The Principles of Textile Design by Owen Jones

Illustration: Owen Jones. Textile design, 1851.

Although many critics wrote extensively on the merits of design reform during the early to mid-nineteenth century, particularly as regards surface pattern, we do not always get an opportunity to see personal examples of the ideas behind design reform. Usually we are given examples from various British and European companies giving an indication of good and bad standards of textile design as designated by the critic. This was usually the standard procedure because many of the critics involved in the Design Reform movement were not necessarily practical or technical designers, but came from a number of backgrounds, particularly that of fine art.

However, Owen Jones who was himself a vociferous promoter of what he deemed the correct principles of design and decoration did in fact produce design work himself, including furniture, interiors, architecture, carpet, wallpaper, ceramics, metalwork and textiles. It is in the disciplines of wallpaper and textiles that Jones was able to show the Victorian world his ideas regarding what he saw personally as being correct examples of surface pattern.

The example shown in this article is a design he produced in 1851 and was intended as a textile fabric for a chair cover and therefore was seen as a contemporary experiment in furniture fabrics. It was featured in an 1851 edition of the short lived Journal of Design and Manufactures, a specifically public platform for the Design Reform movement. The Journal has an interesting short article concerning this specific pattern in which it summarises nicely the ideals behind the movement in general and Jones piece in particular:

'Firstly, the design, is as it ought to be, of a perfectly flat unshadowed character. Secondly, the quantities and lines are equally distributed, so as to produce at a distance the appearance of levelness. Thirdly, the colours produce a neutral tint. And lastly, we may remark, that it is quite unobtrusive, which a covering of handsomer stuffs ought to be. The lines and forms are graceful, too, when examined closely.'

From this we can see that there were obvious main factors concerning both the Design Reform movement and Jones himself, at least as far as surface pattern was concerned.

There was that of a disregard, even denial for any physical use of illusion. The removal of any decorative tool that gave a form of shadow meant that surface pattern would become truly two, rather than three-dimensional, at least in its most obvious format. It was considered by the reform movement, and others, that surface pattern should really be seriously considering the medium in which it worked. Textile and wallpaper pattern in particular worked on either flat fabric or paper and therefore it was considered that a suitable decorative format for this flat medium should, in itself, also be flat. Many critics considered the contemporary penchant for three-dimensional floral, architectural, even landscape scenes, as particularly inadvisable. 

Jones himself drew examples of flat pattern work from the Islamic world, giving a specific and detailed indication of the consistent successful use of graphic styled two-dimensional decoration from Southern Spain to Northern India. Although not all design reform critics were necessarily convinced that the way forward lay through the understanding and contemporary manipulation of Islamic design work, Jones argument for at least the modern observation of Islamic pattern work was very persuasive.

The balance and harmony of pattern work was stressed in Jones textile piece. Many contemporary examples in mid-nineteenth century Europe tended towards the blustery and the florid. There was often no real consideration of the parameters of pattern apart from that of instant shock and allurement. Big flowers, whether separately or in garlands, were often surrounded by architectural features, many of which were merely added to fill the composition, rather than as an integral part of the pattern. The clash of interior fabrics within early to mid-nineteenth century interiors offended the sensibilities of the design reform critics, though the public at large seemed happy enough with the loudness.

This 'loudness' led on to the third important criticism of contemporary design as seen through the example by Jones. Colour was often, according to the critics, overused and certainly overblown. Rich, saturated colour fields were used increasingly in both textile and wallpaper design within the period of the early to mid-nineteenth century. In many respects, although manufacturers wished to give the impression that their pattern work was reflecting the wonders of the natural world through floral prints, much of the work was one of heightened reality, with floral work being picked out in super-realism with a colour palette to match. Design critics thought a more muted and certainly a more natural palette was needed in order to tone down some of the more kaleidoscopic excesses of contemporary interiors.

Lastly, and probably most importantly for a successful piece of design work, a combination should be sought between all three crucial elements, dimension, balance and colour. Only thorough this finely harmonised combination would the future of surface pattern work be guaranteed, at least as far as the Design Reform movement was concerned. 

Although not everyone was convinced, and certainly not necessarily manufacturers, although it would be incorrect to paint all textile and wallpaper manufacturers during this period as mono-focused capitalists, the Design Reform movement did make headway and by the end of the nineteenth century and more spectacularly in the twentieth, surface pattern as a flat decorative medium became much the norm. Some of Britain's most spectacularly creative textile work was produced in the twentieth century, at least up to and including the 1960s, and although many of these designers would have been indebted to a number of external influences and ideals, it cannot be dismissed that a relatively intense design reform debate held during the early to mid-nineteenth century, had some equally persuasive influence on the development of surface pattern.

Further reading links:

Informed Criticism and the Mid-Nineteenth Century Carpet Industry

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: