Mid-late 19th century ornament: why was it eventually rejected by the early 20th century? by Lilian Tran

What was mid-late 19th century ornament about and why was it eventually rejected by the early 20th century?

By Lilian Tran

Cover image: Temperance and Intemperance in Curvature. Reprinted from The Stones of Venice (p.207) by J. Ruskin, 1848. Folio Society. Thesis: What was mid-late 19th century ornament about and why was it eventually rejected by the early 20th century? Author: Lilian Tran Printed: 7 June 2016

History Thesis AR2A010

Type:

History Thesis

Title:

What was mid-late 19th century ornament about and why was it eventually rejected by the early 20th century?

Author:

Tran, L.

Summary:

It is widely understood that ornament was effectively removed from architectural discourse in the 1920s. Often it is attributed to the development of machine production and thus the damaging consequences of commodifying ornament. It is also judged in relation to the polemics of Adolf Loos and the rise of functionalist architecture, which rejected ornament as non-functional. These occurrences were certainly substantial aspects of the abrupt end of ornament. What is often overlooked, however, is how the socioeconomic and historical context of the preceding century laid the ground for the modernist episodes of the 20th century. A lesser known but significantly important factor was how the actions of the new middle class and the theories of the Victorian design critics fundamentally changed the way that ornament was used. This thesis investigates how 19th century developments affected the traditional meaning of ornament and eventually led to its demise. It focuses on the qualities of ornament from the mid-19th century, as exhibited in the Great Exhibition 1851, and how the taste of these objects were debated, and ambiguously redefined. The optimism, prosperity and technological advances of the age played a key role in the middle class impulse for increasingly elaborate ornamentation. However, their new economic influence over the work of the artist was destroying traditional standards of good design. Thus the critics aimed to reform their taste, but unintentionally created a system that removed the expression and symbolic meaning of ornament. By switching aesthetic values for moral ones, design had become supposedly predetermined on rules of honesty. However their quest for restrain in the decorative arts ultimately resulted in ornament that was flattened, conventionalised, simplified, abstracted, and then lost.

Keywords:

Ornament, Vitruvian tradition, new middle class, Victorian reformers, morality, aesthetics, taste, true principles, 19th century, machine production, Adolf Loos

Mentor:

Evelien van Es

Faculty:

Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment at TU Delft

Department:

Architecture

Hand-in date:

2016-06-07

Language:

English

Study number:

4243501

Submitter email:

lilianwtran@gmail.com

Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 6 1. The Tradition of Ornament.................................................................................................. 12 2. Victorian Design and the Great Exhibition ........................................................................... 16 3. Morality and the Reformers of Taste..................................................................................... 26 4. Mass Production and the Rise of Commodity Culture .......................................................... 38 5. Adolf Loos and the Crime of Ornament ............................................................................... 44 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 50 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................. 55

Lilian Tran

Table of illustrations

Fig. 1 The proportions of a male face form the basis of cornice design

Fig. 2 View of the entrance to the Crystal Palace

Fig. 3 Fruit dishes with centre-piece designed by Smith and Nicholson of London

Fig. 4 Elaborate fish fork designed by H. Higgins

Fig. 5 Caddy spoon for sugar

Fig. 6 Sideboard designed by Fourdinois

Fig. 7 (left) Carved Wall Panel by Crutchet

Fig. 8 (right) Guitarpa

Fig. 9 Day Dreamer chair designed by H. Fitz Cook

Fig. 10 Carpet designed by Messrs Turberville Smith

Fig. 11 Leaf and fruit wallpaper design by Pugin

Fig. 12 Decanter by Richardson of Stourbridge

Fig. 13 Screen made by the Patent Wood Carving Company

Fig. 14 Morning Room of Waddesdon Manor, Buckinghamshire

Fig. 15. Savage ornament

Fig. 16 Fifth Exhibition poster of the Vienna Secession

Fig. 17 House on Michaelerplatz 1909-1911 by Adolf Loos.

Fig. 18 The Dessau Campus of the Bauhaus, 1925.

Lilian Tran

Introduction

Personal motivation My thesis investigates the historical reasons why traditional ornament essentially disappeared from architectural discourse in the early 20th century, and why a general disinterest in ornament persists to this day - especially amongst architects. This is curious to me, because the general public tends to have a penchant for traditional-style buildings and intricate decoration, but architects and designers often shy away from these aesthetics. In Flight of Fancy, Brolin writes that during his architectural postgraduate study in the 1960s, he "never once heard the words 'ornament' or 'decoration' uttered in the context of contemporary architecture" (Brolin, 1985, p. 5). Fast forward to the 21st century - and frankly I could make the same claim. Architecture is largely based on a rationalised system, and beauty or aesthetic is rarely considered an acceptable justification for design. But in the past this was not always the case. In the public mind, the banishment of ornament is generally attributed to the rise of functionalism, which sought a language of efficiency that left no room for 'non-functional' things such as ornament. The modernist discourse in 20th century Europe has already been studied in great depth - pioneers such as Le Corbusier manifested a new exploration of the spatial, tectonic and material aspects of architecture, free from relics of the past. But this narrative of events oversimplifies the answer to a question that demands far greater depth, analysis and nuance. Ornament had traditionally been an essential component of architecture, so how did it eventually become understood as superfluous? Therefore a more interesting point of departure is to look at how and why ornament came to be rejected when it was once an important communicative symbol. The use of representational ornament steadily decreased towards the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century. However architectural discourse dating back to antiquity had considered ornament to be fundamental to its expression. In addition, historical artefacts suggests that the desire to embellish has been a human activity since the very beginning1. Thus what were the qualities of ornament

An Iraqi cave was discovered around 1985, in which a body had been lovingly decorated with a variety of woven flowers.

As a 60,000 year old artefact, it is one of the earliest examples of "humankind's desire to embellish" (Brolin, 1985). Owen Jones makes a similar comment that all civilisations, young or mature, exhibit a desire for ornament, and explains that "man's earliest ambition is to create" (Jones, 1856).

Lilian Tran

were prior to its departure, and how did this relate to its ultimate disappearance? As British society was experiencing enormous social, political and economic upheaval - how did these circumstances affect on the debate on ornament? Besides understanding the past, I sought out the historical basis for why contemporary architecture is making a tentative return to the use of ornament and pattern, for example, in the works of Herzog and de Meuron, or with the 2014 Stirling Prize winner, the Everyman Theatre in Liverpool. It appears that modern ornament is somewhat superficial in that it tends not to convey cultural expression or status as it did in the past, but is mostly (and literally) skin-deep. With that in mind, I am searching for what ornament meant in past, and how that informs what it represents now.

Research question: What were the qualities of ornament in the mid-late 19th century and why was it rejected by Avant-Garde movements of the 20th century? This question is answered by charting the development of ornament from 1850 until the early 1900s; from the lavish ornaments of the Great Exhibition to the damning indictment in Loos' Ornament and Crime. It focuses predominantly of the theories of decorative art in Victorian England, where industrialisation had a greater impact on multiple aspects of society than in continental Europe. However in the final chapter shifts to the developments of fin-de-siecle Vienna, to examine the context of Loos' writing and his mythic legacy. The research question is reframed into three sub-questions. First of all the traditional usage of ornament must be considered. What did ornament represent in the Classical tradition, which had been revived in the architecture of the Renaissance era, and what was it use for? Moreover what did ornament represent culturally and politically during the mid 19th century in comparison to its historic usage? Secondly, there is an investigation of key figures who influenced the debate on the meaning of ornament. Ornament was a topic of intense debates by artists, architects and design critics in the 19th and 20th century. Their writings formed the theoretical underpinnings of aesthetic theory and exerted a significant influence on public opinion, which is arguably still relevant today. Finally, we must refer back to the historical and social-economic and political context within which the ornament debate occurred. British society was undergoing a dramatic transformation of its values and self-definition in the mid 19th century, particularly due to the consequences of 7

industrialisation and the increasing prevalence of machine production. The thesis considers how these factors invariably affected the eventual end of ornament.

Current state of research In recent times ornament has become a subject of re-evaluation, ranging from large tomes such as Histories of Ornament: From Global to Local 2016 to studies on its return in Ornament: The Politics of Architecture and Subjectivity, 2013. It is connected to the rise of computer aided design and new forms of fabrication, which allows architects to easily change colours, textures and patterns and to rapidly prototype them. However, ornament has returned in a new guise, whereby a visually complex material effect is created from a pattern-based skin, and is void of its original function as a ordering tool (Picon, 2014, pp. 9-10, 132-137). Its purpose is more to create an immersive and sensory effect, and it cannot be separated from structure as ornament did traditionally. Thus it is somewhat problematic to describe it as a return, as it has emerged as something radically different. The serious debate on ornament was at its most intense from the mid 19th century to early 20th century, following the Great Exhibition of 1851. This is clear from the abundance of guidebooks and theories of ornament published in its aftermath, the most well-known and cited work being Owen Jones' Grammar of Ornament 1856. The abundance of ornament in the 18th and 19th century was much debated by artists and critics, who saw a deep need to regain control over its excessive use. However, despite the resurfaced interest in ornament, the lessons of the 19th century have not been thoroughly explored, particularly since modern ornament has a tendency to be geometric and ahistorical.

Definition, Method, and Limitation The thesis investigates the form of ornament that was prevalent in the 19th century for objects and architecture. By this I am referring to the system of ornament characterised by ostentatious adornment and well as ideological intentions. This type of ornament was later condemned by Adolf Loos as a waste of labour, and eventually disappeared from modernist architecture in the early 20th century. Given the subjective nature of ornament, it is difficult to more specifically define it, thus I will use the time frame of ornament from the 1850s to the 1900s as my division. More recent studies argue that ornament did not really disappear, but was transmuted into portable objects and furnishings (Payne, 2012). Others explain that ornament has simply been 8

Lilian Tran

scaled up and absorbed into the structure2 (Raaij, 2014). However it is not possible to examine this within the scope of this thesis. Covering the notion of ornament as a representational tool is already a wide field of investigation. The method of research involves examining contemporary literature of the time around 1850s, as well as more recent evaluations of said texts. I have focussed on examining primary sources where possible, to gain insight on opinions of people at the time. However, given the vast amount and density of writings of ornament during this period, there many that I have been unable to investigate. Notable examples include Hints on Household Taste, 1869, by Charles Eastlake, and A Handbook of Ornament, 1849, by Franz Meyer. Therefore I have also relied on secondary sources that explain how these writings were later interpreted. Within my scope, I have also been unable to include the Arts and Crafts and the Art Nouveau movement, who played important roles in attempting to create an ornamental system for the modern age. I have made my best effort to account for the hyperbolic tone that pervades many of the historic writings, and have paid attention to certain words that have a more specific contextual meaning, such as vulgar meaning the deepest of insults, or the many definitions of taste according to various individuals. However, any investigation of ornament is naturally controversial, for the definition of ornament has changed so much in the past 150 years. Modernist design theory is imprinted in our minds to such an extent that it can be difficult conceive of the notion of ornament as serving a meaningful purpose instead of being an unnecessary add-on. In addition my method is a highly selective way of examining texts, given the sizeable amount of material available. There is also an inherent limitation as it requires an expansive knowledge of historic vocabulary, and it is difficult to ascertain the accuracy of my analysis. Arguably, however, it is not possible to have a concrete understanding when we are so far removed from its original context, thus my conclusions must be considered open to inaccuracy.

OVERVIEW The first chapter introduces traditional ornament in antiquity as a communication of sociopolitical hierarchy and system of ordering, and how this changed in the 19th century to become appropriated by the middle classes as an extravagant form of expression. Ornament had been

A cursory study of famous 20th century buildings show that there is certainly a theme of sculptural forms, such as the

Sydney Opera House or the Guggenehim Museum in Bilbao.

representative of order, but by the turn of the 18th century, a newly rich merchant class reappropriated ornament in historical and foreign styles in lavish fashions. Their flagrant decorative impulse resulted in a new art market that challenged the traditional production of art. Chapter two details a thorough analysis of the exhibits in the Great Exhibition of 1851. We see their use of nature and historical allegory as a key inspiration, as well as the general excessiveness by which the age is characterised. This was connected to the prosperity and optimism of the time, and the desire of the middle classes to define themselves, using ornament as a symbol of culture. However, by flooding their houses with fanciful decoration, their actions threatened the fundamental notion of ornament as a system of hierarchy. In the third chapter is an explanation of the critics' dilemma, who were in disagreement about good taste, but needed to find a way to correct the 'bad taste' of the middle classes. However their ambitious plan to teach art to the public failed to quell the tide of the imported taste. In an effort to break the endless cycle of arguments on taste, Pugin contributed a new theory based on honesty and morality, that dramatically changed the direction of art theory. It substituted the aesthetic approach for a rational one, critics could wield greater authority in their argument for restrained ornament - one could be labelled dishonest or immoral if they did not comply. Eventually, however, their efforts unintentionally contributed to a conventionalising and thus abstraction of ornament, which became void of its traditional meaning. The fourth chapter comments on how the rise of mass production also made a great impact on the eventual decline of ornament. These new technologies unlocked an unprecedented capacity for production for proliferating imitations ornament, which could not have occurred at such a scale otherwise. The machine took the skill out of craftsmen, and transferred it to the producers, who inherently benefitted from the rise of commodity culture. This led some critics calling out the excesses of ornament as wasteful and therefore unnecessary. However it should be remembered that the middle class desire for ornament began long before the machine took over the reins of production. The final chapter demystifies the writings of Loos, which are often considered the death knell of ornament. He had put forward the radical notion of ornament as a social crime, because it was an affectation of evolutionary inferior people. Society should instead revel in how civilised it had become and thus the fact that it is unable to produce good ornament anymore. Therefore we no longer needed ornament. Loos writings were directed at the Vienna Secessionists, and were intended to curb ornament, not abolish it. However it became interpreted as the manifesto for pure, unadorned architecture, and thus arguably contributed the rejection of ornament.

Lilian Tran

Fig. 1 Tuscan entablature of Scamozzi - the proportions of a male face form the basis of cornice design . Reprinted from Cours d'architecture, by Jacques-Francois Blondel, 1771-7

The Tradition of Ornament

Social and political communication While the modern day definition of ornament is restricted to the notion of 'decoration' and hence superficiality, ornament was historically regarded as a an essential tool of architecture. In the classical architecture revived in the Renaissance, "it conveyed vital information about the purpose of buildings ... in the expression of social values, hierarchies and order"

(Picon, 2014, p. 11). In

particular, the use of ornament expressed the "underlying of order things" such as how the Doric, Ionic and Corinthian orders relate to varying uses and respectively ascending degrees of prestige. Therefore its capacity to portray status was essential to the hierarchy of society (Picon, p. 106). In addition, ornament was essential to the expression, despite simultaneously being a supplement. To a certain extent architecture was considered as the art of adorning an bare structure. Therefore a system of ornament was needed to express itself (Picon, p. 36). The common analogy between architecture and fashion helps to explain this - clothing is necessary for protecting and masking our bodies, but it also allows us to project an identity. It is something that we add and is therefore supplementary, however it is also a vital component for expressing personality; simple, elaborate, or otherwise. Therefore ornament was an essential tool for expression, but paradoxically it was something that was applied, as opposed to being integral. Beyond these formal functions, ornamentation provided buildings with something akin to a face and a personality with which it could "enter into a dialogue with human beings".

This

conversational characteristic of architecture was insisted upon as far back as the founding fathers of the Renaissance. Consequently the use of human proportions can be found in many cornice mouldings (Fig. 1). The aim of an ornamented facade was to present a visage, for visitors to recognise the trace, or the faces, of those who contributed to the building's creation (Picon, p. 60).

This can be understood from the etymological link between the Latin word for ornament - ornamentum, and the word

ordino - to organise. The use of ornament "expresse[d] the underlying order of things" (Picon, 2014).

Lilian Tran

The changing use of ornament Traditionally the architect was in control of a building's decor and thus its ornamentation. However it was not always clear what level of detail they should specify in their design, so it was varied between architects. In addition craftsmen were often given a lot of flexibility in their work, therefore ornament was the product of combined intentions. The rules of ornament, set out by Vitruvius and re-established during the Renaissance, insisted on overall restraint and harmony of proportion. Nevertheless, there were discrepancies in how these rules were interpreted, and therefore a diversity of ornament. The desire to explore personal expression led Renaissance theorist Philibert Delorme to propose that the Vitruvian rules of proportion, which were not especially strict, could be bent to accept wholly new inventions of ornament. Though some of his contemporaries criticised his inflated self-worth, the association of personal qualities and invention preoccupied designers for many year afterwards (Picon, 2014, pp. 62-65). The idea of invention as expression was furthered by Immanuel Kant, who argued in Critique of Judgement 1790 that the "fine artist" possesses "genius", which is derived from "originality" and therefore is of the highest status. His point was that an artist must ignore conventional taste, and this theory swiftly spread across the philosophy, literature and culture of the West (Brolin, 1985, pp. 8-10). Despite these deviations, however, the inventions of the Renaissance and the Baroque arts were minor, and they still used the same general pattern as conceived earlier. Up until the 18th century the Greco-Roman system, as established by Vitruvius and revived in the Renaissance, continued to be the fundamental rule of ornament. Therefore the political nature of ornament remained stable. (Picon, p. 111). In the 19th century, however, society developed a great interest in diverse architectural styles from far-flung countries such as Egypt, China, India, Japan and Islamic countries. Subsequently, they formed a much extended vocabulary of ornament, and were burdened with choosing from far more types of ornament. This was a problem far greater than how to interpret the Vitruvian orders, but rather how to coordinate or comprehend the more and complex types of ornament. At this point, the classification of period styles became a useful means of sorting the wide range of ornament according to its respective historical, technical and aesthetic characteristics. (Picon, pp. 113-115). During the 19th century, these styles were reused endlessly, to the great irritation of the Victorian design critics.

Decorative impulse of the19th century At the turn of the 18th century, Charles Perrault wrote in PensĂŠes ChrĂŠtiennes (Christian Thoughts) that external ornamentation must be serious because it was visible to the public 4, but interior decoration was a means of conveying private character. The inside of one's house was only visible to the select few acquaintances who were invited. This new interpretation of the interior as personal expression lead to the outpouring of Rococo ornament in the upper-class boudoirs, which had a suitably effusive character for portraying their aspirations (Picon, 2014, p. 83.85). The great proliferation of pattern books and guides published around that time indicate that soon enough ornament, was being applied to everything; objects, furniture and buildings. The issue with this was that to maintain the social and political symbol of ornament, it had to be produced faithfully. The fundamental basis of ornament was, and still is, its cost - both in terms of the amount of material and the labour (Picon, p. 103). But many of the objects being made were cheaper imitations of the real thing, and became branded as a form of deception. Those who fell prey to the lustre of ornament were childish and vulgar. This was one of the key criticisms of the Victorian reformers of design on the taste of the general populous. However the Victorians indulged in ornament with total enthusiasm. People were seduced by ornament, and the established standards of design were being torn apart (Gombrich, 1979, p. 17). We can better understand the extent of the (perceived) problem by examining the this ornament as displayed in the Great Exhibition 1851, in which objects across the world were gathered together in unprecedented fashion.

This importance placed on the public eye would eventually lead to the debate on the moral values of architecture in the

mid 19th century.

Lilian Tran

Fig. 2 View of the entrance to the Crystal Palace. Reprinted from The Art Journal Illustrated Catalogue, by George Virtue, 1851

Victorian Design and the Great Exhibition

The Great Exhibition of the Works of Industry of all Nations The Great Exhibition was an unrivalled spectacle of grand proportions, and the very first world exhibition of its kind 5. On display at the Crystal Place (Fig. 2) were approximately 100,000 objects from around 15,000 exhibitors across the world, but more than half of them came from Great Britain (The Crystal Palace). It was an incredibly successful event with more than 6 million visitors - equivalent to about a fifth of the English population at the time (The Great Exibition). As a result it yielded a net profit of ÂŁ186,000, which is approximately equivalent to ÂŁ21.1 million in today's money 6 (Officer & Williamson). Although ornament had been a subject of keen debate amongst critics for many decades prior, it reached a level of crisis following this event. The Exhibition symbolised a turning point for English decorative design as it offered the opportunity to judge and compare native works against foreign competitors. Despite the prevalence of British products, the general reflection amongst critical observers was that the "'sense of artistic' was lacking in the British people". The issue was not the technical or design quality of the products - British hardware, for example, was unparalleled. The obvious disparity was the nation's taste in ornamental design. (Brolin, 1985, pp. 90-93). The aim of the exhibition was, in fact, to advance this unfortunate revelation. Prince Albert had organised this monumental event in the hope of waking up the general population to the problem of England's poor taste. It was the general masses, and more specifically the newly wealthy, who were the consumers of this 'bad taste'. They did not seem to realise their mistake, therefore the Exhibition could educate them with foreign examples of superior taste. By contrast, it was clear "to many influential artists and critics, [that] the capitulation of the decorative arts to the whims of the marketplace ... was evident in every field of manufactured goods" (Brolin, p. 90) The market was ruining artistic endeavour with their demand for objects of poor taste.

The Great Exhibition was genuinely remarkable from its conception to its execution. As a point of reference, the Crystal

Palace was (symbolically) 1851 feet long by 454 feet wide, and 27 feet high (564m by 138m, 39m high). 6

if measured as a 'project' according to its historic opportunity cost

Lilian Tran

Fig. 4 Elaborate fish fork designed by H. Higgins. Reprinted from The Art Journal Illustrated Catalogue (p.27), by George Virtue, 1851

Fig. 5 Caddy spoon for sugar. Reprinted from The Art Journal Illustrated Catalogue (p.26), by George Virtue, 1851

Fig. 3 Fruit dishes with centre-piece designed by Smith and Nicholson of London. Adapted into collage and reprinted from The Art Journal Illustrated Catalogue, (p.176) by George Virtue, 1851

The Exhibits To understand these criticisms, we can use official records to study the enormous number of objects exhibited, and see what ornament was like at the time 7. From this, we learn that the most popular objects were often exuberantly adorned and allegorical in decoration. A key feature amongst the exhibits was the use of nature as a source of inspiration and especially the appropriation of nature's forms. "Virtually everyone who wrote about decoration cited some natural precursor for what they considered good ornament". This stemmed from a belief in nature as being God's creation, therefore nature was the universally accepted basis of beauty (Brolin, 1985, p. 162). However there were differing ideas on how it should be translated into ornament. Many objects were based on realistic imitation (Fig. 4 and Fig. 5). This was partly because they perceived their ability to make accurate copies as a great achievement. (Pevsner, High Victorian Design, 1951). This practice of decorative naturalism (direct imitation of nature) was a prevalent characteristic of 19th century ornament. In addition the use of symbolism was a common theme in the Exhibition. One method of employing narrative was to carve a deep relief into the material. This can be seen in the sideboard and wall panel (Fig. 6 and Fig. 7). The sideboard shows the four corners of the world and the foods associated with them, whereas the wall panel displays groups of hanging fruit and game. However this use of heavy ornamentation often lead to impractically-shaped objects, and was heavily criticised by the reformers. Decorative naturalism was "the chief vice' in the decoration of Europe", and critics such as John Ruskin argued that though decorative art should imitate nature, it should only be with "discretion". The aim was not to merely copy, but to derive inspiration. (Ruskin, The Seven Lamps of Architecture, (reprinted 1961) 1848). The critics also believed that decoration should express the function and mood of an object (not the construction, as in the modern era. (Madsen, 2013, p. 261). For example the key reformer, Ralph Wornum, commended the sideboard (Fig. 6) for its "factually correct representation" since the decoration is related to the use of the object. However he condemned the wall panel (Fig. 7) for being "excessively overloaded with detail" (Wornum, 1851).

All exhibition objects were recorded in the Official Descriptive and Illustrated Catalogue of the Great Exhibition of the

Works of Industry of All Nations in three volumes. In addition, the Art Journal Illustrated Catalogue is an informative example of popular opinion during the 1850s.

Lilian Tran

Fig. 6 Sideboard designed by Fourdinois. Reprinted from The Art Journal Illustrated Catalogue (p.285), by George Virtue, 1851

Fig. 7 (left) Carved Wall Panel by Crutchet . Reprinted from The Art Journal Illustrated Catalogue (p.60), by George Virtue, 1851

Fig. 8 (right) Guitarpa . Reprinted from The Art Journal Illustrated Catalogue (p.97), by George Virtue, 1851

To the modern eye, this language appears contradictory, as both objects could be considered overloaded, however this type of argument was characteristic Victorian critics. The second method for portraying allegory was to apply fantastical descriptions and mottos to everyday objects. This can be seen in the 'Day Dreamer' (Fig. 9) - an easy chair made from papier mache by H. Fitz Cook. Its lyrical entry in the Official Catalogue is as follows: "The chair is decorated at the top with two winged thoughts - the one with bird-like pinions, and crowned with roses, representing happy and joyous dreams; the other with leathern batlike wings - unpleasant and troublesome ones ...The twisted supports of the back are ornamented with the poppy, hearts-ease, convolvulus and snow-drop, all emblematic of the subject. In front of the seat is a shell, containing the heart of a cherub ... At the side is seen a figure of Puck, lying asleep in a labyrinth of foliage." (Owen & Ferrier, 1851) Pevsner argues that this description suggests there must have been a great Victorian craving for an interesting story, particularly since it was applied to something "so utilitarian an object as an easy chair." He considered the constant use of narrative as a desire to trivialise day-to-day objects into sources of entertainment (Pevsner, High Victorian Design, 1951, p. 113). However, James Buzzard counters in Victorian Prism that the use of narrative decoration came from the Victorian notion that "information ... was lodged in things". He explains that with the rise of visual information (such as photography) there was a growing sense that viewing items could be equated with acquiring knowledge. Therefore the lengthy narrative demonstrates that the chair was "not merely a piece of furniture," but an attempt to convey information and stimulate intellectual thought (Buzzard, 2007, pp. 153-155). The Exhibition has also been characterised as a display of excessive ornamentation. Decorative extravagance is clearly exhibited in the fish fork made by H. Higgins (Fig. 4) that, to modern eyes, appears horribly uncomfortable to use and impractical to clean8. But the Art Journal describes its twisted form as an exemplary demonstration of good taste: "... we admire this as a deviation from the ordinary forms of such objects, as well as for its own intrinsic merit. [It is] ... worthy of the best period of manufacturing Art whatsoever practiced; an undoubted proof of the advanced state of taste and ingenuity on the part of our designers." (Virtue, 1851, p. 176). This praise suggests that

This may be partly because the owner would have had servants for cleaning silverware, and the issue was also solved

using various knife-cleaning contraptions.

Lilian Tran

Fig. 9 Day Dreamer chair designed by H. Fitz Cook. Reprinted from Official Descriptive Catalogue of the Great Exhibition of the Works of Industry of all Nations (p.748), by H. Owen & C.-M. Ferrier, 1851

this knobbly style was not only a popular aesthetic, but that its aesthetic value that was considered to be more important than usability 9. The final important attribute as the tendency to imitate more costly materials using cheaper alternatives. Amongst the exhibits included "slabs of glass, to imitate various kinds of marble ... column of glass representing malachite" (class 26, item 2), "specimens on slate, in imitation of china, adapted for table-tops" (class 26 item 37A), "octagon box, in imitation of inlaid wood, applicable to pianofortes" (class 26 item 40), "imitations of various woods, in painting" (class 26 item 48) (Owen & Ferrier, 1851). Critics almost universally despised the practice of disguising inferior materials, and considered it a form of deceit. They viewed the use of 'fake materials' as a representation of the moral condition of society, and therefore rejected the 'fake' social values that they promoted. (Pevsner, High Victorian Design, 1951, p. 33) (Brolin, 1985, p. 147).

Excess of ornament The selected illustrations show how, to the modern reader, Victorian taste could easily be characterised as disproportionate. In High Victorian Design, Pevsner regularly makes disparaging remarks about the excessiveness of the Exhibition objects. He considers the Victorian architecture as plagued by over-ornamentation and "coarseness" of taste, which is "immoral and dishonest" for its use of "sham materials and technique" (Watkin, 2001, p. 108). This line of reasoning gives rise to the general misconception that the overindulgence of ornament eventually prompted the desire to be rid of ornament. However, this is a retrospective judgement, made with a modern mindset according to what we are accustomed to. The widespread use of ornamentation arguably suggests the contrary - at the time, it was not over-the-top, it was commonplace. Furthermore, we can see that even the objects favoured by the design reformers were also highly ornamental, such as the sideboard referred to earlier (Fig. 6). Nor were the critics intending to eliminate ornament in order to express the bare bones of the buildings, as happened in the modernist era. Naked structure was in fact the "epitome of ugliness" during the 19th century, and decoration was needed to "hide, by a coating of beauty, the skeleton like contrivances of [structure], and thus bring them into a condition of the works of nature". (Brolin, p. 140).

Though this attitude would be automatically ridiculed today, to do so would be to forget that that there was once a time

when beauty and aesthetics were of utmost importance - and why should we condemn this?

Lilian Tran

Having said that, it cannot be denied that Pevsner's criticisms carried some weight to them, for it was certainly true that the Victorians had a great love affair with ornament. Their use of overloaded ornament is evident from the illustrations, and it created a sense of unease amongst the critics. They regarded the newly rich as an unsophisticated class who were merely socially ambitious, but did not have the artistic qualification to dominated the market as they did (Brolin, 1985, p. 85)

Flourishing Bourgeoisie The rise of this middle class, and thus excessive ornamentation, can be attributed to the uniquely positive conditions of the time. Britain was unrivalled in its industrial and commercial success, and enjoyed a relatively stable political life. Consequently the mid-Victorian period was characterised by a boundless sense of drive, to the point of naivety. There was genuine faith in commerce and industry; in technical daring; and in the idea that there were "unlimited chances for the capable and the energetic to get rich, however humble their origins" - anything was possible (Pevsner, High Victorian Design, 1951, p. 115). Parallel to this current of optimism was a universal eagerness to learn, and especially to learn facts. The general public had a thirst for knowledge that would be inconceivable today. As increasingly more people benefited from this unprecedented level of prosperity, an age of unerring confidence was born. This is clearly expressed in the words of Prince Albert in his address to the City on the idea of the exhibition. "Nobody who has paid any attention to the peculiar features of the present era, will doubt for a moment that we are living at a period of most wonderful transition, which tends rapidly to accomplish that great end, to which, indeed, all history points - the realization of the unity of mankind... The distances which separate the different nations and parts of the globe are rapidly vanishing before the achievements of modern invention, and we can traverse them with incredible ease." (Albert & Helps, 1862) Prince Albert spoke of industrialisation in purely positive terms; of unbridled potential for progress. He, and many others, were somewhat oblivious to the squalor, disease, and extreme working hours that it perpetuated for much of the population (Pevsner, High Victorian Design, 1951). However their unabashed optimism came a sense of pride in one's own achievement. The Victorians believed, and rightly so, that industrialisation was in many aspects a social leveller, and

opened the door to social and global mobility (Gombrich, 1979, p. 33). British Imperialism facilitated increasing foreign trade, and connected the English populace to exotic ornament. Consequently, a newly elevated middle class revelled in their good fortune, and used new ornaments as "a means of displaying wealth, with all the implications of social status and refinement that went with it" (Brolin, 1985, p. 95).

Lilian Tran

Fig. 10 Carpet designed by Messrs Turberville Smith. It's caption reads: " the flower garden seems to have been rifled for its gayest and choicest flowers ... so much that it almost requires one well instructed in botany to make out a list of contents; and yet there is nothing overdone, not any absence of the most elegant harmony" . Reprinted from The Art Journal Illustrated Catalogue (p.135), by George Virtue, 1851

Morality and the Reformers of Taste

Bad Taste Writings on ornament often refer to the poor taste of the market, but they all indicate varying definitions of good taste. In addition, the descriptive terms used in the nineteenth century have evolved to mean different things now. Contemporary literature of the time, such as the Art Journal, often expresses conflicting opinions to influential critics of the time, many of whom also clash with each other, and sometimes they even contradict themselves. Overall it appears that the "single characteristic [that] consistently crops up in the definitions of 'bad' taste: it is the other person who has it" (Brolin, 1985, p. 101). Despite these disagreements, good taste was generally understood to be an absolute quality. The Art Journal wrote that good taste is objective, not merely a matter of personal preference. "There is a right and wrong in art as in morals" (Bizup, 2003, p. 134). Likewise, Wornum described that "the great object of attainment is Taste, which is not a mere impulse of the fancy, but dependent upon the operations of reason as completely as any other conclusion respecting good or bad" (Wornum, 1851). Accordingly, whilst no one was in a agreement in defining good taste, critics agreed that the middle class had no judgement whatsoever. The general public were besotted with the wonders of the Crystal Palace, but the critics harshly discredited the exhibited objects. To them, the principles of decoration were in dire need of serious study (Gombrich, 1979, p. 51).

The Government Schools of Design The English decorative arts were in such a sorry state the issue they became a "matter of national interest". Because unlike other European countries, decorative goods were the main export of British manufacture. Therefore "the very health of the nation's economy depended on improving the design quality of its manufactured goods" (Brolin, p. 86). By 1835-6, the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Arts and Manufactures concerned themselves with the problem of "the public's lack of acquaintance with art". The solution to the problem was to educate the manufacturer and the producer "for the betterment of the balance of trade". Many key reformers of the time were prepared to undertake this task, including Henry Cole, administrator of the

Lilian Tran

Fig. 11 Leaf and fruit wallpaper designed by Pugin. Reprinted from Wallpapers: a history and illustrated catalogue of the collection of the Victoria and Albert Museum, by Oman, Charles C., and Hamilton, Jean., 1982. Retrieved from: http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O119592/wallpaper-pugin-augustus-welby/ on 14 May 2016

Schools of Art; Owen Jones, superintendent of the Great Exhibition and author of Grammar of Ornament; and Richard Redgrave, a prominent artist 10 (Brolin, 1985, p. 88). In 1837 the Normal School of Design was founded to teach three key principles of ornament. Firstly, decoration comes after form; secondly, form is determined by material and function; and finally, design must come from "historical English and non-Western ornament as well as plant and animal sources, distilled into simple, linear motifs" (Oshinsky, 2006) However, despite the fact that they opened 21 branches by 1851, in reality their mission to train people in 'good taste' failed, and imported taste continued to dominate the market. Some attributed their failure to the "jealousy and apathy of the manufacturers," because they generally considered responding to market demand as the end of their responsibilities. Very few of the educated designers found jobs in their respective industry because manufacturers did not think they needed them. (Brolin, pp. 88-89)

Pugin and the Shift to Ornament as Morality The debate on how to improve taste proved futile, since nearly everyone believed their own taste to be superior and rarely was anyone willing to admit otherwise. Cutting through this endless argument on whose taste was better, Augustus Pugin instead shifted the debate from the realm of the aesthetic, and by extension taste, to the one of morality, and specifically Catholic principles. His theory was that an architectural style embodied the sentiments of its own age, but since he was revolted by the outlook of his own time, he sought a recreation of Gothic architecture that harked back to a more virtuous spirit.11 His intention was to revive what he called Pointed or Christian architecture, which by his estimation was more 'honest'. (Brolin, 1985) Pugin was a prolific pamphleteer and fought relentlessly for Gothic forms as the only true Christian forms. His influence was widespread and his theories of honesty and truthfulness in design and manufacture formed the theoretical basis for many key reformers, including Henry

By contrast, reformers such as John Ruskin and William Morris argued that mixing art and commerce resulted in the

destruction of art and artist - they certainly did not attempt to accommodate the market system 11

This is different to the modern notion that we should express our 'spirit of the time', because Pugin wanted to revive

the spirit of a past era

Lilian Tran

Fig. 12 Decanter by Richardson of Stourbridge shows heavily cut glass surface. Reprinted from The Art Journal Illustrated Catalogue (p.138), by George Virtue, 1851

Cole, Richard Redgrave, Owen Jones, and others (Pevsner, Pioneers of modern design: from William Morris to Walter Gropius, 1960, p. 47). A testament to this legacy was his obituary in the Times, which proclaimed that "it was he who showed us that our architecture offended not only against the laws of beauty, but against the laws of morality" (Crook, 1987) Establishing morality as a means of producing art marked a fundamental change to the rules governing art and design. Traditionally design was subject to visual criteria; stylistic conventions and systems of proportion that resulted from aesthetic preferences. For example Vitruvius wrote that the Corinthian order has a capital of equal height to the thickness of the shaft. It has a taller effect than the Ionic order, for which the proportion is the same but the capital is only a third of the column thickness. The more slender Corinthian imitates "the slenderness of a maiden; for the outlines ... admit of prettier effects in the way of adornment. (Pollio)" However, after Pugin introduced his principles of honesty, beauty was to be judged as a matter of the mind, not the eye. (Brolin, 1985, p. 112)

Principles of Design Many of Pugin's key principles were adopted (and adapted) in the 20th century. For example, he stated that Pointed Architecture "does not conceal her construction, but beautifies it". This is strikingly similar to the modern principle of expressing structure, which should be emphasised, not disguised. He also wrote that "construction itself should vary with the material employed, and the designed adapted to the material in which they are executed". This too is akin to our modern dictum that one material should not pretend to have the qualities of another. (Brolin, 1985) Richard Redgrave expanded on this point by arguing that heavily cut glass objects ( Fig. 12) vulgarise the simplicity of blown forms. Glass has inherent qualities of lightness, brilliance and transparency, thus in respect to the "true principles" of the material, cutting should be confined to only the handles stems and bases. (Museum of Ornamental Art, 1852). This argument aimed to reduce the increasingly common practice of imitating materials, which made it especially difficult to appreciate the method of production. It had a strong appeal and later became known as 'truth to material'. It was a significant problem that would not have existed in the past, when craftsmanship was an obvious result of great skill, talent and labour (Gombrich, 1979, p. 65). Again, the problem is one of integrity. The rule of truth to material conveys a certain credibility - it is reasonable to propose that the form and decoration of an object is subject to a material's physical properties. However the 'true

Lilian Tran

principle' of a material is not always explicit. For example, a clay pot could be thrown on a potter's wheel, or it may be slip cast, or hand-built with slabs or with coils. (Brolin, 1985) Similarly, to take the example of Redgrave, it could be argued that another quality of glass is its ability to refract light. Therefore heavily cut glass still adheres to the true principle of material. But this other nature was not mentioned, because the intention of the principle was in fact to propagate an aesthetic preference for simplicity, as opposed to asserting a genuine 'truth of design'. In Contrasts 1841, Pugin explained one of his most influential principles - "that the great test of Architectural beauty is the fitness of the design to the purpose for which it is intended." The word 'fitness' is characteristically vague, but what he means is that the style of a building should convey its purpose to a visitor, and that beautiful architecture is borne out of utility (Brolin, 1985, p. 115). For example, he urged that it is illogical to use what he called illusionistic wallpaper, because the depiction of highlights and shading conflicts with where the true light and shadow would fall, therefore its function is impaired. Similarly, he argued that highly relieved foliage on a floor (Fig. 10) is especially bad as it affects the functional ease of walking, therefore a flat design is superior. (Gombrich, 1979, p. 34) Ralph Wornum also disapproved of the "uneducated" taste of the producers as shown in the Great Exhibition (Wornum, 1851). He complained that the most popular items were "display[s] of silverwork of no utility whatsoever", and "more attention [should be] paid to the production of ordinary articles of use in cast iron". (Pevsner, High Victorian Design, 1951, p. 77). In his essay The Exhibition as a Lesson in Taste he argued a similar case to Pugin, objecting to threedimensional representation, but on different grounds. He states that "natural" ornament (that imitates exactly), is "only a picture or model... which is substituting the ornament itself for the thing to be ornamented". Thus it is only successful when it is an accessory to the main form, it must not become the form itself (Wornum, 1851). For example, he singled out a flower-shaped dessert service (Fig. 4) as being "open to the theoretical objection that we have natural objects performing impossibilities". His concern is not only its naturalistic depiction, but also that a flower would be too delicate to support something as heavy as fruit (Wornum, 1851). The fear was that the object dishonestly suggested a quality of nature that does not really exist. Evidently, however, the fact that representation is not the same as truth was glossed over. Furthermore he described the principle of ornament as based on series and contrasts, and in particular symmetry - "symmetry is so important an element of decoration that there is no form or combination of forms whatever, that, when symmetrically contrasted or repeated, cannot be made

subservient to beauty" (Wornum, 1851) He declared that ornament is analogous to music, since both are based on a rhythmic succession of some detail, and the combination of these schemes result in harmony. This comparison between ornament and music was another method for exerting some control over the use of pictorial representation in favour of a formal ordering of element. It later opened the door to the rise of abstraction in ornament and art. (Gombrich, 1979) Owen Jones also exerted great influence as a design critic, particularly with his classic compendium the Grammar of Ornament. His ambition was to found a better style based on the principles he detailed in his book - inspired by natural forms not slaves of them. In particular he praised the ornament of the 'savage', as being the result of the law of necessity, and therefore appropriate: "The ornament of a savage tribe, being the result be of a natural instinct, is necessarily always true to its purpose; whilst in much of the ornament of civilised nations...instead of first seeking the most convenient form and adding beauty, all beauty is destroyed, because all fitness, by superadding [sic] ornament to ill contrived from ... We must get rid of the acquired and the artificial, and return to and develop natural instincts" (Jones, 1856, p. 16) Like many of the reformers, he believed that the designer should appropriate nature's laws instead of imitating it directly. He theorised that "the essence of beauty is a feeling of repose which the mind feels when the eye, the intellect and the affections are satisfied by the absence of any want" (Jones, 1856). This repose is achieved by creating a sense of coherence and articulation. "Compositions distributed in equal lines or divisions will be less beautiful than those which require a high mental effort to appreciate them" (Gombrich, 1979, p. 54). By this he means that pleasure in perception comes from the correct balance between a clear framework and unpredictable form. What Jones referred to was simply another version of arguing for conventional ornament. Where Wornum suggested music as the sister art of ornament, Jones suggests that ornament must project a sense of rest and stillness. Furthermore, he stated that "the secret of success in all ornament is the production of a broad general effect by the repetition of a few simple elements" (Jones, 1856, p. 15). Variety should come from different arrangements, not multiple elements. This is, of course, the opposite to the prevailing fashion of overloading ornament. Similar to Wornum's argument for making ornament secondary to structure, Jones also writes as his first proposition of ornament that "the Decorative Arts arise from, and should be properly attendant upon, Architecture" (Jones, 1856, p. 5). But many of the ornaments he details in Grammar function in total opposition to this principle.

Lilian Tran

The notion that superior ornament arises from 'savage' culture suggests an increasingly primitive level of psychological development. Since bourgeois ideology tended to associate the primitive with the criminal, it followed that an overindulgence of ornament equated to a type of crime against civilised values. Such reasoning eventually culminated in the well-known polemic by Adolf Loos. In consequence, the great fondness of ornament in fact represented an anthropological problem for civilisation: there appeared a dire need to limit such "untamed mental forces" (Picon, 2014, pp. 94-96).

Conventional design This objection to three-dimensional representation and cry for 'flatness' (Fig. 11) as espoused by Pugin, was adopted as a principle of the Victorian design reformers (Gombrich, 1979). They appeared to see naturalistic decoration as conflicting with the two-dimensional surface that it adorned. But the underlying theme here was the strange idea that representation must correspond to reality. It mistakes fiction for fact and then brands it a lie. Whether or not a flower is strong enough to contain a dessert is besides the point, because a flower-shaped dessert dish is not an actual flower, just a representation of one. In addition, the claim that decoration must essentially be flat or else it conflicts with the spatial quality of the surroundings is a rather weak argument. Of course a naturalistic depiction can be jarring when it is not proportionate with the object or space being decorated, such as an overly busy wallpaper pattern. However, to a certain extent, this juxtaposition between a virtual space and the object is the very definition of what decoration is. To decorate is to apply (Gombrich, p. 163). However, as mentioned in the second chapter, the principle of decoration was to express the function (Madsen, 2013, p. 261). With this intellectual abstraction, the critics were able to control 'bad taste'. These rules were invoked to "cajole an unwilling public into adopting aesthetic values they would not otherwise have accepted". The use of a moral grounding for these rules lent them a greater sense of authority and intellectual superiority. Subsequently, 'bad taste' could be eliminated for it had no ideological basis (Brolin, 1985, p. 119).

Ruskin and the expression of life The various design reformers described above made individual interpretations of the principles first put forward by Pugin. However, outside of the mainstream critics, John Ruskin rejected the need for conventionality or formal arrangements. He established a radically alternative principle for ornament, whereby art is only meaningful if it is an expression of "personality, activity and living perception of a good and great human soul" (Ruskin & Morris, The Stones of Venice, 1981). Furthermore his theory was far more holistic in that he approached ornament from the disposition of the ornament's maker. He argued that "so long as men work as men, putting their heart into what they do, and doing their best, it matters not how bad workmen they may be, there will be that in the handling which is above all price"12 (Gombrich, 1979, p. 40). The most important thing was the trace of a living being at work; someone who took care over their work. Ruskin famously wrote that "the right question to ask, respecting all ornament, is simply this: Was it done with enjoyment? Was the carver happy while he was about it?" (p42) (Seven lamps p218). He felt that the carver's enjoyment was evident from the hand-made marks final product, in a similar way that a graphologist finds clues about a person's character from their handwriting. Thus he inferred that the exacting precision of the machine was representative of death, since it was devoid of any life. On the other hand, he considered irrationality as a sign creativity, freedom and 'savageness' (Gombrich, p. 43). Alike the other reformers, he was against the slavish imitation of nature, but for different reasons. Straight copying was "devaluing and killing living forms for their degraded use as ornament", and forms would be better if animated and lively (Gombrich, p. 154). Besides this he also believed, as many of his contemporaries did, that Nature was the only true source of beauty because it is God's creation. But he took the argument one step further by saying that forms not inspired by nature can only be ugly (Gombrich, 1979, p. 39). The organic playfulness exhibited in Gothic architecture was a true display of the inherent nature of man - "rude and wild, tinged with humour, joyful spontaneous, strong and never afraid of superfluity". This was in total opposition to the perfectly-formed machine-made products that symbolised the Victorian age. The strength of the Gothic lay in its ability to "tolerate mistakes, roughnesses [sic], asymmetries, because it was derived strictly from."

This sentiment would later be championed by William Morris and the Arts and Crafts movement.

Lilian Tran

Temperance and Intemperance in Curvature. In the upper example, the noble hand as stayed itself, whereas in the lower case, the hand is "wholly unrestrained, and rolling hither and thither in confused wantonness." Reprinted from The Stones of Venice (p.207) by J. Ruskin, 1848. Folio Society.

Furthermore practicing art as a matter of science resulted from the mistake belief of "intellectual powers as having dignity in themselves, and separate from the heart" (Ruskin & Morris, The Stones of Venice, 1981, p. 232). Here Ruskin appears to argue in direct opposition to the main circle of reformers - true art can not result from only rationalism. Ornament is fundamentally a form of expression (of life), meaning that it is governed by faith and feeling as opposed to science and reason. However, when the Stones of Venice became so influential that adoption of the Gothic became widespread in Britain and its colonies, Ruskin was furious that the style was not being executed properly. Although his aim of reviving gothic architecture had been achieved, the new buildings did not represent the relationship of the workman to his work. Therefore Ruskin also used his own form of moral terms to convince the public.

Lilian Tran

Fig. 13 Screen made by the Patent Wood Carving Company, who predominantly used carving machines. This type of furniture was an example of how machines could replicate hand skills. Reprinted from The Art Journal Illustrated Catalogue (p.132), by George Virtue, 1851

Mass Production and the Rise of Commodity Culture

Industrialisation and the threat of the machine The industrial revolution shaped a series of monumental changes in society. From manufacturing and materials to transport and communication; industry was developing irreversibly. The backdrop to these transformation included revolutionary ideas such as Karl Marx's theory of historical evolution and Sigmund Freud's theory of psychoanalysis. As a result, society's traditional hierarchy and self-expression was being challenged on multiple levels. In the past 18th century, goods had come from small workshops and 'cottage industries' - small-scale production that generated an early form of the market. However, by the mid 19th century, the demand for goods and 'small luxuries' had increased dramatically, particularly due to the new middle class. (Dewald, 2004) Mass production of these ornaments provided cheaper imitations that threatened the nature of ornament as a symbol of wealth. Ornament had traditionally been the domain of artists and craftsmen, who made their creations by hand and spent many years honing the various aspects of their trade. But with the rise of the machine, critics feared that it facilitated products that had a "look of brilliance unconnected with its true worth" (Gombrich, 1979, p. 33). The fact is that we struggle to separate our judgement of an object of beauty from its material worth - we feel obliged to take into account its rarity, preciousness, and cost in labour, skill and sacrifice. The more widespread use of ornament lead to a perceived devaluation of its value. Percier and Fontaine lamented that industrialisation caused the most beautiful things to be "vulgarised" (Gombrich, p. 32). Pugin also criticised the "operative deceit" of machine-produced objects. He wrote that "to imitate... mechanically is too easy a substitute." (Gombrich, p. 31) It required no apparent skill or craftsmanship. Similarly, Ruskin was concerned by how the machine broke the connection between a worker and the pleasure he took in his craft: "we have much studied ... [the] invention of the division of labour; only we give it a false name. It is not, truly speaking, the labour that it divided; but the men: â&#x20AC;&#x201D; Divided into mere segments of men â&#x20AC;&#x201D; broken into small fragments and crumbs of life" (Ruskin & Morris, The Stones of Venice, 1981)

Lilian Tran

Fig. 14 Morning Room of Waddesdon Manor, Buckinghamshire, in the French 18th century style. Owned by the Rothschild family. This room was for the morning activity of reading the newspaper and writing letters . The ornamental excess was commonplace in many middle class households. Reprinted from Rothchild's Renaissance in Cotidianul. Retrived from: http://www.cotidianul.ro/rothschild-rennaisance-la-britishmuseum-271489/ on 7 June 2016

Thus many critics, from Ruskin to Percier and Fontaine, attributed bad design to the substitution of machine-made for handmade ornament. However, though the machine changed the nature of production, it cannot be considered the sole originator of bad taste, nor poor quality ornament. The large majority of goods from the Great Exhibition, that triggered the debate on poor taste, were in fact made by hand (Brolin, 1985, p. 96). Furthermore, the middle class had begun their appetite for objects of 'bad taste' at the turn of the 18th century, when Charles Perrault signalled the separation between public and private life. It had lead to much freer and extraordinarily ornamented interiors long before mass production had taken over the craftsman as producer of ornament. We should also remember that mechanical tools have always been used to improve or increase the production of craftwork, from the potter's wheel to stencils and moulds

(Gombrich, 1979, p.

33). Furthermore the production of ornament had always involved some form of division of labour, as in the separation of design and execution. Traditionally a master mason would be in control of the an ornamental design, and workmen would produce it (Brolin, p. 96). Though industrialisation is generally looked upon as a divisive process, it allowed for objects that conveyed 'status', and thus respect, to be available to almost everyone. Ordinary people could afford less expensive versions of the sought-after items, such as pieces of furniture or pictures for their homes. The reformers' contention that materials should not be dishonestly imitated tended to overlook that for much of the general public, imitation materials was all that they could afford to have. 'Real' materials would not have been an option (Brolin, p. 148)

Proliferation of ornament Industrialisation certainly changed the nature of design to one made up of easily pre-fabricated elements. The production ever-increasing ornaments created the opportunity to embellish anything one wished to decorate. As seen in the illustrations of the Great Exhibition, ornament was applied to nearly anything; carpets, cutlery, furniture, and walls, as well as machines, stoves, interiors, and structure (Picon, 2014, p. 72). This desire for these objects was partly fuelled by changing values of society and the introduction of social mobility. New forms of transport and communication made people far more visible in

However these tools were never seen to undermine the whole ethics of craft. (Gombrich, 1979). This is perhaps to do

with the sheer scale of the machine's capacity to produce in comparison to a craftsman's tools

Lilian Tran

society than before. As ornament had become a symbol of art, and art had become a "visible token of wealth" (Brolin, 1985), ornament was used to "convey essential features of one's character". By the late 18th to 19th century house design was characterised by the increasing specialisation of rooms, as a means to display of one's travels, aspirations and life-defining events

(Picon, 2014, p. 85).

In essence, the population explosion and growth of towns resulted in a far more exposure to society, and therefore a stronger decorative impulse in order to define oneself to others. Together, the destabilisation of traditional society and the unprecedented expansion of production were undermining the traditional standards of design (Gombrich, 1979, p. 35).

Commodity culture and mass communication As goods were increasingly produced at unprecedented scale, society began to embrace a culture of commodity and consumption. The Great Exhibition was a prime example of how culture began to accommodate manufactured objects as representative of entire nations. Its vast collection of wares acted as both a museum and a market, in which rare and exclusive objects could be democratically inspected by all walks of life. This made it a prototype for the first department store, or shopping centre (Richards). The desire to consume can be detected in extracts from Queen Victoria's diary, who describes her many visits to the Great Exhibition in fascinating detail. On viewing a display of carpets and tapestry and SĂ¨vres porcelain, she describes how the products' "taste and execution [were] quite unequalled and gave one a wish to buy all one saw!" (Victoria, 1851) Furthermore, manufacturers had an invested bias in both fuelling this culture and meeting demand. If popular fashions kept changing so quickly, people would continue to replace their possessions more often. Therefore manufacturers did not really need to spend time actually designing things - instead "a meretricious and overloaded display [was] cheaper than exquisite execution" (Brolin, 1985, p. 85). Since it was the producers who were "generally uneducated" in taste, 'bad' ornament spread prolifically.

The house of architect John Soane (1753-1837) is a prime example of a modest London house conceived as an eclectic

museum collection of his architectural media, as well as surprisingly rare artefacts such as the sarcophagus of the Egyptian king, Seti I (Sir John Soane's Museum)

Spirit of the times Industrial development had facilitated technical marvels of the day such as iron work bridges and expansive viaducts. These were presumed to have been designed by engineers in the most rational way, by simply laying out the necessary functions and satisfying them. It was a process that appeared to guarantee success, and projected a 'truth' as opposed to 'beauty'. This mentality had an important effect, as there was a widespread belief that the 'spirit of the times' would naturally materialise into an architecture that reflected it (Brolin, 1985, p. 195). Thus the technical fascination of the age implied a certain authority of the machine aesthetic. By the beginning of the 1900s, a drastically different utilitarian style emerged from the heavy ornament of the previous century.

Lilian Tran

Fig. 15. According to Owen Jones, this tattoo is of the highest ornamental art because each and every line is adapted to the contours of the face. Reprinted from Grammar of Ornament (p.14), by Owen Jones, 1856

Adolf Loos and the Crime of Ornament

Uncivilised ornament By the beginning of the 20th century, Adolf Loos' polemic essay Ornament and Verbrechen (Ornament and Crime) seemed to decry the end of ornament. However, in the hundred years that have passed since his lecture in 1909 15, his writing has been repeatedly misinterpreted. Whilst it is clear that Loos was no appreciator of ornament, he did not call for a ban on ornament, and he later described this idea as "absurd". One of Loos' arguments familiar to modern minds is his criticism of the industry perpetuating new fashions, and thus wastefulness. Manufacturers aimed for objects to become unfashionable long before they were physically obsolete, so that they would have to be replaced unnecessarily and repeatedly. These costs could be better spent on quality materials and workmanship (Loos, 1997). He rejected ornament on the basis that it was wasteful behaviour. However, the most enduring message of his essay was that ornament was a backwards tradition. To the Victorian reformers, ornament had assumed connotations of savagery, and the desire for excessive ornament was almost a suggestion of an undeveloped psychological state (Picon, 2014, p. 94). But Loos made a radical extension of this argument, claiming that society should rejoice in its inability to produce good ornament because it signified the civilised society. If only the savages can create exquisite ornament, then "the evolution of culture is synonymous with the removal of ornament from utilitarian objects" (Loos, 1997). This notion was inspired by the criminologist Cesare Lombroso, who linked tattooed criminals to primitive disposition, as well as the Freudian theory of human drives. (Picon, 2014, p. 96) Thus Loos interpreted ornament as a baser (and erotic) instinct, which arose from either children, who have not yet developed; or "criminals" who have a stunted psychological state (Loos, 1997). He proclaimed that "a modern man who tattoos himself is criminal or a degenerate". In effect, Loos infantilised and criminalised ornament - and decoration was tarred with the brush of the primitive and historicism.

This date is taken from Christopher Long's investigation's into Loos' work, as opposed to the oft quoted publication

date of 1908 (Long, 2012)

Lilian Tran

Fig. 16 Fifth Exhibition poster of the Vienna Secession by Koloman Moser. Retrieved from: http://www.theviennasecession.com/gallery/koloman-moser/vienna_secession_fifth_exhibition_poster/ on 3 May 2016

He justified this notion by asserting that ornament had lost its meaning or connection to modern culture. Society was progressing in leaps and bounds, but ornament was a relic of the past. (Loos, 1997). It was also "wasted labour power and hence wasted health" because craftsmen had to spend so many hours producing ornament when a "smooth object" would function just as well, if not better. His concern for the worker was similar to the theories of Ruskin, who also believed in a distinction between art and utility. The British critics had inspired him to divorce decoration from function, and signalled the beginning of ornament as superfluous (Gombrich, 1979, p. 59).

Rejection of the Vienna Secession The context of Loos' work tends be forgotten - the intended audience of Ornament and Crime was actually the aristocrats and the artists of the Vienna Secession. Whereas the craftsmen could not afford any other artistic outlet, the wealthy could better enjoy the work of "Beethoven or ... Tristan". The modern (wealthy) man, could only be some kind of "confidence trickster" if he valued decoration when there were fine arts to engage with (Loos, 1997). Loos' problem with the Vienna Secession was their meaningless strive for 'artiness' for the sake of novelty. They had broken away from the conservative Akademie de bildende Kunste (Academy of the Fine Arts), with the aim connecting to modern art movements. Their mission was to reunite the decorative and the fine arts into a total art, or gesamtkunstwerk (Roseman, 2015). This was inspired by the Arts and Crafts movement - they sought to make everyday objects beautiful and therefore bring art to the masses (McBride, 2004). However Loos disagreed with their application of art to objects because it often hindered the object's function (Masheck, 2013, pp. 53-64). In his 1909 essay Architecture he argues that high art is the work of the genius, and is not concerned with the mundanity of everyday needs - beauty is purposeless. Therefore to conflate art with objects of utility denigrates art, as well as rendering the object less practical and later unfashionable.

Lilian Tran

Fig. 17 House on Michaelerplatz 1909-1911 by Adolf Loos. The stark white upper levels of the facade were ridiculed at the time of completion. Retrieved from: http://www.wienarchitektur.at/index.php?inc=guide&lang_id=en&_output=print on 4 May 2016

The avant-garde interpretation Despite that fact that Loos was not interested in ornament, he did not expressly forbid it either, as many believe. In Ornament and Crime Loos also explains that ornament is acceptable because the craftsman takes joy in his creative pursuit. The work of the "Persian who weaves his carpet" or the "Slovak peasant woman who embroiders her lace" is holy to them, and therefore Loos would "tolerate" their ornaments (Loos, 1997). A few years later in 1911, he wrote to Otto Wagner clarifying that those who decorate should use old ornament; modern society should not try to invent new ornament. "My enemies always want to assume ... that I oppose ornament in general, but I only oppose so-called modern ornament.... The invention of new ornament is ... -for cultivated people- a sign of degeneration." (Long, 2012) His message was rather calling for a reduction of ornament for pure novelty, similar to the way countless Victorians critics had done. However this aspect of his argument was often ignored. The essay went on to have a decisive impact on the French avant-garde and particularly Le Corbusier, who republished it in L'Espirit Nouveau in 1920 16. They had misunderstood the context within which it was written, and repurposed Loos' criticisms to support their vision of a pure and unadorned aesthetic. Thus Loos came to be venerated as the founder of modern functionalism. (Long, 2012) It did not help that Loos' vitriolic style of writing lent itself to being remembered bluntly, without the nuance of his intentions. 'Ornament and crime' is easily misconstrued as ornament is crime. Though he compared his compatriots with tattooed criminals, he used this metaphor to make his criticisms memorable. His meaning was that ornament was socially and culturally wrong, but with cultural evolution it would gradually disappear on its own as a natural process. He stated again in Ornament and Education in 1924 that - "the evolution of humanity would cause ornament to disappear from functional objects ... But I never thought like the purists who pushed this reasoning to the absurd, that ornament should be systematically abolished". However Loos' attempts to redefine his position were generally ignored or forgotten.

Ornament and Crime was only published German in the Frankfurter Zeitung in 1929, which suggests that the essay did

not cause an immediate uproar from the decorative artists, as many believe.

Lilian Tran

Fig. 18 The Dessau Campus of the Bauhaus, 1925. The modernist facade of the early20th century is void of any ornament or decorative effect. Retrieved from: http://www.dezeen.com/2013/10/30/bauhaus/ on 6 June 2016

Conclusion

From luxury to commodity The disappearance of ornament in the early 20th century is often attributed to a combination of machine production, which commodified ornament; and the dominance of modern international style, which denounced it as superfluous. In addition, Adolf Loos tends to be misinterpreted as the original opponent of ornament, who called for its total rejection. Though these issues invariably played a role, there were many other contributing factors that are generally underestimated. As argued in this thesis, a key aspect was the context of middle class desire for decorative art, and the design reformers' method for regaining control of ornament. Firstly, it cannot be dismissed that the rise of the machine challenged the notion that ornament was an expression of the human impulse to decorate. By shifting the mode of production the skill of the craftsman was transferred to a lifeless machine. It also allowed for ornament to be manufactured on an unprecedented scale, which altered the intrinsic value of ornament as a symbol of wealth and status. Tradition dictated that each class of society used appropriate ornamentation for their standing, but imitation products made it easier to breach this decorum. Since people could buy cheaper versions of expensive ornament, according to their income, a new consumer culture arose, and turned ornament into a symbol of wasteful behaviour. This practice of over ornamenting stemmed from the desire of the newly rich to command a higher social standing. To a certain extent, it is arguable that machine production fuelled this middle class desire - manufacturers had a vested interested in selling more goods and created overloaded displays of ornament to tempt them. However, it is worth remembering that rudimentary machines were also used for producing traditional ornament, and the problem was more to do with those in control of production, than the means of production itself. Furthermore, the decorative impulse and 'bad taste' had been an issue for the design critics before these products had reached the stage of mass production. Thus industrialisation and the rise of the machine exacerbated the existing problem of excessive ornament, but did not trigger it. Secondly, it is interesting to consider that while functionalism was developed as an ahistorical style that decried ornament of the past, many of its key tenets are reformulated arguments from the 19th century. The notion of expressing structure to convey function is connected to the idea that design must be 'honest', and should not disguise itself as something which it is not. On top of that, the concept of designing according a material's inherent properties is rooted in the theory

Lilian Tran

of truth to material. Thus although the era of functionalism decidedly banished ornament, the design theory that followed was derived from the Victorian reformers.

The ornamental affair and critical morality As already stated, the commonly overlooked factor in the demise of ornament was the influence of the new, self-made middle class, who were relatively uneducated but economically powerful. Many of them benefitted from lucrative trade and had accumulated vast fortunes. By the early 1750s, this hitherto non-existent group of people exerted a significant sway on the work of the artist, who now depended on public approval for their livelihoods. Their consumer power was creating a culture-based market that displaced the traditional system of patronage. By the 1800s the obsession with ornament had become entrenched. In addition the growth of new towns, and developments in communication and transport, placed people in the public eye far more than in the past. Therefore they expressed themselves with extravagant ornament, and had a greater desire to define themselves to others 17. This new market appeared to favour the idea of wealth above any other aspect, including quality or taste. However prominent artists and architects considered their values and tastes abhorrent, and believed that this consumer class was destroying standards of design and constraining artistic freedom. They also objected to how the classical understanding of beauty as a universal and absolute quality was being tested, and the growing idea that the beauty of an artwork was actually subjective. Thus debates ensued on whose taste was superior - naturally the artists and critics considered their own standard to be the best, and popular taste could not be entrusted with controlling artistic expression. Reformers tried their utmost to improve the quality of ornament from what they considered to be detestably bad taste. However, the concept of free trade was entrenched in the Victorians as the fundamental rule of governance, therefore it was unthinkable to interfere with how the market operated. The critics' only option was to teach taste to the consumer. But their attempt to spread art knowledge through mass art schools failed, and imported taste still won out.

Catalogues from art exhibitions in the mid 18th century show that portraits of noblemen and ladies of high class had

become more common than historical paintings, despite the latter being a more prestigious undertaking. It was likely due to the fact that the uneducated public were not knowledgeable on ancient historical references, and were more interested in the social status of important persons of the day (Brolin, 1985).

Pugin entered the fray with moralistic principles to judge art, based on a concept of honesty. By doing so he fundamentally changed the criteria for judging aesthetic - with the mind not the eye. He reasoned that there should be more restrain and flatness, and the prioritising of functional needs above aesthetic extravagance. Other key critics made similar arguments, such as Redgrave, who sought out a material truth, and Jones, who insisted on the need for repose. By contrast Ruskin positioned himself outside of the mainstream critics, and viewed the whole problem as the market itself. Socialism would wrest the freedom of the arts back from the clutches of the market and their poor taste dominating the market. Furthermore he despised the lifelessness of conventionalism, instead championing irrational and spontaneous ornament at the hands of the craftsman. Regardless of their individual stances, the critics used rationalisms couched in moral terms to reposition ornament as a theoretical discipline as opposed to an aesthetic taste. Their principles lent them an authority with which they could re-establish tasteful design in the decorative arts. They certainly did not have any intention to abolish ornament. However their rationalisms were actually a clever use of logic to justify their own preference, evident from the rather weak reasons for flatness and against decorative naturalism. Thus the principles were not so much the determining truth of ornament, they were the tools for controlling ornament. In order to limit ornamental excess, they criticised heavy, realistic relief and the overuse of period styles. But realistic depictions were consistently connected to historical and natural references. Therefore its disapproval eventually resulted in the loss of the key inspiration of ornament. From there it spurned an increasing level of abstraction, from which was a small step to the idea that ornament no longer had meaning. Furthermore, since ornament was intrinsically liked to the notion of style, when the styles were dismissed as an unacceptable imitation of the past, ornament disappeared along with it (NecipoÄ&#x;lu & Payne, 2016, p. 2).

Lilian Tran

The decline Eventually ornament was shaved of all its traditional meanings. Ornament had been a status symbol and communicated order as well as identity. It had an expression, a function and represented an anthropological desire of human creativity. However this concept of decoration as a

human impulse was eventually turned on its head, and was seen as a primitive state

development instead of romantic connection to simpler times. Since the critics had concluded that the ornament of the savage was superior, the middle class obsession with ornament was almost some kind of psychological problem. This was the precursor to Loos' assertion that good ornament was representative of uncivilised society. He argued that ornament was socially and culturally wrong. Although he did not ban ornament, this how his message was interpreted by the 20th century avant garde, and largely how it is still remembered. With his message re-appropriated for the modernist manifesto, ornament had become irrelevant for the modern person, fashionable and thus wasteful, and a hindrance to function. Loos' writings were a culmination of the problem of ornament and bad taste in the previous century. After endlessly fruitless debate, it appears to have been easier to simply removed the problem than to solve it.

Lilian Tran

Bibliography (n.d.).

Retrieved

May

28,

2016,

from

Sir

John

Soane's

Museum:

http://www.soane.org/about/our-history Albert, P. C., & Helps, A. (1862). The principal speeches and addresses of His Royal Highness the Prince Consort. J Murray. Bizup, J. (2003). Manufacturing Culture: Vindications of Early Victorian Industry. University of Virginia Press. Brolin, B. C. (1985). Flight of Fancy: The Banishment and Return of Ornament. St Martins Pr. Buzzard, J. (2007). Victorian Prism: Refractions of the Crystal Palace. University of Virginia Press. Crook, J. M. (1987). The Dilemma of Style: Architectural Ideas from the Picturesque to the Postmodern. University of Chicago Press. Dewald, J. (2004). Industrial Revolution. Retrieved May 28, 2016, from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Industrial_Revolution.aspx Gombrich, E. (1979). The Sense of Order: A Study in the Psychology of Decorative Art. Phaidon Press Ltd. Jones, O. (1856). Grammar of Ornament. Bernard Quaritch. Long, C. (2012). Ornament is not Exactly a Crime: On the Long and Curious Afterlife of Adolf Loos' Famed Essay. Potlatch , 31-48. Loos, A. (1997). Ornament and crime. In M. M. (translator), Ornament and crime : selected essays. Ariadne Pr. Madsen, S. T. (2013). The Art Nouveau Style. Courier Corporation. Masheck, J. (2013). Adolf Loos: The Art of Architecture. I.B.Tauris. McBride, P. (2004). In Praise of the Present: Adolf Loos on Style and Fashion. Modernism/Modernity , 11 (4), 745-767. Museum of Ornamental Art. (1852). A Catalogue of the Articles of Ornamental Art in the Museum of the Departmen. H.M. Stationery Office.

NecipoÄ&#x;lu, G., & Payne, A. (2016). Histories of Ornament: From Global to Local. Princeton University Press. Officer, L. H., & Williamson, S. H. (n.d.). Five Ways to Compute the Relative Value of a UK Pound Amount, 1270 to Present. Retrieved January 2016, from MeasuringWorth: https://www.measuringworth.com/ukcompare/ Oshinsky, S. J. (2006, October). Design Reform. Retrieved May 21, 2016, from The Metropolitan Museum of Art: http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/dsrf/hd_dsrf.htm Owen, H., & Ferrier, C.-M. (1851). Official Descriptive and Illustrated Catalogue of the Great Exhibition of the Works of Industry of All Nations (Vols. 1-3). Spicer Brothers. Payne, A. (2012). From Ornament to Object: Genealogies of Architectural Modernism. Yale University Press. Pevsner, N. (1951). High Victorian Design. S. Cowell Ltd. Pevsner, N. (1960). Pioneers of modern design: from William Morris to Walter Gropius (2nd ed.). Penguin. Picon, A. (2014). Ornament: The Politics of Architecture and Subjectivity. Wiley. Pollio, V. (n.d.). Ten Books on Architecture/Book IV. (M. H. Morgan, Ed.) Retrieved May 22, 2016, from Wikisource: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ten_Books_on_Architecture/Book_IV Raaij, M. v. (2014). Building as Ornament. Nai010 publishers. Richards, T. The Commodity Culture of Victorian England. 1991: Stanford University Press. Roseman, R. (2015). A History. Retrieved 06 03, 2016, from Vienna Secession: http://www.theviennasecession.com/vienna-secession/ Ruskin, J. ((reprinted 1961) 1848). The Seven Lamps of Architecture. Noonday Press. Ruskin, J., & Morris, J. (1981). The Stones of Venice. Folio Society. The

Crystal

Palace.

(n.d.).

Retrieved

March

14,

2016,

from

VictorianSchool:

http://www.victorianschool.co.uk/Gt_exhib.html The Great Exibition. (n.d.). Retrieved Jan 9, 2016, from StAndrews: https://www.standrews.ac.uk/~city19c/viccity/crystal1.html

Lilian Tran

Victoria, Q. (1851, May 17). Queen Victoria's Journals. 31 , 248. Virtue, G. (1851). The Art journal illustrated catalogue : the industry of all nations. Published for the proprietors by George Virtue. Watkin, D. (2001). Morality and Architecture Revisited. University of Chicago Press. Wornum, R. (1851). Exhibition as a Lesson in Taste. The Art journal illustrated catalogue: the industry of all nations , I*** - XXII***.