A final and absolute verdict upon the relative merits of works of art is in most cases an impossibility. Since there is no such thing as an absolute objective standard of comparison for all works of a given class, the personal equation and the time equation must always enter largely into critical estimates by individuals or groups of individuals. Least of all are we likely to pass correct judgments on contemporary works, because we measure them wholly or mainly by the dominant taste or fashion of our time, instead of by that larger experience and more impartial judgment which comes with the lapse of decades and centuries. When, however, a large number of intelligent and presumably competent critics are found in agreement as to the merits or defects of a given work, it is safe to conclude that there is some ground for the verdict; and when the agreement extends to a number of buildings (in the verdict about to be discussed we are dealing with buildings) it is reasonable to draw definite inferences as to the grounds of the agreement, both in relation to the works so judged and in relation to the view-point and taste of those who have pronounced the opinion.

Of course in such a vote as that by The Brochure readers on the "Ten Most Beautiful Buildings in the United States," the result can only be a composite,—a consensus reached by the fusing together and averaging of a great number of widely diverse estimates. The very terms of the vote will be variously interpreted according as the expression "the most beautiful building" is made to apply to the exterior alone, or to the plan, the decorative detail, the scale, or other elements of architectural design, or to include all; and according to the varying values assigned to dignity, simplicity, richness, grandeur, refinement, and other qualities, by the several voters. But, having made all these allowances, there is much instruction and suggestion in the vote, both as to the tendencies of taste among the constituency of The Brochure Series, and as to the progress and tendencies of American architecture, especially in the light of the vote of 1885 in The American Architect.

As a preface to the comments about to be made on these tendencies, it is in order to present a few statistics with regard to the vote and the buildings voted on. In these I shall call the Brochure's list of the ten buildings receiving the highest number of votes the "First" list; the supplementary list of the ten coming next in popularity, the "Second" list, and that published in The American Architect in 1885, the "1885" list. (The "Second" and the "1885" lists are printed on page 17.)

A comparison of the styles represented in these three lists is interesting, after making all allowances for doubtful classifications of some of the examples.

The percentages of the total number of votes won by buildings in the different styles in the "First" list were as follows:

These percentages are only approximate, and the apportionment would vary with a different classification; but they show, in a rough way, that the ten buildings ranking highest received about 63 per cent of all the votes, and that the seven in the Renaissance group obtained 44.5 per cent of all the votes.

Comparing next the classes of buildings represented, we have this result:

Comparing the geographical distribution, we have:

Of the ten buildings in the "1885" list but three appear in the "First" list, and two in the "Second"; so that only five of the ten buildings adjudged in 1885 to be the most beautiful in the United States are included in the twenty given the leading rank in 1899 by the Brochure readers. Of these twenty, six in the "First" list and five in the "Second" have been built since the 1885 vote. Of the remaining four in the "First" list, three, as we have seen, figure in that of "1885"; the fourth—the New York City Hall—was not in 1885 considered worthy of a place among the ten—a significant suggestion as to changing tastes since that date.

The first and most obvious conclusion to be drawn from the above statistics is that American architects, so far as they are represented in the Brochure vote, have no hide-bound traditions or ingrained prejudices as to style. There is in the list selected by them a preponderance, it is true, of buildings in the various styles of the Renaissance and Classic Revival—seven out of ten. But the third in the list, with 96 per cent of unanimity in its favor, is a Romanesque building, Trinity Church, Boston. Two others, standing sixth and eighth, are Gothic,—Trinity and St. Patrick's Churches in New York. The remaining seven, although they may all be included under a broad extension of the term "Renaissance," exhibit wide divergencies of style. The Capitol at Washington and the Columbia Library represent two different phases of the Classic Revival, nearly a century apart in date; the New York City Hall, a version of the style of Louis XVI. The Boston Public Library was avowedly inspired from the "nèo-Grec" Bibliothèque St. Genéviève of Labrouste, as far as its façades are concerned, and yet differs from that building more than it resembles it; and although, in the foregoing tables, both this and the Biltmore mansion are classified as in the French Renaissance style, they are really much farther apart than the classic Capitol and the Louis Seize City Hall. The Congressional Library follows Italian rather than French precedents, and the Madison Square Garden suggests both Italian and Spanish prototypes. Evidently our architects are not bound by allegiance to any one style or kind of beauty, but are ready to find subjects for admiration in buildings of the most diverse character, and to recognize beauty alike in pointed and round arches, in domes and in spires, in acanthus leaves and crockets, in new buildings and in old. This catholicity of taste is interesting, and on the whole hopeful, for it suggests the ability and readiness to appreciate realities instead of names, style rather than any particular historic dress, essentials rather than externals;—an eclecticism which recognizes beauty, quality, excellence, wherever they can be found, and adopts what is best without regard to names or categories. And if we consider the buildings themselves, instead of the motives of the voters, the same statistics indicate, as we might expect, a like catholicity of taste in the designs of recent American buildings, and—what is more to the point—a conspicuous measure of success in fusing together and adapting to modern American needs the multifarious suggestions of the "historic styles," so that the results are neither copies nor patchwork, but consistent, intelligent and harmonious units.

Taking next the second comparative table, we find that in the "First" and "Second" lists taken together, 20 per cent of the names are those of government or administrative buildings; 15 per cent are churches, with the same number of libraries (three of each, all on the "First" list). There are two each of museums, club houses and private residences; and one each of office buildings, hotels, and amusement houses. Here again we encounter the same breadth of judgment as in the first comparison. The Brochure readers, and presumably our architects generally, are willing to discover beauty alike in public, private, religious, and commercial architecture.

It is a significant fact that churches and libraries constitute 60 per cent of the "First" list, and that there is but one residence, and not a single commercial edifice among the ten buildings it enumerates. Apparently it is religion and education which inspire and call forth the highest results in architecture, rather than the private and commercial luxury of which we hear so much in these days. If to these sources of architectural inspiration we add that of civil government, it appears that we owe 80 per cent of the "First" list to government, religion and education—the three highest activities of the community. This is not merely due to the fact that the architectural requirements of churches and civic buildings are such as favor monumental results; for both in size and cost, and hence in the opportunity for an ample and sumptuous architectural treatment, these are often surpassed by banking and office buildings, private palaces and rich men's clubs. The presence of three truly magnificent public libraries of recent erection in the "First" list seems to me particularly encouraging, as a symptom of the extent to which the wealth of the country is being devoted to the higher interests of the people, and at the same time to the promotion of high art. That this is a correct symptom, is confirmed by such buildings, erected or about to be erected, as the Chicago Library, the magnificent New York Public Library, the new libraries at Milwaukee, Providence, Newark, N.J., Jersey City, and Washington; by the Art Museum at Chicago, the Corcoran Gallery at Washington, the new wing to the Metropolitan Museum at New York, the Phebe Hearst competition for the University of California, and other like enterprises. The most important architectural enterprises in New York today are the Cathedral of St. John the Divine and the vast palace of the Brooklyn Institute, of which a new wing is about to be erected. Evidently our art has not fallen wholly a prey to commercialism and private luxury.

The geographical distribution of the buildings chosen is interesting. In 1885 but three out of ten were in New York City, and Albany stood ahead of Boston. In the "First" list New York has one-half of the ten, and in the "First" and "Second" lists, jointly, nine out of twenty buildings. Boston and Washington divide the second place, with two each on the "First" list. In the two lists together there are nine cities and towns represented, of which five are in the northeastern states, with fourteen out of twenty buildings; one in the nearer west (Chicago); and three in the south (if we include Washington among southern cities). Of course the fact that New York, Boston and Washington are old cities, as cities go among us, counts for much in the way of maturity of civilization and accumulation of architectural resources; and it is only natural that the wealthiest city in the New World should possess the greatest number of important buildings. But it is also very possible that the majority of the Brochure readers are in the northern and eastern states, and therefore more familiar with eastern and northern than with southern and western buildings. Allowing for this, they may draw their own conclusions from this table.

If now, we turn to inquire what are the qualities which have won for these buildings a place on this list, and to what tendencies, either of progress or retrogression, do the votes point, two facts stand out very clearly. The first is, that each of the ten buildings, whatever its style or purpose, represents a conception clearly thought out, simply and forcibly expressed, and treated with monumental dignity, quite irrespectively of the amount or richness of its decoration. The second is, that there has in recent years been a notable advance in all that concerns the interior decoration of important buildings. In 1877 Trinity Church in Boston stood alone as an example of really high art in interior decoration. The three most recent buildings on the list—all three by the way, public libraries—are conspicuous instances of the sumptuous and dignified treatment of interior design, with the help of all the resources of decorative art; and here again, other buildings now being erected or about to be built confirm this conclusion, that our architects and the public are beginning to appreciate the importance both of the interior design of a building and of the collaboration of all the arts,—as for instance, in the new Appellate Court in New York.

Comparing the list of 1899 with that of 1885, the progress of our national architecture in fourteen years becomes very evident. The United States Capitol and the Trinity Churches in New York and Boston are the only buildings common to both lists. Six of the buildings on the Brochure list were, in 1885, either incomplete or not yet begun: these are the Boston, Congressional and Columbia Libraries, the Madison Square Garden, St. Patrick's Cathedral and the Biltmore residence. The Cathedral, however, wanted only its spires; but its appearance on the Brochure list is undoubtedly due to the spires more than any other element in its design. In 1885 Mr. H. H. Richardson was the one bright and particular star on the architectural horizon in the United States: one-half of the "1885" list of buildings were his work. Only one of these remains on the new list,—Trinity Church in Boston, doubtless on the whole his greatest work. The style which he made his own, and which was then at the height of popular favor, borne on the wave of admiration for the real strength and originality of his works, has waned, as all fashions must wane which are not the result of a spontaneous movement of taste, but ride into favor on the back of some passing whim or on the merit of the achievements of some one person or coterie. No architectural period can be truly great that depends upon one man or set of men for its great works.

It is perhaps not amiss to say a few words regarding buildings of secondary merit and of minor importance in cost and size. These may be as significant criteria of architectural taste and progress as those most conspicuous for grandeur and beauty. It is quite possible for the architectural energy of one place or period to be concentrated on a small number of great works, and for an equal amount of energy and ability in another place or period to be expended on a larger number of less important buildings. The average quality of our architecture, and the quality of our ordinary every-day architecture, are perhaps as important as that of the ten most beautiful buildings; and the fact that the west and south have so small a representation in the Brochure lists by no means argues a corresponding deficiency of good architecture. Yet after all, when all is said, the great and noble buildings, the highest and grandest triumphs of architecture are the only ones which profoundly affect the imaginations and kindle the artistic aspirations of men; and when a community becomes so pervaded with the artistic spirit that works of art furnish the readiest, most natural and complete expression of its ideals and enthusiasms, great works will result whenever there are enthusiasms and ideals worthy of monumental expression. From this point of view the Columbian and Omaha Expositions, and the New York Naval Arch of Triumph—which, owing to their transitory and temporary character, no doubt, have found no place on the Brochure lists—seem to me in the highest degree significant and encouraging. And the public libraries, St. John's Cathedral and the Phebe Hearst competition are further evidence in the same direction.

A word might also be said for certain buildings which found no place on either the "First" or "Second" list, but which competent critics might assign to one or the other list in preference to some that appear on them. There is for instance, Mr. Richardson's Woburn Library, which some consider his most beautiful work next to Trinity Church; the new State Capitols of Minnesota and Rhode Island (the latter not quite finished); the Treasury Building and White House at Washington; the Temple Emmanuel; the Metropolitan Life Building; Metropolitan Club and Cornelius Vanderbilt's residence in New York; the University group at Charlottesville, Va.; the Omaha Exposition and the Dewey Arch.

But the task assigned me was the discussion of the Brochure lists, not of other possible lists; and I close with the suggestion that a vote every ten or every five years would afford a most valuable and interesting gauge of the movements of taste and of the progress of architecture in the United States.