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:
