f the theory of art hints which the latter
should study over at home before he sleeps upon them; for the secret
of much that is vital and essential in his study is to be found in
these hints; and on the other hand, I imagine that an artist would be
better off, and have more play of mind, and readier and fresher
conceptions, if he would now and then listen to what the student of
old art has to tell him about what is to be observed in this or that
monument of the past. But beyond that there is no connection between
them. I will run two _ateliers_ side by side, one for archaeologists,
and one for practical students of architecture and they need never
mix.

This will be more readily admitted, perhaps, in the case of the arts
of expression than in the case of arts of decoration and let us define
these terms. If you will allow me, I will quote from an address
delivered a year ago before the New York Architectural League. Any
work of art whose object is to explain and express the thing
represented, or to convey the artist's thought about the thing
represented, is art of representation, or, if you please, art of
expression, or if you please, expressional art. I offer these as
nearly synonymous terms. But if, on the other hand, the work of art
has for its object the adornment of a surface of any sort, as a
weapon, a utensil, an article of costume, and if the natural objects
represented or suggested are used only as suggestions to furnish
pretty lines and pleasant tints, which lines and tints might have been
after all represented apart from the object were man's mind more
creative than it is,--that is art of decoration.

Now, architecture, you see, is primarily an industrial affair, a
method of covering men in from the rain, and admitting light into
their protected interiors, and of warming those interiors, and in a
few rare cases of ventilating them, and in providing a variety of
apartments, communications, and the like for the varied requirements
of a complicated existence; and it need not put on any artistic
character at all. But as architecture becomes a fine art, it is
perforce one of the arts of decoration. It has nothing to do with the
arts of expression. Mr. Ruskin and all his life work to the contrary,
notwithstanding, the business of building is not to tell tales about
the world and its contents, not to set forth the truths of botany or
of zoology, or of humanity, or of theology. If zoological or botanical
or human o