success and his wide experience.

It is the small proportion of inferior work in commercial buildings in the cities that appears to have merited the strictures of lovers of good architecture, as the amount of new or advanced building in the residential field has been relatively of no account. In the institutional and ecclesiastical domains, at least, in Australia, there lias also been little change in architectural practices. Thus'it is clear that objection is taken mainly to the unfamiliar types adopted for shopping centres. Mr J • S. Gawler, lecturer on architecture at the Melbourne University, said it was true that some architects had been actuated by a desire to strike a so-called modernistic note in designing, as distinct from planning, but the

profession generally in Australia regarded any such irrational departures from accepted standards with displeasure. The greater proportion of contemporary work, ho maintained, expressed a lot of thought and understanding. At the present time architecture was m a state of flux, and a number of its younger exponents appeared to be impatient at the restraints imposed by traditional styles. When duo allowance was made for that impatience—a reaching out for new and better things— it would be found that the practice of architecture was as stable as ever it was. IN DEFENCE OF YOUNGER SCHOOL. By way of an answer to critics of prevailing trends, a Melbourne architect mentioned the Girls’ High School at Albert Park, as an outstanding example of a building designed for a specific purpose, without sacrificing a single detail which would be missed by an admirer of pure design. Moreover, he said, it was definitely a new style_ and owed little or nothing to traditional architecture. Above all, it scorned to him transparently clear that the designer started on his plans with a full knowledge, in three dimensions, of what was required—a high school —and had no other image at the back of his mind. That could scarcely be said of much of tho institutional architecture carried over from the last century to this —architecture which was pretentious outside and seldom plahned for convenience inside. He would also remind critics that, if any person needed evidence as to, tho marked improvements effected during recent times, he would, readily discover it in structures

built for use as general and private hospitals. As far as this branch ol architecture was concerned, there had been a distinct and a final break with the past, and almost everywhere in hospital designing and planning the gains under advanced methods were substantial. In summing up after a discussion on general aspects, one of the leading members of the profession in Melbourne said it could not bo contested that buildings were now showing the spirit of an entirely new age. Building lines were clean and straight, the massing of building units tended all the time to simplicity, and simplicity in all good architecture was as desirable as sincerity in all good literature.