cathedrals longed to soar in some way, and this was the way then open to
it, and it sent up its soul in spreading vaults, and in pinnacles and
spires. So also we can never look at Greek architecture without seeing
in it the reflection of a nature refined, precise, and critical; loving
grace and finish, but content to live with the graces and the muses
without any aspirations that spurned this earth. We can hardly go
further than this in attributing emotional expression to architecture.
But in a more restricted sense of the word _expression_, a building may
express very definitely its main constructive facts, its plan and
arrangement, to a certain extent even its purpose, so far at least that
we may be able to identify the class of structure to which it belongs.
It not only may, but it ought to do this, unless the architecture is to
be a mere ornamental screen for concealing the prosaic facts of the
structure. There is a good deal of architecture in the world which is in
fact of this kind--an ornamental screen unconnected with the
constructional arrangement of the building. Nor is such architecture to
be entirely scouted. It may be a very charming piece of scenery in
itself, and you may even make a very good theoretical defense for it,
from a certain point of view. But on the whole, architecture on that
principle becomes uninteresting. You very soon tire of it. It is a mask
rather than a countenance, and tends to the production of a dull
uniformity of conventional design.

For we must remember that architecture, although a form of artistic
expression, is not, like painting and sculpture, unfettered by practical
considerations. It is an art inextricably bound up with structural
conditions and practical requirements. A building is erected first for
convenience and shelter; secondly only for appearance, except in the
case of such works as monuments, triumphal arches, etc., which represent
architectural effect pure and simple, uncontrolled by practical