The Human Pleasure in Decoration

Illustration: Iranian decorative ceramic, 17th century.

Decoration in its many forms gives instant and gratifying visual pleasure. It is one of our oldest legacies and has been a firm and constant companion throughout our development as a species as well as the more specific creative aspects of our development. However, gratification works very much on a personal level, a pattern that stimulates one individual, leaves another indifferent. Although there are certain forms of decoration that please whole groups of individuals, many of these patterns are culturally linked, and it still does not mean that every individual within that shared culture can appreciate the sentiment of a particular pattern. 

This is perhaps truer today than has ever been the case before. Our contemporary world is going through fundamental changes as far as the development of the individual is concerned. Traditional assumptions and social mores are being tested and questioned as the individual becomes more aware of choices that can be made in their life as independent of the group experience. These choices may well be as fundamental as to that of lifestyle, or as simple as that of choosing an interior environment in which to live. However, what is important is the encouragement of the individual to make choices that are independent of commercial pressure and the tricks of advertisers to coral individuals into specific and limited choices. Ultimately the choice to be an individual is the choice of the individual.

Decoration itself is an art form that seems genetically inherent to all humans. We have always embellished and added to, whether it be the simplest of clay pots and baskets, our interior spaces or indeed that of self-embellishment through elaborate hair styles, makeup and skin art. It seems extraordinary therefore that at least an element of the design world over the last century has consistently tried to disassociate and disentangle the obvious human pleasure in decoration from as many aspects of our lives as humanly possible.

To an extent, at least in the twentieth century Modernist movement, there was an underlying cultural, if not fully racist element in the movement towards the removal of decoration from the design world. Without getting into too many specifics particularly that involving individuals, there was a consistent belief amongst sections of Modernist thought that decoration was linked to what was erroneously termed 'primitive cultures', particularly those of non-European origin. It is perhaps puzzling and certainly hard to justify that a belief in the lack of embellishment and decoration placed a culture on a higher level than one that considered pattern to be an integral part of a finished product.

Most, if not all decoration is a human reflection of the external world. It is a creative interpretation of our relationship with our environment. Whether that is interpreted through realism or abstract geometry, colour or texture, large sweeping compositions or minute detail, it is a long-term personalised relationship between our existence and the experiences that that existence engenders with the world we inhabit. By denying that fundamental, almost visceral connection we rupture the relationship that we have built up over the countless generations with the natural environment. We forget the basic elements and constraints of life and start to create the shiny dissociative structures and cityscapes that have little if any real connection to the world of earth, sea and air, let alone any form of meaningful relationship with the framework of species that make up much of the planet. 

By divorcing ourselves emotionally as well as intellectually from the expression of decoration, we condemn ourselves to an existence of denying our basic function as an animal species with the ability to creatively reflect the complexity of our relationship with our planet. The further we withdraw into our artificial construct of urban living the further we move away from our effect on the planet. Our present vacuum of existence often seems incapable of understanding the fundamental concept of cause and effect, with obvious potentially catastrophic results.

This is not to say that if we suddenly embrace decoration in our lives all human problems will be solved. However, by enjoying decoration on an emotional level and understanding what an important part it should play in our everyday lives and that of our home and work environment, we are allowing ourselves to daily reconnect with the unique relationship we have as a species and as an individual with our life and that of the planet. By removing the human wonder and constant delight in decoration we are emotionally shutting ourselves down and anesthetising our life experience.

 Illustration: The ubiquitous plain white mug, 21st century.

Further reading links:

Wallpaper Design Work in the Mid-Nineteenth Century

Illustration: Wallpaper design produced by the Charles J. Gordon company, 1849.

It is always interesting when looking at English wallpaper design during the mid-nineteenth century, to see not only the range of styles, whether designated through colour, line, and overall pattern design, but also that of practical making as in whether hand-block or machine printed, both of which were relatively common in the commercial market of the period. Although it is often thought that hand was by definition infinitely superior to machine, this very often depended upon the design skills involved, and not entirely on the process. It is often the case, as with most things, that inexperience cannot make up for the process itself and it was pointed out by many critics in the nineteenth century that the inexperience of designers in both the hand and machine industries was a particular problem in England. In other words the process, whether hand or machine is only as good as the human behind that process.

Although critics by and large saw hand production as infinitely preferable in both technique and finish than machine production, many were well aware that the hand production system could not hope to service an expanding consumer market and therefore machine production had to be brought into the equation. Many were also aware that the industrial process was one that could be improved immensely with the right tools at its disposal. It may well not have been capable of competing with the high end of hand production but as this was a system that was itself  becoming increasingly limited to status and by its nature a financial one, machine production was the only practical resource for many.

One of the main criteria for better marketable work through industry was the raising of the standard of decorative pattern work itself and this, it was hoped, would be achieved through the increased standard of training given to designers. In many cases industry did well against hand production in the nineteenth century as far as pattern work was concerned, but in many other cases it did not. Although there were those who intensely criticised industrial decoration in any form, there were others who were more cautious in their criticism and tended to balance and often pinpoint that criticism, rather than keep it generalised.

There are a number of examples of wallpaper design work during this period that were staggeringly ill-advised on so many levels and perhaps should never have left the drawing stage. However, there was also a large range of design work that met much of the criteria of critics of the wallpaper industry, whether hand or machine produced. A number of industrial companies for example, produced both cheap and expensive wallpaper design work. Criticism was in no way limited to the cheaper end of the market, and nor should it have been. In actual fact it was often the more expensive end of the market that came in for the most vociferous criticism and not, as many would have expected, the cheap end of the market.

As far as industrial production was concerned, often the more expensive wallpaper design work had a problem in the design stage, or to be more exact, in the intrusion of the company within that initial stage. A number of manufacturers spent time and money increasing the number of processes that the decorative pattern went through, in order to justify increased prices. Therefore, by adding a wider range of colours as many as fifteen to twenty distinct ones in some cases, and a complexity of decoration, it appeared as if more labour and creative effort had gone into the design work, and through their own logic, more could be charged for these seemingly status pieces. However, by constantly overlaying colour and pattern decorative work became merely much gaudier and more confusing. As many critics pointed out, the number of added processes merely intensified towards an overall misguided mess of the original design work. Cutting the number of colours and simplifying the pattern work would inevitably do more to harmonise the pattern and balance the colour palette, and therefore the end product would appear more restrained and of a higher standard of design work. The cheaper end of the market, because of costs, tended to use fewer colours, sometimes as little as two, and much simpler pattern work. Therefore in some respects critics saw this end of the market producing infinitely better design work that the wealthier and costlier end.

Not everyone was convinced of course, and a number of companies continued to believe that the more razzamatazz that you added to a design the more impressive it would appear and the more that could be charged for it. The fact that that belief system is still with us today, at least in some quarters of the design world, shows its power of persuasion. There are many examples today in the market place of the loud all-purpose piece of technology for example, being seen, at least in some quarters, as much more impressive than the acutely simple.

As far as mid-nineteenth century wallpaper design work is concerned, a good example of cheap, but well-designed pattern work was that given by the illustration to this article. Although its cheapness was specifically mentioned by critics at the time, this wallpaper design produced by Charles J. Gordon in 1849 showed clearly what could be achieved by the use of a minimum colour palette and a relatively simple line pattern. Although it may seem a little garish to our own contemporary sensibilities it was considered in its own era as being a good, solid and pleasing design. Interestingly, it was recommended as a backdrop for the hanging of prints in gold frames within a domestic setting, something that perhaps we would find particularly difficult to contemplate, which says much about the gulf that separates us from the decorative norms of other historical eras and not so much about the right and wrong of particular aesthetics.

In any respect, it perhaps just needs an example or two to help explain the complexity of the situation faced in the mid-nineteenth century decorative and design world between hand and machine production, the confusion of what could and should be expected from the industrial sector and what was the purpose of hand production. The situation could never truly be explained through the simplistic 'hand equals good, machine equals bad' mentality, or indeed 'machine equals future, hand equals past' neither of which were strictly true although we still have those who adhere to specific camps and both sets of quotes. The truth lies somewhere in between and as with most truths it is a very messy and tangled place. However, it is important to highlight some of the uncomfortable truths of the past in order to learn from those. This helps us to set out a more complex study of the past, but also helps us to face some of the uncomfortable problems of the present, some of which might well need an element of compromise in order for us to go forward. 

No one should ever say that nothing can be learnt from the past as we are directly who we are today because of that past. However, studying the past as it really was and not as we would wish it to be, often simplistically, is the real task. Just as our own world cannot be explained in a few simplistic notes, nor can the past. The more I learn about the past the more complex it becomes, which to me is both fascinating and addictive, but it also means that what I believed to be true last month or last year, might well turn out not to be so, that is part of the journey, at least for me and I hope for others.

Further reading links: