Customer Reviews

John Russell Pope

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This wonderful architect deserves study. his work is represented well but society context, office practice, growth in style are a little lacking and could have been better . Still a great addtion to any library!

This carefull reappraisal of Popes work was long overdue. One would hope that it will be followed by books on Cass Gilbert and Paul Cret who with Pope were the last masters of American Classical Architecture.Their work has stood the test of time beter than many more modern buildings.

Well, if there was ever a misunderstood architect it is Pope. Somehow people imagine that the classicizing elements he represents were just his application of a retrograde zeitgeist element that he picked out and employed for longer than some might have liked. But go and look at the many, many unlovely classical buildings others produced and then look at Pope's. His genius was to take a long overused stylistic vein and give it life. Consider the long history of the classicizing tendency, is it not almost miraculous that Pope could be as good as he was? This book treats him as a real world figure, not an object of potential hagiography which apparently some would like. He was enormously learned and had business savvy. That is why he produced so many fine buildings. I am sure it was difficult for him to hear his beautiful National Gallery in DC bad-mouthed as a "pink" abortion, as the book describes. It shows how little there is to fashionable opinion makers. Would that current museum designs would wear half as well as Pope's National Gallery has worn, or his beautiful Baltimore Museum, which is still gorgeous even though unfortunately disfigured with bad additions to emphasize the gift shop. My only problem with the book is that it does not give proper emphasis to certain buildings. For instance, the great House of the Temple, the Scottish Rite Temple in DC is not given the emphasis it deserves compared to other buildings. That is to say, that the House of the Temple is considered to be one of his greatest works and always was, and is treated in the text as on the same level as others. If the criticisms of Pope are to be taken seriously, and they seem to be in this text, then the House of the Temple must be seen as a structure that avoids the problems that are attributed to Pope. That is, as an early work it avoids the problem of his gradually more restrained and restricted classical style. The House of the Temple is easily one of his most exhuberant buildings and thus demands emphasis as an example of Pope's avoiding the very pitfalls attributed to him. If that is not acknowledged the portrait is not so balanced. But that is ultimately a quibble with a very fine book. And the pictures are mostly beautiful.

I love all architecture and I can remember when I could count on titles from Rizzoli to uphold a certain standard, but that was too long ago. J.R.P. was an extrodinatry man for his time and a classic architect who deserves the same type of fame given to Frank Lloyd Wright. Rizzoli once again has failed the topic. GREAT COVER AND NO SUBSTANCE A.K.A. PAPER GARBAGE.