in composition. These natural accessories, too, the draughtsman
must, with an occasional recourse to his photograph album, evolve
out of his inner consciousness. When it is further considered that
such structures, even when actualities, are uncompromisingly stiff
and immaculate in their newness, presenting absolutely none of
those interesting accidents so dear to the artist, and perhaps with
nothing whatever about them of picturesque suggestion, we have a
problem presented which is somewhat analogous to that presented by
the sculpturesque possibilities of "fashionable trousering." That,
with such uninspiring conditions, architectural illustration does not
develop so interesting a character nor attain to so high a standard
as distinguishes general illustration is not to be wondered at. It
is rather an occasion for surprise that it exhibits so little of
the artificiality of the fashion-plate after all, and that the better
part of it, at least, is not more unworthy than figure illustration
would be were it denied the invaluable aid of the living model.
So much by way of apology.

[Side note: _The Architects' Point of View_]

The architectural perspective, however, is not to be regarded purely
from the pictorial point of view. It is an illustration first, a
picture afterwards, and almost invariably deals with an individual
building, which is the essential subject. This building cannot,
therefore, be made a mere foil for interesting "picturesqueries,"
nor subordinated to any scenic effect of landscape or chiaroscuro.
Natural accessories or interesting bits of street life may be added
to give it an appropriate setting; but the result must clearly
read "Building, with landscape," not "Landscape, with building."