Illustration: Robert Horne. Wallpaper design, 1849.
British wallpaper design work during the middle of the nineteenth century, was wide-ranging and profuse. It tended to cater for most of the eclectic tastes and styles that were so much a part of domestic interiors of the era. However, because of its scope, it often came in for large amounts of criticism, not so much from the public or retailers, but from a select band of critics who saw reasons for a fundamental design and decorative reform of British industry. The fact that these same reformers could also often disagree with each other and even be inconsistent in themselves, makes the period even more confusing.
The English wallpaper supplier Robert Horne is a good example of a company that supplied good quality wallpapers to the market. Although on the whole was supported by the design reform critics, it also gave some doubts as to the consistency of their work and proved difficult for some critics to entirely agree as to what did constitute good wallpaper design.
Illustration: Robert Horne. Vine wallpaper design, 1849.
All of the five wallpaper designs shown in this article were produced by Robert Horne in the years 1849 and 1850. Most were enthusiastically welcomed by the design reform movement apart from a couple that were admired, bar some provisos which were raised in order to ask difficult questions as to the purpose of surface pattern and wallpaper design in particular.
The first two wallpaper designs shown here, were welcomed as excellent examples of both graphically styled pattern work that was also well balanced and took into account proportion, scale, colour variation and a distancing of the temptation to produce a realistic representation for interior walls. The fact that the second illustration Vine does in fact play with a certain amount of shadow and perspective seemed to have been allowed as it bordered on an element of abstraction and could therefore be seen as part of an overall pattern effect rather than a steer towards a realistic representation.
Illustration: Robert Horne. Wallpaper design, 1850.
The third illustration shows a vivid flock style wallpaper design from 1850. This seemed, at least to some design reform critics, as a little more problematic, not so much for its representational quality as it was obviously an abstract pattern shape, but the fact that the colour combination was deemed a little questionable and the pattern itself a little crowded and unbalanced. However, it was eventually approved as being of an acceptable quality, if a little grudgingly.
The last two illustrations caused a little more soul searching as both crossed the line of acceptability, at least as far as the design reformers were concerned. The Imitation of Pollard Oak example was a particular and specific problem area as wood and stone effect wallpapers were frowned on by the reformers as being deliberately dishonest. This was not dishonesty to the customer who was fully aware of the effect that was trying to be portrayed, or even that of guests and neighbours who would judge the effect when it was on the wall; it was much more a case of being dishonest to both the medium and the fabric of the discipline. Wallpaper by its very nature was a paper wallcovering and therefore should by rights be honest enough to portray itself as such. However, wood was an entirely different format and medium and when applied to walls would act in a different manner than paper. It basically came down to reformers objecting to the fact that manufacturers, designers and retailers were not allowing the honesty of materials to find their own merit, but falsifying through trickery and illusion, formats that were not real. Later in the century, this became a particular mantra of the Arts & Crafts movement, which placed honesty to materials at the very core of their idealism of traditional craft disciplines.
Illustration: Robert Horne. Imitation of Pollard Oak wallpaper design, 1849.
The problem with this particular wallpaper example was the fact that it was deemed at the time to have been excellently achieved, in other words, it was praised as an excellent example of illusion, and despite the fact that it would otherwise have been frowned on as an illusion; it was praised because of the standard of the illusion. This does, to a certain extent call into question some of the adamant rules and philosophies of the design reform movement, or perhaps it could be seen that even the best reformer sometimes had to admit to a job well done, even if it did break all of the rules.
The last example is more clear-cut, but still caused some confusion. The Trellis wallpaper design was accepted as a good imitation of pierced woodwork, which on its own did not cause any concern, even though to be fair the design was pretending to be something that it was not. What did cause concern was the fact of the use of shading which gave the illusion of shadow, which in its turn created a three-dimensional quality that could never be real on a flat piece of wallpaper. If the shading had been removed, then the design would have satisfied the reformers, but equally it would not then have looked like pierced woodwork, but that of an abstract and geometrical flat pattern and therefore would be changed out of all recognition with the original intended purpose which had been accepted by the design reformers.
Illustration: Robert Horne. Trellis wallpaper design, 1849.
Not all design reformers agreed with each other, with not all of them following the same rules. The reform movement was also not a public body but a loose confederation of concerned artists, designers and critics who could and were often ignored by both the industry and the public. However, the self proclaimed leader of the group was Henry Cole who was one of the leading civil servants of the time and therefore a certain official quality to the movement gave it more gravitas and influence than perhaps it really had.
What is shown by these five wallpaper designs by Robert Horne is the fact that design and decoration is rarely as clear cut and formulaic as some would wish it to be. Good design can be classed as both an objective and subjective experience, sometimes confusingly at the same time. Even the design reform movement had at times to pass judgement with variations of acceptance, though to be honest when they truly loathed a piece of design work, there was little ambiguity in their criticism.
Although the mid-nineteenth century design reform movement had legitimate concerns and arguments concerning the standard and direction of the British design industry, some elements of the movement were particularly rigid and paid little heed to the right of taste of the individual. It often appeared paternalistic, patronising and elitist. However, it did achieve an element of self-questioning as to the meaning of taste itself and the larger reflection of British design and decoration, its purpose and direction in the latter half of the nineteenth century.
Further reading links:
The Papered Wall: The History, Patterns and Techniques of Wallpaper, Second Edition
Fabrics and Wallpapers: Twentieth-Century Design
Wall Papers for Historic Buildings: A Guide to Selecting Reproduction Wallpapers
Fabrics and Wallpapers for Historic Buildings
Fabrics, Floor Coverings, and Wallpapers for Historic Buildings: A Guide to Selecting - set of 3 books
Wallpaper: A History of Style and Trends
Wallpapers in Historic Preservation
The Style Sourcebook: The Definitive Illustrated Directory of Fabrics Wallpapers Paints Flooring Tiles
Wallpaper in Decoration
The Walls Are Talking: Wallpaper, Art and Culture
Wallpaper: The Ultimate Guide
Wallpaper in Interior Decoration
London Wallpapers: Their Manufacture and Use 1690-1840 (Revised Edition)
Wallpaper in America: From the Seventeenth Century to World War I
Wallpaper
Wallpaper, a history
