Home > About Voysey > Bibliography > Articles about Voysey > Man & his work
Following the appearance of the first part of this series of anonymous articles, a letter was published from the architect Maurice Webb. Webb was present at the dinner given by RIBA in November 1927 in honour of Voysey's 70th birthday, and signed the certificate which was presented to him on that occasion.
SIR, – I yield to no one in my admiration of the pioneer work done by Voysey in breaking loose from “The Battle of the Styles” not by introducing one of his own, but by the example of actual work helping his contemporaries and successors to get back to first principles. Why should the writer of your article make Voysey the peg on which to hang a general attack on the present-day schools of architecture in the phrase “Voysey suffers in the general fatuity induced by the schools of architecture where to be trite and dull is a recommendation to minds which cannot be bothered to think and feel, etc.” This phrase may be good journalese, but it is utterly out of place in an article upon the life work of a distinguished architect, and, further, if analysed it means absolutely nothing. Neither Voysey nor any other architect whose reputation was made before the schools established the position they have reached to-day can have suffered anything from the supposed general fatuity, whatever that may be. And again, what has Voysey to do with minds that are trite and dull or cannot be bothered to think and feel, and in what justification does the author of this article base these ridiculous assumptions?
Having seen as much of the schools of architecture in this country as almost anyone, and having studied their students and their problems very closely, I cannot let these comments upon them pass without pointing out that there is as much imagination and capacity to think and feel among the students of to-day as there has ever been. The great asset these students have now is that their thoughts and feelings are harnessed to an adequate vehicle in charge of capable drivers to direct their early efforts.
The writer of your article is evidently one of those who likes to put the vehicle before the horse, but why drag in Voysey? who is, and was, both horse and cart in one. - I am, Yours faithfully,
MAURICE E. WEBB.
SIR, – I do not at all mind being told that I write journalese by a writer who shrinks from using so coarse a word as “cart” and prefers to put the “vehicle before the horse,” but otherwise I am tempted to reply in full to my friend Maurice Webb’s boisterous letter, for he is so closely identified with the schools of architecture that he is entitled to regard any disparagement of them as adverse criticism of himself. This justification for his spirited protest is, however, a justification for my excusing myself from accepting his challenge. I could only do the thing at some length, and the affair would raise “tally-wack and tandem,” as they say in Ireland. I have had a try, and I know! I can only say that I have no wish, on any grounds, to alter a word which I wrote, and have no apology to make to our friend Voysey, who without question, although I have no authority to say so, agrees with my remarks. My assailant’s strong objection to the passage in question is not explained – although his logical method may be – by his finding no meaning in it; but the fact that it has no meaning for him is not conclusive of its having no meaning for other readers, but, in my view, rather confirms my contention that the schools of architecture, which are admitted to be identified with my opponent’s bias of mind, neglect the practice of thinking and feeling. - I am,
Yours faithfully,
“THE WRITER OF THE VOYSEY ARTICLES.”
Page last amended 19th December 2016