When considering the subject of mural painting, and indeed the progress and development of art generally, of the so-called “fine arts,” or of the lesser arts that minister to the uses and wants of everyday life, we cannot regard them as isolated creations of human activity apart from their legitimate connection with the laws and principles of good architecture. The progress, development, culmination, and decadence of architecture synchronize with the similar stages of painting and sculpture.

In a noble building the special functions of the three sister arts are clearly defined; each supplies its own distinct qualities of expression to make up the general artistic unity. The severe lines and proportional rhythm of the architecture are enriched by sculpture, which in its turn is chastened and modified by the contiguous severity of the former, while painting adds the necessary colour finish to the bare spaces that are enclosed by the mouldings and constructional lines of the architecture, borrowing at the same time much of its dignity, restfulness of form, simplicity of composition, and whatever else that adds to its nobility and monumental fitness, from its close association with the architecture. Thus, while the three arts are each limited to their own special functions, they, at the same time, would appear to assimilate from each other what is lacking in themselves, and so contribute to the complete artistic harmony.

Painting, as the most ornate of the three, owing to its greater power of expression and beauty of colour, must nevertheless be employed to decorate, in the true sense of the word, the plain spaces in a building, and in the largest and simplest manner, without any definite attempts to represent the true facts of nature, or at least it should be suggestive of such facts rather than descriptive of them.

The arrangement and composition of line, restfulness of the masses of form, and the harmonic balance and purity of colour are among the primary essentials of mural painting, and all these indispensable requisites of this form of art are due to its contact with architecture. While bearing this in mind, we must not forget that painting has its special functions apart from those of architecture, which include a controlling power over form and colour, and the faculty of illustrating ideas, by means of the representation of a theme or an incident, a subject or a story.

Now if the essentials of monumental painting, which we have named, and the special functions of the art of the painter are united in any scheme of mural decoration, the result would be an ideal work of decorative art, examples of which may be found in the frescos of Giotto, and in those of the majority of the Italian painters who followed him, down to the sublime creations of Michael Angelo.

The older art of the Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Byzantine and MediÆval schools was, in each case, influenced by, and in perfect harmony with the architecture of the respective periods, and not less, but even more so, were the painting and sculpture of Italy from the middle of the thirteenth century till the end of the sixteenth century. The Byzantine and Romanesque mosaics which decorate the churches of Ravenna, Venice and Rome are dignified and sculpturesque in treatment, and from an ornamental point of view, admirably fill the architectural spaces of both walls and vaulted ceilings. The artists of these ancient schools rightly treated the wall spaces as flat surfaces, the wall being strictly considered as such, and no attempt was made to treat the subject of the painting in pictorial perspective, or to give the wall the illusion of a window. The subject or incident, was also, for the most part, mystic in character, and elevated in a spiritual sense, so that the very soul of their art was expressed and symbolized; while what we may call the bodily part, either from a want of their power of expressing it or from a careless or studied neglect of this side of their art, was limited and incomplete. And even when, in later times, the science of art, as expressed in anatomy and perspective, was well understood, this traditional treatment of the design was followed out by the Italian artists, both in their mosaics and wall paintings, and was never lost sight of by the painters subsequent to Giotto, until the seventeenth century, when the general decadence of art had set in.

The three absolute essentials of ancient and mediÆval painting, which also characterized the best work of the Renaissance, appear to have been a striving after the symbolic expression of the spirit of the subject, a restfulness and dignity of form, and the beauty of colour. Whatever else we look for, we ought to find these three essentials in a successful work of monumental painting. In this kind of art, and indeed in all art, small things should be sacrificed to great, and the commonplace or matter-of-fact to the rendering or expression of the idea; in parentheses, it might be pointed out, that in a general sense the tendency of the art of the present day is towards a greater dexterity of handling closer representations of the facts of nature, but less sincerity of aim.

The more important paintings of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries were those which decorated the walls of the Italian churches and palaces, and the authors of these works were not only painters, but the majority of them were also architects, sculptors, and craftsmen in gold and silver work. Even those who confined their attention chiefly to painting, thoroughly understood the principles of architecture, and often designed and carried out architectural work, as witness Giotto, Ghirlandajo, Michael Angelo, Leonardo Da Vinci, and many others.

If we now consider another aspect of art, where it is applied to objects of general utility, we shall find that the design and decoration of such, when rightly understood, are in each case subject to the laws that govern good architecture. Take, for instance, the form or shape of a common candlestick, a vase in pottery or in metal, a cabinet or a chair, and let us see how far we can apply the principles of architecture to their design and decoration. When designing such objects the first consideration is their utility, and the next is the material of which they are made. It is a common enough truism to say that the forms and proportions which may be suitable for objects made in a certain material, such as pottery or glass for example, should not be imitated in another, such as metal or woodwork. When the questions of utility and material have been settled, we can apply the laws and principles of architecture to guide us in the design and decoration of the given object. As to design, first, we should strive to obtain good proportion of the parts and divisions to each other, and to the whole. It will be found that correct proportion generally postulates the determination of beautiful outlines and shapes. We should also aim for the expression of contrasting elements of forms, such as curves with straight lines, sharp curves with others of less curvature, horizontal lines to counteract vertical tendencies, or mouldings and lines of varying widths arranged to fit in such positions that will give, or suggest, constructive strength; all of which are simply architectural principles, which, if applied to the design of common objects, would give them a definite claim to be considered as works of art.

Very little decoration is required on any article or object which has been designed on correct architectural principles, beyond that already expressed by the lines or mouldings and space divisions. If, however, the nature or use of the object permits of the display, or adventitious aid of such, in order to heighten its beauty, by making it still more attractive and comely to the eye, then the laws and principles of architecture will again help us by indicating where the decoration may be placed, the right amount to use, the scale of such, and the order of its disposition. We learn, for instance, from architecture that we must not weaken the appearance of the constructive parts, such as the lines, or the mouldings, by any fretful ornamentation, but on the panels and plain spaces we may legitimately place our decoration, yet still restrained so far as not to interfere with the right uses of the object, and designed so as to harmonize, and in some instances contrast, with the lines and contour. Examples of artistic objects, designed on architectural principles, may be found in the Greek and Etruscan vases and Pompeian bronzes, and, on the other hand, if some examples may be mentioned where the laws of architecture do not find expression in their form or decoration, and where art is almost non-existing, we might safely point out the meretricious creations of the Chelsea and Dresden chinaware, and the gold and silversmiths’ work of the mid-Victorian period. This digression from our subject may be justified, on the grounds of showing how important the study of architecture is to the painter, the decorative artist, and to the designer in any branch of art.