Illustration: A. Lapworth and Co. Carpet design, 1851.
The sophistication and level of technique and finish that was produced in carpet and rug design in mid-nineteenth century Britain is often underestimated, particularly as much of the industry was heavily criticised by various individuals, some of whom were part of the industry, but the vast majority being made up of interested amateurs, or professionals in other fields.
In general, criticism can be one of the easiest and yet most destructive of pastimes. Many individuals past and present have confused the ideal of criticism. Many believe that it gives them a platform in which to sneer and ridicule the work or performance of creative people without redress or balance. In our own time the number of startlingly destructive and negative websites and particularly blogs, dedicated to a personal and often blatantly misinformed criticism of a large range of subjects, is astounding. However, criticism should, by its nature, be both informative and constructive; otherwise it is useless and little more than a vehicle for a personal ego.
Constructive and positive criticism can often be one of the most neglected forms of both the amateur and professional critic. This is not to say that there are not critics who understand and evaluate a balanced view of a particular creative event or piece of work. However, criticism cannot be involved in personal tastes or indeed can flatter or play to a captive audience.
Although criticism of the British carpet industry of the mid-nineteenth century could indeed be savagely vociferous, other criticism was more circumspect and balanced. There was a call for more study of suitable decoration and pattern work for carpet design, as well as more specific education for those involved in the creative side of the industry. Some understood that an industry that often relied on the known and tried factors of design and decoration were perhaps unwilling, or at least hesitant to invest in new avenues that had no guarantee of success, the same is true to some extent today.
Illustration: A. Lapworth and Co. Carpet design, 1851.
Industry needed, in many ways, to be guided into at least seeing the potential for constructive building of design experience and a widening of the market, allowing for the expansion of creative choice that would suit both the industry and the public. Only by explaining fully the ideals behind a reform of the decorative arts would industry begin to understand the potential of creativity.
Other critics however, were only prepared to savagely humiliate the industry, belittling their output and castigating any movement on their part for the extension and expansion of the market. This is not to say that in many respects those particularly vociferous critics were not in some respects right in their conclusions, but it is not always helpful to create an argument for change and reform that only places emphasis on the extreme negative. While some in the industry had no real intention of introducing any element of change into either their businesses or their lives, others were well aware that there were problems and that the British export market was not as healthy as it should be. How that matter was to be tackled was unknown to many in the industry. However, that it needed to be tackled was certainly known.
Much criticism of the British carpet industry in the mid-nineteenth century was centred around both the perceived slavish reproduction of French or French styled pattern work, as well as the more design specific argument that surface pattern should be interpreted with a graphic quality rather than a fine art one. In other words, a flat medium should pertain to a flat pattern and not use illusionistic references that gave the impression that pattern work was three-dimensional, when it was clearly not.
However, this really only took into consideration parts of the industry that interested the individual critics, most, if not all of whom had no experience in any form of industrial decoration or design work, let alone experience within the carpet industry. Although not necessarily a requirement for criticism, technical experience should be seen as at least part of the solution to a critical evaluation. A number of critics were fine art trained and had little knowledge of the industry. They often made sweeping statements that were inaccurate and called for reform in an industry that they did not understand and whose reforms would have been neither applicable nor practically feasible.
Illustration: A. Lapworth and Co. Carpet design, 1851.
This sounds remarkably similar in many respects to our own contemporary world of unfocused and uninformed politicians who make judgements and decisions based on a lack of any real technical experience or empathy, and often consider only part of the problem and not the whole. That they produce as much damage and confusion as the nineteenth century critic was capable of, if not more so, is also blatantly obvious.
Criticism has its place and is a valuable tool when used wisely and in a balanced and compassionate manner. It should take into consideration the whole purpose and aspect of the creative exercise, whether that be an event, product or concept. We should all be aware that it is much easier to be a negative critic than it is to be a positive creative, and if we understand this then the relationship between critic and creative can be a potentially profitable, rewarding and fruitful one.
The carpet designs shown in this article were all produced by A Lapworth and Co for the Great Exhibition in 1851. They are by no means examples of inferior carpet design work, and if anything are actually highly technical pieces of work produced specifically for the Great Exhibition as examples of the companies technical status. However, these and other designs by a range of British companies were criticised on a number of levels not all of which could realistically be quantified as legitimate or technically relevant.
Further reading links:
