show itself properly and naturally, just as wit shows itself
spontaneously in the witty; for surely those original architects, who
have only been able to raise in us emotions of contempt or disgust,
would have been judicious had they abstained from the attempt. I think
that most architectural students, if they will only study the best
buildings, will make their plans to accurately answer the purposes
wanted, including the efficient lighting of the rooms, will study the
Vitruvian symmetry until their eye revolts from disproportion, will try
and make their profiles tell the story they want told, and will try and
bring such parts that, from the exigencies of the case, obtrude
themselves in odd places into harmony with the whole, that they will
produce an effect which will raise their buildings to the dignity of
humanity, and out of the range of the dog-kennel and rabbit-hutch type,
and will not exhibit ugliness, disproportion, or vulgarity. We see
plenty of examples where the designs have sunk much below this level; no
building of dead walls, with holes in it for doors and windows, could
cause us such disgust. Let me here say, by way of a parenthesis, that
if you candidly consider that your design is more offensive than a dead
wall, do not waste money and materials in making the wall more
repulsive, but let it alone."

"Any one can be original if he be only impudent enough; any one can be
graceful if he is servile enough to copy: but to be both original and
graceful requires deep study, much striving, and natural talent."

"I have also to remind you that architecture cannot be brought into
vigorous life again, so long as architects insist on using old forms for
beauty that are inseparable from a construction that has been abandoned;
so long as this practice persists, so long will architecture be a kind
of potted art; to be vigorous it must learn how to take the materials,