Classically Derived Ceramic Floor Designs

Illustration: Minton and Co. Ceramic Floor Design, 1851.

The Gothic Revival period of the mid-nineteenth century onwards can sometimes seem all-pervasive and it is therefore standard to see all companies supplying the interiors market with a preponderance of medieval inspired decorative work. However, as with all things, nothing is ever quite as neat, tidy and simple as some would perhaps prefer.

As with any period of the decorative arts, despite the fact that many are swept along within the framework of fashion and contemporary style often dictated by self-proclaimed arbiters of taste, much also depends on the more intimate and individual critique of personal taste and the perception and projection of the uniqueness of the individual. Of course, much also depends on actual and perceived status and in this respect companies that supplied the decorative official state and private domestic market were more than willing to cater.

Minton and Co which is a company very much associated with the Gothic Revival, they did after all produce ceramic tile work supplied by the designer who most saw as being if not the originator of the movement, then at least one of its most vociferous champions, Augustus Welby Northmore Pugin. However, the company also produced decorative work that could only be described as being within the classical mould. 

The two examples illustrating this article were published in 1851 and show plans for ceramic floor designs that are entirely classically motivated. Interestingly, they were shown within a publication alongside their more easily recognised medieval styled work. Although much has been said of the 'Battle of the Styles,' the famous arrangement whereby classical derived architecture and decoration was firmly locked in a bitter and often acrimonious public debate, some would say battle to the death, with medieval derived architecture and decoration, it was perhaps not all that it might have seemed, at least to many of the companies that supplied decorative to both sides of the argument. It seems sometimes as if the posturing was a little magnified, a little over-blown and certainly fuelled by those who had most to gain or lose in the public argument. Companies such as Minton and Co could not afford to alienate customers, potential or otherwise and therefore took the pragmatic option of supplying both camps with the best decorative work they could offer.

 Illustration: Minton and Co. Ceramic floor design, 1851.

It is sometimes a mistake to think that a particularly pervasive and instantly recognisable decorative style such as that of the Gothic Revival was equally all-pervasive in the market place and this can never be fully true. Although historically it makes more logical and orderly sense to place one style after another, the reality makes much less sense. Some of the debate and personal choice between classical and gothic has undoubtedly to do with perception. The classical was very much associated with the rural living aristocracy, whilst the gothic was equally associated with the new middle class and the rise of urban living. However, some of the old aristocracy took the gothic to heart and a percentage of the new middle class tried to ape their perceived betters by building in the classical. 

Either way, Minton and Co produced a couple of decorative floor designs that were probably some of the best work available during the 1850s. The colours are crisp and the decoration itself, whilst involved, is relatively quiet and contained. They are perhaps in many respects all that was expected of a classically inspired decorative interior. They may well not have been entirely correct in their exactitude and certainly during this period leeway was given to a sometimes creative approach to both the classical and medieval. However, Minton and Co were one of the better companies and had a relatively high status in both finished product and development of creative ideas.

As an interesting side issue concerning the animosity between classical and medieval inspirations, there have been a number of articles written concerning the difference in the outward projection of governments depending on whether they inhabit buildings that are classical, gothic or otherwise. Some have even suggested that Britain may well have seen its own projection slightly differently if it had had a classically inspired Houses of Parliament rather a gothic. Although this can never really be proved one way or the other it is a fascinating insight into perhaps the effect architecture and decoration can have on a nation or at least its outward projection, as well as its own self-belief.

Further reading links:

The Exuberance of Early Victorian Carpet Design

Illustration: Henderson and Co. Carpet design, 1851.

The beauty and complexity of carpet design has been with us possibly since the invention of weaving and certainly for the last two millennia or more. Although much of the obvious design work for this discipline can be found in Asia, Europe does have a history of uniquely individual design work that is linked to both traditional regional craft styles, as well as more recently studio based work that was originally hand produced and then machine.

In the nineteenth century British carpet production in particular, was becoming increasingly part of the mass manufacturing industry. With the increase in production there was an equal need for an increase in the number of distinctive pattern work examples for carpets. These were procured from a number of different sources which included traditional Islamic carpeting, French eighteenth and nineteenth century work, along with contemporary design work produced by various British designers, a proportion of which were part of in-house design teams connected to the individual manufacturers of carpeting. 

At least a proportion of decorative pattern work used in carpeting was derived from near copies of either existing work, or detailed drawings of styles both current and historical that could quite confidently be reused with little if any procedures concerning copyright. Copyright laws took much of the nineteenth century to systematically put in place, and much longer still to prosecute, particularly internationally.

However, original decorative work was possible and although perhaps being inspired from various sources, was still considered individual enough to count as unique. The two illustrations for this article show original design work for carpeting produced by the Durham manufacturing company of Henderson and Co in 1851. In fact, the two designs were entered as fitting examples of the work produced by the company for the Great Exhibition of 1851, held in Hyde Park, London. 

The two designs are complex and varied. They seem to bring in elements from Indian decoration in particular, which is an interesting development, India becoming more and more important to Britain both politically and decoratively as the nineteenth century progressed. However, there seems in these two cases in particular, a marked allegiance to Indian marquetry and inlay rather than textiles. Indian inlay work was particularly popular and very much admired in Britain for its complexity, skill and beauty. 

 Illustration: Henderson and Co. Carpet design, 1851.

The first example in particular, shows a sophistication and understanding of decorative pattern work. Not only are the arced decorative motifs overlapping and intertwining each other, but also scales are mixed with small splays of arabesques being picked out in both light and dark colours against the more obvious decorative bands which appear as though thick borders. This particular example seems vibrant and full of movement and must surely have been a visual feast for the eyes. 

The second example, whilst perhaps being more sedate in style, is nonetheless just as accomplished. The inlay styling whilst appearing a little more conventionally European in style, can still be associated with an Indian outlook. The differing styles of arabesque seem much closer in scale than the first example, although the differences are still there. Although both examples give only a sample of the full carpet design, it can be seen how the complexity of the decorative style was intended to be an all-over pattern. Interestingly, Henderson and Co were particularly known for their stair carpets and therefore these two pieces might well have been intended as either for that reason or all-over carpet flooring rather than the traditional four cornered carpet design, although there is no specific note of this.

It is unfortunate that neither example is in colour and no description of colours is given either. However, it should be assumed, considering that both examples are from the middle of the nineteenth century, that they would have been particularly bright, even perhaps florid by our tastes, although richly decorated and admired by Victorian standards. Although they may well not be to our tastes, they have to be admired for the depth of decorative work entailed in their design.

This is probably the high point of this particular style of British carpet and is the end of a sequence of design work that had been produced with ever more confidence and sophistication since the early nineteenth century. Although this large-scale, colourful and demonstrative pattern work for carpeting was to persist at least through the 1850s, by the 1860s styles had calmed and become more conventionalised with borders, medallions and florals becoming more readily part of the standardised compositions expected from tradition.

Although the first twenty years of the Victorian era in Britain, the 1840s and 1850s, are often looked upon as a particularly difficult time for the decorative arts, even as much as an intermediate era where design and decoration had little to offer and much to regret, it is perhaps worthwhile looking with a new perspective upon an era that at times at least gave the appearance of being little troubled by design reform and its obsession with correct colour combinations and pattern procedures. A period perhaps where colour, pattern and decoration were celebrated with large amounts of enthusiasm, frivolity and a coquettish amusement with the new and the novel. Although frowned upon by various parts of the Design Reform movement of the nineteenth century and certainly by the later Modernist movement of the twentieth century, there is an innocence to the exuberant decoration found in these carpet designs and the period in general in which they belong, an innocence that perhaps is sometimes overlooked.

Further reading links: