Lifetime Critical Reception

Joseph Sharples

Overview     ^

Colour photograph of 'Glasgow Herald Buildings', 'Glasgow Herald', 20 May 1899, p. 4

What were the reactions of contemporary British critics to Mackintosh's architecture? Coverage during his lifetime was scattered through the pages of leading architectural journals, in reports of competitions and reviews of exhibitions. However, there appears to have been no major biographical article about his architectural career, such as were published for a number of other provincial architects (for instance in the Builders Journal series 'Men who Build'), and no substantial illustrated article about any of his executed buildings. The Glasgow School of Art was comprehensively photographed by the leading architectural photographers H. Bedford Lemere & Co. in 1910, probably in the hope that it would be the subject of such an article, but none appeared. 1 British reviewers' attention was directed more towards Mackintosh's decorative art and interiors than to his architecture, especially in the pages of the Studio: publishing photographs of the interior of the Ingram Street Tea Rooms in 1903, the journal noted that 'The work of Mr Charles R. Mackintosh is so well known and appreciated by readers of The Studio that it is unnecessary to describe [it] at length.' 2 Whether this lack of coverage simply reflects the priorities of a London-centred professional press, or whether Mackintosh was deliberately ignored or marginalised is not possible to say.

Below is a summary of critical opinion published in the local and national press, followed by a brief overview of foreign coverage.

The Glasgow Herald and Building Industries     ^

Architectural drawings and photographs of recent buildings were included in the exhibitions of the Glasgow Institute of the Fine Arts and the Royal Scottish Academy in Edinburgh. The unsigned reviews of these exhibitions in the Glasgow Herald are interesting as a sample – though not necessarily a representative one – of how Mackintosh's work was perceived locally, and how these perceptions shifted during the course of his career. At the outset, the reviews express admiration for the 'simplicity' and 'severity' of his designs while being more equivocal on the subject of his 'originality'. They also often find his highly individual drawing style objectionable. Later, his designs provoke more hostile reactions.

In 1894 the Glasgow Herald noted with approval the 'great simplicity of treatment' in the design of its own Mitchell Street building, and observed that some of its details were shown 'to better effect in its Albert Durer-like drawing than if realised literally, as, for example, the treatment of the top storeys of the tower and the profile of the principal cornice.' 3 The following year it described the design for the Helensburgh Conservative Club as 'not wanting in freshness, though we cannot believe that this kind of architecture will command any permanent admiration', while it thought the Queen Margaret College Anatomical Department was 'appropriately simple and severe', but 'not so remarkable as the drawing of it by Mr. C. R. McIntosh'. (When Mackintosh's perspective was shown again at the 1901 Glasgow International Exhibition, the Herald thought it 'a rather affected drawing of a very interesting building'.) 4

Perspective drawing of Royal Insurance Co. office

There was admiration in 1895 for the relative plainness of the rejected design for the Royal Insurance Company offices, but unusually there was also some analysis of what made it exceptional: 'The general effect is dignified and severe, not in the least traditional, but perhaps no worse for that. There is no cornice above the first floor level, and in the treatment of the re-entering angles throughout the work there is a peculiarity in that these are always rounded off.' 5 The Royal Insurance perspective was a characteristically fluid drawing by Alexander McGibbon; Mackintosh's own distinctive drawing of Martyrs Public School, shown the following year, was condemned as 'very mannered', and the building itself was thought to have 'little pretension to architectural effect'. 6 Faced with Mackintosh's perspective of Queen's Cross Church in 1898, the Herald critic could not see beyond 'the singular character of the drawing, which arrests and holds attention, but without full approval.' 7 However, when the newspaper described the building itself the following year, its reporter was unperturbed by such non-traditional features as the glass and woodwork: 'The glazing of the church is of clear quarries, a judicious use of antique coloured glass giving a pleasing contrast. The panelling on the walls of the choir is elaborate, and in portions richly carved.' 8

B/W perspective drawing of Martyrs School

In 1899 the Glasgow Herald wrote positively about Mackintosh's rejected scheme for the Glasgow International Exhibition buildings – 'an original and bold design ... too severe to be popular ' – but was noticeably more enthusiastic in 1900 about the relatively traditional design for the National Bank of Scotland, arguing that despite 'the originality of conception and treatment which one associates with much of the work coming from this office ... more restraint has been exercised in searching after the bizarre, more feeling for what is good in tradition displayed, and the design gains rather than loses in consequence.' 9 In the same year the Artist's house and studio in the country caused bafflement and provoked mockery: '[it] certainly does not lack simplicity in mass and outline; if original and interesting it is somewhat enigmatical; we have, indeed, heard it described as "a set of drawings for an armoured train".' 10

Scan of B/W drawing of Windyhill, Kilmacolm; Perspective from the N.E.B/W photograph of drawing room window-seat at The Hill House by H. Bedford Lemere, 1904

Describing a perspective of Windyhill in 1901, the paper adopted a more openly hostile tone: 'a mannered pen drawing of a house that shows only roofing and rough-cast, purely negative in its architecture, assertive only in its very affected simplicity.' 11 And its response to The Hill House in 1905 was similar: 'The perverse austerity of the outside where everything is covered in rough-cast, is consistently maintained within. Fittings, furniture, wall-hangings, and foot-mats have the same adornment of little squares pierced or stencilled; decoration according to this recipe is surely simple enough.' 12 When the building was shown again in 1906, it was snubbed as passé: 'the only representation of New Art – seems old already'. 13 In the same year Scotland Street Public School was described as 'distinctly away from the commonplace', but this was not the compliment it first seemed: the reviewer went on to contrast it with other schools that were 'happily less original'. 14 While conceding that the design had some merits ( 'the two flanking round towers make up a good composition, and window space is abundant'), the review regretted that there was no plan showing how the towers were used, perhaps questioning Mackintosh's transformation of the familiar stair-tower form into oriel windows. The only exhibited design of Mackintosh's that the Glasgow Herald praised after 1900 seems to have been the Daily Record building, included in the 1901 Glasgow International Exhibition, which it thought 'specially notable', though this may well have been a verdict on the remarkable drawing rather than the building. 15

Colour photograph of perspective from S.E.

It would be a mistake to draw any firm conclusion from these comments. They are too few, and too brief, and the change from the more positive early reviews to the less favourable later ones may reflect the tastes of different reviewers and not a more general change of attitude towards Mackintosh's work. Nevertheless, they do seem to show a trend away from qualified admiration towards negativity. What effect this may have had on Mackintosh is impossible to say. At the very least, publication in the leading local newspaper of harsh verdicts on Windyhill and The Hill House is unlikely to have helped his search for new domestic commissions.

The Glasgow journal Building Industries, which began publication in 1890, was the only architectural magazine produced in Scotland during the Mackintosh period. It reprinted a good deal of material from the London journals, but it also carried original articles about Scottish work, including reviews of exhibitions and new buildings. In 1896 it gave a favourable account of the design for the Royal Insurance Company offices, describing it as having an 'entire absence of that cheap air of pretension which makes so many business blocks of the sort look ridiculous'. 16 In 1900 it published a review of the new Glasgow School of Art, which is the most substantial that has so far come to light. 17 It is particularly interesting because it looks for symbolic meaning in the building's unfamiliar style:

The originality is unquestionable. If the germ conception was that of indicating, through the physiognomy of the elevation, that the mastery of excellence in art is a thing to be acquired laboriously, and in no other way, – then its working out has been attended with considerable success. A view of the eastern façade, particularly, suggests something of the fortress order, – a hold, or keep, which, if it would be captured from without, must infallibly exact the utmost diligence and application on the part of the assailant, and not only exercised in proper form of a siege, but persisted in for, probably, a considerable space of time.

The tone of this review is difficult to judge, but it seems to be a serious attempt to analyse and understand a new kind of architecture, rather than judging it against prevailing standards and finding it wanting. The anonymous reviewer saw Mackintosh's work as a puzzle – 'The northern or Renfrew Street façade ... is full of problems which are altogether unsolvable at the first glance' – but one that commanded attention and was worthy of study and thought.

B/W photograph of Glasgow School of Art from S.E.B/W photograph of main entrance, Glasgow School of Art

The British Architect     ^

The one national publication that showed an early and sustained interest in Mackintosh was the British Architect. Originally Manchester-based, it concerned itself more than other London journals with what was happening in the North of England and in Scotland. Its editor from 1878 was Thomas Raffles Davison, who also produced innumerable sketches of buildings for publication, and was employed in the 1890s by John Honeyman & Keppie to draw perspectives. Among these was probably the perspective of Mackintosh's design for the 1901 Glasgow International Exhibition Buildings.

Scan of B/W drawing of Glasgow Herald buildings; Perspective

The British Architect was already aware of Mackintosh when he was still a promising student, and in commending his 1892 Soane Medallion design for a railway terminus, it noted that he had shown 'equal ability in his former essays and classic designs'. 18 It admired the highly individual draughtsmanship of his early perspectives, praising his 'admirable' unsigned drawing of the Glasgow Herald Mitchell Street building in 1895, and his 'clever perspective view' of the Queen Margaret College Anatomical Department in 1896 (the signature on which was probably already present). 19 As for the buildings themselves, it claimed the Mitchell Street one as 'a genuinely modern development', observing that while it verged 'dangerously on the confines of pure eccentricity in parts' it was 'designed for the most part with severe restraint', while the Anatomical Department was 'an excellent structure, treated with boldness and simplicity and originality in the details'. 20 Reproducing McGibbon's perspective of the rejected design for the Royal Insurance Company offices in 1895, it observed: 'Messrs. Honeyman & Keppie's designs are amongst the most noticeable and original in this country, and the building we illustrate today is no exception to the rule.' 21 (It was also in 1895 that Mackintosh sent the evidently sympathetic journal some sketches he had made of old gravestones at Chipping Campden, which were published along with his comments.) 22 None of these buildings was publicly acknowledged as Mackintosh's, but the journal's Glasgow correspondent would almost certainly have been aware of his contribution to their design, as the reference to 'eccentricity' perhaps suggests.

Reproduction of perspective from N.W., 1902

In 1902 the British Architect commended his rejected design for the Liverpool Cathedral competition, praising it for its smooth, unbroken surfaces: 'a very clever Gothic essay, rather of the "modelled-in-mud" style, wanting in articulation by strings and mouldings ... distinctly the most original and clever design of its kind submitted'. 23 Unfortunately the architects were misnamed as 'Honeyman, Keppie and Mackenzie', provoking a letter from the practice which was published in the journal two weeks later. 24 The following year it reproduced the Cathedral drawings, and remarked that 'in its general proportions and details an effect of much dignity and richness is obtained in this remarkably able design'. 25 The journal kept faith with Mackintosh until as late as 1904, when it reviewed the English edition of the House for an Art Lover portfolio in terms that implied it had long followed his career approvingly. It spoke of the design as 'the latest evidences of his originality', praising the 'plain square masses of wall with capital proportions of solids and voids ... untroubled by mouldings, cornices, architraves, and [with] practically no enrichment'. 26 However, it went on to express misgivings about the emphasis on decorative rather than architectural qualities, and about the extreme stylisation of the drawings, which, it suggested, made them difficult to interpret: '... we feel as though he were losing something of the surety in matters architectural which he once evidenced', but 'so able an artist will surely work out his own salvation'.

In 1912 the British Architect responded to an approach from Mackintosh himself by publishing illustrations of his recent gravestones for Orrock Johnston and for Talwin Morris as well as his drawing of the earlier James Reid gravestone, describing them as designs 'which indicate refinement and thought, and show some striking originality of treatment.' 27 The publication of lesser works of this kind – and at Mackintosh's instigation rather than the publisher's request – is a poignant reflection of the decline of his career.

Other British Journals     ^

While the British Architect was generally positive when discussing Mackintosh, other journals were more mixed in tone.

Photograph of front elevation of railway terminus design

From the very outset, a recurrent theme was what critics saw as either eccentricity or originality, according to taste. The towered design for the Glasgow Art Gallery competition was praised by the Builder for the noble interior of its central hall, but condemned for an exterior 'full of unexpected "features" ... marred by ... a certain trickiness'. 28 According to the Journal of Proceedings of the Royal Institute of British Architects, William Emerson, Honorary Secretary of the Institute, was similarly severe in his comments on the design for a Railway Station, observing that 'peculiar or eccentric detail ... does not necessarily mean beauty of design.' 29 Writing of the Glasgow Herald Mitchell Street building, the Builders' Journal and Architectural Engineer was more lenient. It noted 'the individuality of Mr Chas. R. McIntosh' in the treatment of the tower, but thought that 'while reserving an opinion on much of the detail, which is novel to the verge of eccentricity, one may without hesitation express unqualified admiration at the successful effort which has been made to depart from anything hackneyed or jejune.' 30

B/W photograph of Glasgow School of Art exhibition stand

Critics could also praise Mackintosh's designs for their highly controlled use of ornament. The Builder described the Mitchell Street building as a 'curious, plain, but interesting building ... in the very latest, entirely original, style, with big simple mouldings, long flat curves, and a heavy angle tower surmounted by an ogee roof so flat that hardly more than the edge is visible.' 31 Plainness was an important theme in the very few comments on the Glasgow School of Art to be published soon after its official opening (this critical neglect is partly explained by the building's phased construction, which meant it was still incomplete). Lewis F. Day, writing in the Art Journal, described it as 'planned apparently on lines nakedly utilitarian, yet everywhere revealing the marked individuality of the artist', and the Studio expressed a similar view: 'The building has been designed to meet the requirements of the school, and in no instance has a regard for appearance been allowed to interfere with these special requirements. Embellishments have been carefully concentrated, and gain in value from their juxtaposition to plain surfaces.' 32 Day went further in describing Mackintosh's 'most severely simple' design for the School of Art's stand at the 1901 International Exhibition: 'It is designed, in fact, to show how simply an erection of the sort may be built, the straight lines naturally suggested by carpentry construction being allowed to assert themselves, with no attempt at ornament beyond what is afforded by judicious distribution and proportion.' 33

B/W photograph of The Hill House from S.E. by H. Bedford Lemere, 1904

The comments of the Builders' Journal on the Glasgow Herald building show that Mackintosh was already recognised as a distinct artistic personality before he emerged from his uncredited role as an assistant in the office of John Honeyman & Keppie. Once he had become a partner, the Builders' Journal and Architectural Engineer singled out his designs from others bearing the practice name. In the case of Scotland Street School this was in order to credit him with responsibility for an admired building: '[the architects] were Messrs. Honeyman, Keppie & Mackintosh, but it is clear that the last-named has controlled the design ... every effort has been made to arrive at a frank solution of the requirements, the furnishings and fittings of the classrooms being of the simplest character, and glazed tiles used as a sanitary finishing to walls and piers.' 34 In the case of The Hill House, however, Mackintosh was named in order to highlight what the journal regarded as the building's objectionable individualism. When illustrated in the 1905 exhibition of the Royal Glasgow Institute of the Fine Arts, it was referred to as 'another exhibit [by Honeyman, Keppie & Mackintosh] in the style usually associated with the last-named partner ... a house at Helensburgh which for barn-like ugliness it would be difficult to equal'; and when photographs were shown the following year, the reviewer considered 'the "Macintoshy" style ... decidedly overdone'. 35 An earlier and more sympathetic view of Mackintosh's individualism is found in Day's review of the 1901 Exhibition stand: 'So imperturbably does he work on his own lines that to eyes unsympathetic it seems like affectation; but there is honestly no doubt as to the genuineness of the artistic impulse. Whether it is quite wise in him to follow it so unhesitatingly is another question – which time will answer.' 36

B/W drawing of perspective

The high-profile Liverpool Cathedral competition generated a great deal of coverage in the architectural press, but the organisers asked journalists not to name the authors of individual designs in their reviews. 37 In these circumstances, Mackintosh's individualism was represented by London critics as an expression of Glasgow's distinctive architectural character rather than something personal to the architect. The Builders' Journal and Architectural Record described his scheme as 'a design in the manner which has come to be known as the Glasgow School and [which] owes much of its interest to a certain quaint and unorthodox detail and to the technique of the drawing'. 38 The Architectural Review praised it as a design 'full of mediaeval spirit ... from Glasgow, in which a well-proportioned plan, free from all striving after incongruous originalities, is combined with an individualistic treatment of detail, the result being a design of considerable freshness.' 39 For the Builder, it was 'an example of "L'Art Nouveau" both in design and in manner of drawing; a building nearly white against a shaded background, with battering central tower, battering buttresses, sculpture cropping up in unexpected places; white spaces and bits of concentrated ornament here and there.' 40 The reviewer went on to characterise the style as insufficiently serious, calling Mackintosh's perspective 'A very clever sketch, but quite inadequate in dignity and style for a cathedral', and suggesting dismissively that ' it might furnish a hint for a picturesque parish church'.

The journal Academy Architecture did not publish criticism, but it reproduced drawings and photographs that had been shown at the Royal Academy in London, the Royal Scottish Academy in Edinburgh and the Glasgow Institute of the Fine Arts. Its illustrations were an important source of publicity and a valuable means of dissemination, both within Britain and internationally. According to Mackintosh, a drawing of John Honeyman's Redlands, Bridge of Weir was seen in Academy Architecture by a countess in Prussian Silesia, presumably a potential client, who asked to be sent plans of the house; and the Russian journal Zodchii stated that Mackintosh's own work was well known to its readers through the pages of Academy Architecture (along with the Studio and Die Kunst). 41 Mackintosh's distinctive perspective drawings of Martyrs School, Queen's Cross Church and Scotland Street School were all reproduced there. 42

Foreign Journals     ^

The most substantial writings on Mackintosh's architecture to be published during his lifetime appeared in German language periodicals. For seriousness and depth, supported by good illustrations, there is nothing in British journals to compare with Hermann Muthesius's 1902 article on the 'Glasgow Art Movement' in Dekorative Kunst, or Fernando Agnoletti's articles on The Hill House in Deutsche Kunst und Dekoration and The Willow Tea Rooms in Dekorative Kunst, while Muthesius's preface to the House for an Art Lover portfolio, one of the most important disseminators of Mackintosh's aesthetic ambitions, contains an illuminating account of his 'art principles'. 43 Both authors were friends of the Mackintoshes, and their writing was based on sympathetic understanding and informed by personal knowledge of the architect and his work. Agnoletti, an Italian who taught at the University of Glasgow, showed his article on The Hill House to the Mackintoshes before it was published, and Margaret Macdonald wrote that he had described it 'most beautifully' and had 'a wonderful insight into art'. 44 When Mackintosh wanted to show evidence of his capabilities to a potential client, he lent him Muthesius's article with its photographs and floor plans of Windyhill, because there was no comparable coverage of his work in any British publication. 45

B/W photograph of view from S. ['Dekorative Kunst', 5, March 1902, p.193]

Muthesius praised the plainness of Mackintosh's 'taut, constricted and austere' style, and saw it as a welcome reaction against the 'multiplicity and vagueness in the decorative arts during the previous decade'. 46 With a foreigner's insight, he recognised that Mackintosh's austerity also had a special regional and national significance, noting that the 'bleak rough-cast exterior' of Windyhill was 'in sympathy with the character of the location'. 47 Like Lewis F. Day, and the anonymous critic of the Glasgow School of Art in the Studio, both quoted above, he saw how small, concentrated areas of ornament were complementary to this general plainness. However, he thought the contrast served to 'emphasise as keenly as possible the desired effect of ... tension, silence, mystery and grandeur', highly-charged poetic language of a kind not found at all in the British press. 48 Unlike those British critics who disliked what they called its 'eccentricity', Muthesius was attracted to just this quality of individuality in Mackintosh's work, 'divergent from everything that is familiar'. 49

B/W photograph of N. elevation, 'Dekorative Kunst', 12, April 1905, p. 258

Like Muthesius, Agnoletti saw Mackintosh's architecture as a reaction against late-Victorian over-elaboration. In his article about The Hill House he recognised approvingly that Mackintosh was concerned with more fundamental things than surface ornament, such as light and shade, mass and void. 50 He admired the absolute control he exercised, to the extent of claiming that the architect had arranged his chimneys to 'compell [sic] even the smoke to raise [sic] in obedience to a decorative plan'. 51 At the Willow Tea Rooms he praised Mackintosh's 'liking for unity of effect, purity and simplicity', but also his 'dislike of everything customary'. 52 This was the same individuality that attracted Muthesius and displeased many British observers. Agnoletti claimed that Mackintosh was underappreciated both in Glasgow and in Britain, and certainly in British writing about Mackintosh published during the architect's lifetime there is nothing resembling Agnoletti's passionate zeal. 53

Continental journals reported extensively on Mackintosh's decorative work, in connection with the international exhibitions of decorative art to which he contributed in Vienna, Turin, Moscow, Berlin and Dresden. Samples of this coverage are included in the Descriptions of these projects in the Catalogue. However, the Mackintosh Architecture project has not attempted a systematic or comprehensive search of non-British journals. Rather, it has investigated journals selectively for information about specific buildings or designs, on a case by case basis. Useful work remains to be done, on both European and American journals.

Notes:

1: Bedford Lemere & Co.'s day books do not record exactly when the photographs were taken or who commissioned them (National Monument Register, Swindon: Henry Bedford Lemere, Day Book 6, HBL 01/06, p. 2). On 30 March 1910, Honeyman, Keppie & Mackintosh paid Bedford Lemere & Co. £23 2s 0d for unspecified 'photos.', which were almost certainly the Glasgow School of Art pictures (The Hunterian, University of Glasgow: John Honeyman & Keppie/Honeyman, Keppie & Mackintosh cash book, GLAHA 53079, p. 133). It is not clear if this payment was for prints, or if the architects also commissioned the original photography.

2: 'Studio Talk', Studio, 28, February–May 1903, pp. 286–8.

3: Glasgow Herald, 23 March 1894, p. 9.

4: Glasgow Herald, 11 April 1895, p. 4; Glasgow Herald, 21 August 1901, p. 8.

5: Glasgow Herald, 19 April 1895, p. 9.

6: Glasgow Herald, 7 March 1896, p. 7.

7: Glasgow Herald, 2 April 1898, p. 4.

8: Glasgow Herald, 9 September 1899, p. 10.

9: Glasgow Herald, 3 April 1899, p. 8; Glasgow Herald, 17 April 1900, p. 3.

10: Glasgow Herald, 26 April 1900, p. 8.

11: Glasgow Herald, 22 April 1901, p. 9.

12: Glasgow Herald, 10 May 1905, p. 11.

13: Glasgow Herald, 3 March 1906, p. 9.

14: Glasgow Herald, 14 April 1906, p. 5.

15: Glasgow Herald, 21 August 1901, p. 8.

16: Building Industries, 15 February 1896, p. 162.

17: Building Industries, 16 January 1900, pp.146–7, 153.

18: British Architect, 39, 17 February 1893, p. 112; 24 February 1893, p. 132; 3 March 1893, p. 150.

19: British Architect, 43, 8 February 1895, p. 94; British Architect, 45, 10 January 1896, p. 22.

20: British Architect, 43, 8 February 1895, p. 94; British Architect, 45, 10 January 1896, p. 22; British Architect, 46, 30 October 1896, p. 305.

21: British Architect, 44, 15 November 1895, p. 344.

22: British Architect, 44, 22 November 1895, pp. 359–61.

23: British Architect, 58, 25 July 1902, p. 56.

24: British Architect, 58, 8 August 1902, p. 103.

25: British Architect, 59, 13 March 1903, p. 186.

26: 'A New Folio on Houses', British Architect, 62, 16 September 1904, p. 201.

27: British Architect, 78, 11 October 1912, p. 241–2, following p. 246.

28: Builder, 62, 23 April 1892, pp. 317–18.

29: Journal of Proceedings of the Royal Institute of British Architects, 11, 19 January 1893, pp. 140–7.

30: Builders' Journal and Architectural Engineer, 1, 18 June 1895, p. 301.

31: 'The Architecture of our Large Provincial Towns: XVI, Glasgow', Builder, 75, 9 July 1898, pp. 21–34.

32: Art Journal, September 1901, p. 277. Studio, 19, 1900, pp. 51–6.

33: Lewis F. Day, 'Decorative and Industrial Art at the Glasgow Exhibition (third notice), Art Journal, September 1901, pp. 273–7.

34: Builders' Journal and Architectural Engineer, 24, 28 November 1906, pp. 266–8.

35: Builders' Journal and Architectural Record, 19, 30 March 1904, p. 151. Builders' Journal and Architectural Record, 21, 29 March 1905, p. 161.

36: Lewis F. Day, 'Decorative and Industrial Art at the Glasgow Exhibition (third notice), Art Journal, 1901, pp. 273–7.

37: British Architect, 58, 25 July 1902, pp. 55–6. The British Architect ignored the request, and pointed out that 'the bulk of the best designs, if not all, can be definitely credited to certain authors without any reference to the signatures'.

38: Builders' Journal and Architectural Record, 16, 30 July 1902, p. 380.

39: Architectural Review, 12, September 1902, pp. 83–4.

40: Builder, 83, 26 July 1902, p. 70.

41: Berlin, Werkbundarchiv, Museum der Dinge: Hermann Muthesius Estate, letter from Mackintosh to Hermann Muthesius, 12 May 1903. A. Dmitriev, 'Vpechatleniya ot vystavki "arkhitektury i khudozhestvennoy promyshlennosti novogo stilya" v Moskve' (Impressions on the exhibition of 'New Style Architecture and Art Industry' in Moscow), Zodchii, 1903, no. 9, pp. 113–15.

42: Academy Architecture, 9, 1896, pp. 80, 85; Academy Architecture, 14, 1898, p. 65; Academy Architecture, 29, 1906, p. 77.

43: Hermann Muthesius, 'Die Glasgower Kunstbewegung: Charles R. Mackintosh und Margaret Macdonald-Mackintosh', Dekorative Kunst, 5, March 1902, pp. 193–221; Hermann Muthesius, 'Mackintosh's Kunst-Prinzip', in Meister der Innen-Kunst: Charles Rennie Mackintosh, Glasgow: Haus eine Kunstfreundes, Darmstadt: Alexander Koch, 1902; Fernando Agnoletti, 'The Hill House Helensburgh', Deutsche Kunst und Dekoration, 15, 1904–5, pp. 337–59; Fernando Agnoletti, 'Ein Mackintosh Teehaus in Glasgow', Dekorative Kunst, 12, April 1905, pp. 257–75.

44: Berlin, Werkbundarchiv, Museum der Dinge: Hermann Muthesius Estate, letter from Margaret Macdonald Mackintosh to Frau Muthesius, Christmas 1904.

45: The Hunterian, University of Glasgow: letter from Mackintosh to F. J. Shand, 13 September 1905, GLAHA 55479.

46: Hermann Muthesius, 'Mackintosh's Kunst-Prinzip', in Meister der Innen-Kunst: Charles Rennie Mackintosh, Glasgow: Haus eine Kunstfreundes, Darmstadt: Alexander Koch, 1902, p. 3.

47: Hermann Muthesius, 'Die Glasgower Kunstbewegung: Charles R. Mackintosh und Margaret Macdonald-Mackintosh', Dekorative Kunst, 5, March 1902, pp. 193–221, pp. 214–15.

48: Hermann Muthesius, 'Mackintosh's Kunst-Prinzip', in Meister der Innen-Kunst: Charles Rennie Mackintosh, Glasgow: Haus eine Kunstfreundes, Darmstadt: Alexander Koch, 1902, p. 2.

49: Hermann Muthesius, 'Mackintosh's Kunst-Prinzip', in Meister der Innen-Kunst: Charles Rennie Mackintosh, Glasgow: Haus eine Kunstfreundes, Darmstadt: Alexander Koch, 1902, p. 2.

50: Fernando Agnoletti, 'The Hill House Helensburgh', Deutsche Kunst und Dekoration, 15, 1904–5, pp. 337–59.

51: The Hunterian, University of Glasgow: GLAHA 52554. This is a draft of Agnoletti's article, written in English. It was in Mackintosh's possession at his death.

52: Fernando Agnoletti, 'Ein Mackintosh Teehaus in Glasgow', Dekorative Kunst, 12, April 1905, pp. 257–75 (translation by Nicky Imrie).

53: Fernando Agnoletti, 'Ein Mackintosh Teehaus in Glasgow', Dekorative Kunst, 12, April 1905, pp. 257–75.