[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Edmund Blacket

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A different opinion

[edit]

"But Blacket was not a great architect. The mistaken belief that he was both the Wren and the Pugin of Australia, a genius who produced great architecture, arose from the transference of his attributes to his works. He was essentially an archaeological Gothicist, a self-taught architect unable to transcend an antiquarian outlook that handicapped his whole career. His Gothic buildings are assemblages of details culled from copy-books and, as might have been expected, his classical designs follow safe eighteenth-century prescriptions rather than the dangerous freedom of nineteenth-century Romantic Classicism. For the most part Blacket's work lacks invention and imaginative insight: it is too careful and uncommitted."

H. G. Woffenden, 'Blacket, Edmund Thomas (1817 - 1883)', Australian Dictionary of Biography, Volume 3, Melbourne University Press, 1969, pp 173-175. [1] cites Woffenden, Architecture in Australia 1840-1900 (Ph.D. thesis, University of Sydney, 1967)
This critique of Blacket's work, written in the 1960's, is dangerously POV, yet constitutes the summing up of his career in the Australian Dictionary of Biography. While the statement "essentially an archaeological Gothicist" is correct, the value judgements made here are very dated, prejudiced by an attitude, typical in Australia in the 1960s, that anything that wasn't obviously innovative, wasn't worth having. Blacket is a Gothic innovator, but he was indeed steeped in historic styles, and his innovations are those that a medieval or Renaissance architect might have made. And which might very easily miss the eye of this particular writer. It is quite true that he does not display "the dangerous freedom of ... Romantic Classicism. To say his work is careful and "uncommitted" is ludicrous. "Committed" sums up Blacket's work precisely. Amandajm 08:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! I know I'm ten year late, but not all saw Blacket's work as favourable and some thought he embraced old(e)-world England (Norman and Gothic) instead of the Romanesque-inspired style sweeping European and North American architectural designs of his era. Hunt and Blacket's sons embraced this new movement. East's essay here is a good start to provide a more balanced view of ecclesiastical architecture in Australia from the mid-1880s to more current times. To add balance, I've added a section called Critique here. Rangasyd (talk) 10:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there is not much of value in the criticisms.
Firstly, Blacket's dates meant that he commenced work at a time when Domestic architecture was not Victorian, but still solidly Georgian, and built to Military regulation style. Blacket was clever to adapt the essentially Georgian to his domestic architecture. He constructed houses that suited the tropical climate.
In terms of his ecclesiastical architecture- It was Gothic, because THAT was what was expected. In the 1860s, he sent his plans o both major architectural societies, at Oxford and Cambridge. Both made suggestions, but they were slight. His designs were thoroughly approved by the people who mattered.
To say that Blacket failed to adopt the Romanesque style that was becoming fashiobale is just plain ludicrous. Henry Hobson Richardson who introduced the innovations, built his first Romanesque-inspired building in 1870, when Blacket had been working in Australia for nearly thirty year and was in his fifties.
By that time Blacket had designed a number of churches in the Romanesque style, including St John's, Bishopthorpe, the Glebe, 1868, predating the Richardson building that introduced Romanesqe to America.. On the whole, they were not what was wanted by conservative parishes. Your quote from a resident of the little village of Jamberoo is hardly a sensible, publishable critique for a scholarly article. I would say that the resident was expecting something less modern, and more Gothic. Exactly the same is true of the Church of SS Simon and Jude, Bowral. Don't be misled by the photo of a conservative sandstone church on the website. That is NOT the church. Blacket came up with a highly innovative design, once again in the Romanesque style. It was a brilliant design with a central lantern tower, with rows of windows illuminating the centre of the church, from the tower. I have no doubt that it was much to innovative for the people of Bowral, who were busy building themselves a little England in the Southern Highlands. As the parish grew, they found reason to demolish it, and what they got in its place was a very conservative building of brick, with lancet windows. It is the sort of architectural loss that makes historians groan.
Blacket's students and contemporaries were quick to adopt Richardson Romanesque. Blacket had already laid the ground for people like John Horbury Hunt and James Barnet.
As for Blacket's use of Sydney Sandstone being a matter for criticism, the problem is that an Architect is bound to work in the material available. You might as well scold the builders of the Medieval Chester Cathedral for building in red sandstone, or the builder of Tudor house for using woven willow and plaster as an infill between the oak. Blacket built in beautiful yellow sandstone because that was the sturdiest building material available. And it does indeed have a problem with rising damp. For that reason it was Blacket's practice to insert a row of slate between the lower course of the sandstone. I do not know whether this was done at Goulburn Cathedral, which you have cited. I would say that this is almost certainly the case as it is presnt in other churches of exactly contemporary construction, and with the involvement of some of the same masons. The most common problem involving rising damp and the sandstone churches has been that they are not well maintained. As you know, the soil level around a building gradually rises, as dirt and debris blows against it. After 100 years, the slate damp course can be completely covered, particularly on the less used side of the church. You also have well-intentioned parishioners digging gardens, putting in topsoil and mulch, and not cleaning away leaves that fall to the ground. Sandstone buildings require maintenance. one of the causes of water ingress is failure to replace loose mortar, particularly around window sills.
But I will tell you what the real problem with Blacket's designs are. It was stated clearly in the article that you read, but you missed the point. The sandstone is not a problem in itself. The problem is the roof. As it says in the article about Goulburn, Blacket designed for a gentler climate. He never, till the end of his days, learnt to design roof drainage. When the problem of small gutters and downpipes is mentioned in the article, then this is indeed a major problem. In a heavy storm, or if there is a leaf blockage, water pours down the walls, and is sucked in through the sandstone itself, or through the rather soft mortar that is compatible with the stone. In Australia, until recent times, houses were usually built with large overhanging eaves. (For some reason, probably cost, this has been abandoned). Churches also need overhanging eaves to cast off the heavy rain and keep the walls dry. Blacket didn't do this. And at Goulburn he complicated issues by giving it a balustrade. The other problem is that he had no talent for designing the gtters that run between the sloping surfaces of a roof, say, where the roof of a vestry meets the roof of a transept. This poses a problem of engineering that makes the insertion of a large, deep box gutter very difficult. Luckily, in recent years, we developed a solution for this, which I believe is going to be employed in such areas of the roof at Goulburn where it is necessary.
What I am saying here is that the stylistic criticisms that you have quoted were made by the ignorant and uninformed.
At Bowral, they had a gem, which they failed to appreciate, as it was too modern and too Romanesue. The fact that the Bowral church was demolished to build a larger one, instead of extending it, oes not signify a major criticism. What the article is really saying is that they foolishly demolished an architectural gem. You have picked up on the negative point, rather than the valid architectural assessment.
Trust me, there were people who hated the Sydney Opera House because it was weird. It this a valid critique?
At Jamberoo, they got what the little village could afford, and it was too simple and modern, for somebody's tastes. It isn't a valid critique. If I were you, I would remove the petty complaint from Jamberoo. (Find Jamberoo on a map and you will know why)
In the criticism of Blacket and his association with Romanesque, in fact he pioneered Romanesque revival in Australia.
As far as the criticisms of his structural engineering goes, saying that the fact that he built of sandstone is a ridiculous criticism, and in the context of Goulburn, was not a criticism of the architect, but a statement about historic buildings of NSW in general. Sandstone would have been exactly what the parish wanted and expected. They wanted a righly decorated building with fine carvings, and widow tracery. That demanded stone. There is only one real criticism here. It is the one about the gutters and drains. Blacket never got the hang off roof drainage, and never understood the value of wide eaves in a climate where "it never rains but it pours".
I would simply remove the section, and add, instead, a section on restoring Blacket's buildings, in which the problems of rising damp and poor roof drainage can be addressed.
Amandajm (talk) 15:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa! There is a simple solution. It's called WP:NPOV. The works of most architects are both loved and hated, nothing new there. What is wrong with presenting both cases. "Some people praised his architecture. Blah Blah Blah. [cite][cite][cite]. Others disliked his architecture. Blah Blah Blah. [cite][cite][cite]." I am guessing this is a "like". Kerry (talk) 09:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edmund Blacket. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More works

[edit]

just tying the names with an ad showing Windsor district, Blackett and Mort Dave Rave (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edmund_Blacket&oldid=1195730608"