Textile Design and the Copyright Law of 1842

Illustration: Benecke and Co. Calico print textile design, 1849.

English, as opposed to British copyright laws of the nineteenth century, Ireland and Scotland were treated separately, were deeply flawed for a number of reasons, particularly those concerning textile design. One of the major flaws was the fact that textile design copyright was only available for a three month period, the other major flaw was the fact that copyright during this period was only ever national and never international in its status.

It was common practice for various American textile companies for example, to employ agents in England who would take advantage in the lack of any international consensus on copyright infringement in order to export new textile design work which could be sent across the Atlantic and then rapidly reproduced in the US. The international industrialisation of the textile industry meant that any textile design smuggled out of England could soon be mass-manufactured on any scale with perfect impunity.

Illustration: Inglis and Wakefield. Moultan printed muslin textile design, 1849.

This international trade in creativity with the corresponding loss in revenue for both government and individual company was seen as an outrage by many critics of England's poor copyright laws. However, the fact that English companies had long been guilty of the same 'crime' in France for example was often either deliberately played down or else conveniently ignored. By working for the extension of the copyright laws to incorporate textile design, critics and campaigners in no way limited its own capacity for piracy. With no international copyright framework in place, English companies were still free to copy designs from Europe as they had done for centuries. It is interesting that at no point was the blatant disregard for Indian copyright of original textile design work, which English companies had ruthlessly exploited since the seventeenth century, ever discussed and if it was it was so obliquely mentioned as to be seen as irrelevant to the argument.

In the respect of national rather than international copyright laws, it may seem somewhat puzzling as to the real point of any campaign to change the law which was bound to be ineffectual if not a practical hindrance to much of the English textile industry during this period. 

Illustration: Macalpin and Nephew. 'Rosebud' printed chintz textile design, 1849.

When in 1842, the British government extended the law in England pertaining to the copyright of textile designs from three to nine months; it was seen by many critics as a triumph in the struggle towards the improvement in design quality. It was seen that perhaps it would mark the end of low-standard and direct copies being made of original design work. The fact that the original three month copyright law that had been introduced in 1794 had taken a generation to update might well have seemed to have been a call for general jubilation, although as with many British laws it tended to be underfunded, muddled and therefore ineffective. Many victims of copyright infringement found the process of going through the law courts overly long and needlessly expensive and because there was no real international perspective to the law, it remained largely pointless when dealing with the real culprits of textile design piracy, those companies that had their premises outside of Britain.

The English copyright laws regarding the larger world of art and design, which also included book publications, had been relatively widespread in one form or another and had been in existence for over half a century by the time of the extension of the textile design copyright law of 1842. That the same courtesy had not been extended to textile pattern work says much about the status or at least the perceived status of this particular industry amongst those involved in law-making, most if not all of whom were from wealthy backgrounds and would certainly not have seen themselves as the typical customers from mass produced textile design work. 

Illustration: Simpson and Young. Printed cotton textile design, 1849.

English textile design work was often seen at the time as being split into two differing spheres and therefore two markets. The London based textile industry was an old one that had seen its particular heyday in the eighteenth century. It was one that was often perceived as high status and depended largely on the old tradition of block printing. The new industry which was largely based around Manchester, was mostly industrially based, very much part of the contemporary nineteenth century world and used rollers to produce large scale textile work. 

While block printed work in the south was seen as status driven and uniquely creative, the roller printed work of the north was often seen as being transient and of no real merit creatively. London textile companies often portrayed themselves as victims of Lancashire piracy, and while there was a certain truth in that fact it was only partially true. In some respects, the copyright extension law from three to nine months was part of a concerted effort to save the London based block printing industry from what was considered the brash and ruthless manufacturing industry of the North. 

 Illustration: Swainson and Dennys. 'Rose and Forget-me-not' chintz textile design, 1849.

There were certainly other concerns raised by both northern and southern critics and campaigners for both sides of the copyright debate. Interestingly, those against copyright in any form raised some relevant points that perhaps still dog us today. For example, there were genuine attempts to discuss dispassionately the concepts of initial creativity and then that of inspirational creativity. When can a design truly be seen as uniquely creative and when can a design be seen as inspirationally creative, and does one designer who was inspired by another designers work owe that initial designer any acknowledgement or even coverage by copyright infringement protection? Also, many saw the copying of design work as a form of free publicity for both designer and company, whereby the most successful company would be copied enthusiastically and therefore would be seen by many as the leader in their field purely because of the level of outright copying or plagiarism.

The arguments and discussions of the early 1840s concerning creativity, ownership, the level of fairness and what we would designate today as perhaps 'fair usage' are probably as relevant today as they were one hundred and seventy years ago. That the copyright laws of the nineteenth century often could not keep pace with the contemporary technology certainly brings this period closer to our own. That there is still copyright infringement today in the textile world, some blatant some subtle, some done by small individuals and others by large scale international companies, shows that this troubled area has always been one that has been associated with textile design and probably always will.

The five textile designs illustrating this article are not involved in any argument in copyright infringement and are placed purely for the fact that they are typical designs from the period.

Further reading links:

The Future Opportunities of Hand Production

Lacemaking in Lefkara, Cyprus from Etsy on Vimeo.

Today's article was to be on a different aspect of lace design. However, I was approached by Etsy regarding the above video and was intrigued by the subject matter. The video deals with the seemingly age-old problem of machine versus hand production. The video itself deals with the situation in Cyprus where traditional lace embroidery is inevitably being led towards extinction by the importation of cheap machine produced lace, mainly from China. Cyprus is by no means the only area of conflict between machine and hand production and China is not the only culprit in flooding the market with cheap products. However, this video does highlight the acute confrontation between machine and hand production, which is mainly one of a personal and cultural mind set.

The problem itself is over two centuries old and entails most, if not all of the traditional crafts. However, textiles seems to have suffered perhaps disproportionately, with most of the industry at one point being exclusively hand produced, including both woven and printed textiles, along with embroidery, carpet and lace production. 

The industrialisation of the textile industry started in Britain in the eighteenth century and has been enveloping every aspect of the industry ever since. Lace was one of the last crafts to be industrialised because of its human complexity, and even now mass produced lace work is obviously inferior to that of the hand crafted variety. Traditional lace workers across Europe produced work for domestic, and particularly fashion industries for generations. Each piece of lace was hoarded and protected so that samples often travelled down the generations through families. 

Part of the appeal of lacework was the fact that it was so labour intensive and therefore expensive. It was also valued as a piece of human creativity, an individual piece of work that had been produced by human hands and therefore connected both human lace worker and customer. Part of the problem with machine production is the fact that, by its definition, it deals in quantity rather than quality. The casualness of bulk production severs the human link with the mass produced piece as it is now a relationship of machine and human rather than human to human, with the result that the casualness becomes part of both the market and the way that individuals treat the products produced by machine. They seem valueless and because of their relative cheapness and availability they are easily and readily replaced. 

Unfortunately, this casual indifference has become part of the tragedy of a consumer culture that has nowhere left to dump its discarded casual buys. One thing that hand craft can teach us is about finite availability, rather than infinite availability. Rather than buying fifteen mock woollen tops over a year, which would then only last that year, we could buy one or two that had been hand knitted and would last perhaps a decade. Instead of buying cheap chipboard furniture every three years, we can buy good hand produced furniture that although expensive would only need to be bought once in a generation. A good hand produced rug should last an entire lifetime and then still be useful to another generation.

The argument is always that hand production costs too much for the average wage earner to buy. While this is true, it is also part of a mind set. While good hand crafted products are expensive, they should last much longer than those spewed out by the mass produced market. Therefore, saving for choice pieces of furniture and accessories, rather than filling a home with cheap but voluminous items, makes sense particularly as far as the environment is concerned. Because we are told that it is our duty to consume in a market economy, does not mean that we have no choices to make. Many in the world survive on an a much smaller range of creature comforts.

This is not to say that the hand craft industry can change the world and save the environment. Many of our every day products cannot be produced by hand and are such an integral part of our life that we are loathe to give them up. However, there is no reason why the hand craft market cannot be much larger than it is. A proportion of the consumer market could well be sourced from the traditional crafts, and although it may well mean that the fashion led market of in built obsolescence would have to be reduced in scale and size, it may well help us to take control of our seemingly runaway dumping of machine made goods.  

There are still many professional craft makers across the globe, and an increasing army of amateurs. If the unfocused enthusiasm of the maker and the market led indifference of the consumer can be guided towards each other, then a brisk trade in products made for longevity rather than fleeting fashion could be fostered. Instead of buying cheap machine produced lace to throw away, we can buy a piece of hand produced lace that can be passed down to another generation.

This has turned into more of a personal article than perhaps intended, and by its nature will be bound to be disagreed with, which is as it should be. I like to think however, that perhaps some may see as I do, that the Etsy video does not necessarily spell the end of hand production, but rather shows an opportunity to at least fundamentally rethink some of the aspects of our market economy, the fashion dominated world and the consumer market that cynically uses it. That hand craft can be seen as part of the solution to some of the more pressing environmental problems of a throwaway culture, lends support to the fact that traditional crafts, of whatever form, still have a purpose and a vital function to play in the twenty first century and beyond.

I would like to thank Etsy for approaching me with this video and giving me the opportunity, or excuse, to write this article.

Heywood Sumner, Decoration and the Machine

Illustration: George Heywood Sumner. Wallpaper design, c1907.

George Heywood Maunoir Sumner who was usually much better known as Heywood Sumner, initially trained for a career well outside the usual parameters of a creative lifestyle, that of law. It was his life long friend and future artist and designer W A S Benson that introduced Sumner to both William Morris and the larger English Arts & Crafts movement.

Interestingly, Sumner was openly critical of Morris interpretation of the decorative arts which he saw as both elitist and an extremely narrow interpretation. He spent much of his career trying to broaden the parameters of the Arts & Crafts market by supplying good quality design work to many who could not afford the lifestyle and prices that were at the heart of both Morris & Co and much of the English Arts & Crafts movement. This of course meant that Sumner had often to deal with the more overtly commercial and industrial aspects of the decorative arts world, something that many in the English Arts & Crafts movement either failed to take account of or purposely ignored altogether.

It is always difficult to rationalise the price tag often given to well designed hand craft, especially when considering the initial intention of designers and crafts people in wanting to deliver good hand craft to all, particularly those on limited budgets, which to be fair has always been most of the population. Few have managed the balance well, but many have tried with varying degrees of success. The inclusion of industry as a requisite has always had to be a factor, often a compromising one. This has frequently been seen as a compromise too far for many, particularly amongst the English Arts & Crafts movement.

That many English artists, designers and craftspeople had either a fully formed aversion to all forms of industrial production, or levels of uncomfortable compromise, is a foregone conclusion. However, a number of individuals did realise that compromise had to built into a system that was prepared to see fairness in good design. In other words well produced and thought out design and decoration work should be seen as being available to every financial budget, not just those who were wealthy enough to procure the likes of William Morris.

Illustration: George Heywood Sumner. Rosa Rugusa wallpaper design, c1915.

Whatever the complexity of the relationship between the English Arts & Crafts movement, hand craft, industrial production and the general public, the work of Heywood Sumner covered a range of disciplines both hand and machine made. He was known to have produced work in illustration, through stained glass, to textiles. He also produced a range of wallpaper design work through the end of the nineteenth century and into the first early decades of the twentieth century. Both examples shown here one from around 1907 and the other from 1915, share certain similarities with both Morris and the English Arts & Crafts movement. This goes to show that although Sumner may well have disagreed with Morris and others in the movement, on the principles of elitism, he did not necessarily disagree with them on the topic of decoration and its origin in nature.

It is important to remember that while radical ideas towards the linking of hand craft design with industry were being worked out in other areas of Europe, particularly Germany, Britain and more specifically England saw things very differently.  In Germany decoration was taking on the early form of Modernism, whereby surface pattern, for example was becoming more and more radicalised, so much so that in some cases it was beginning to take on the appearance of mass production itself, seeming to glorify the process of the machine.

In England, although many like Sumner believed that cheaper and more immediate decorative work should be offered to the general buying public, they were still very much of the opinion that the decorative work should still give the appearance of hand production, even though the process of its making was far from that source. It is hard to say who had the right attitude to mass production, if there ever was a right attitude. The German process was one that was more than pragmatic, and in a way celebrated both the coming twentieth century and the practicalities of using the machine to produce products for entire populations rather than the few. The English attitude was one that was more pensive and involved the maintenance of the illusion of hand crafted design and decoration, despite the fact that the machine was often behind much of the production.

That the balance between man and machine has lost any hope of achieving a form of creative compromise is something we are well aware of in our own contemporary world. In many respects hand craft in England has become so rarefied and divorced from the domestic world that it has to all intents and purposes reorganised itself into a fine art form. To be fair this has often been through no fault of its own, but due to outside pressures and fundamental changes in both production and society in general. It may well be too late to reorganise itself yet again in order to serve the general public in a more pragmatic and practical sense.

Reference links:
The Ancient Earthworks of Cranborne Chase
New Forest
The Besom Maker And Other Country Folk Songs (1888)
HEYWOOD SUMNER'S WESSEX
CUCKOO HILL
The ancient earthworks of the New Forest: Described and delineated in plans founded on the 25 inch to 1 mile Ordnance Survey
Avon from Naseby to Tewkesbury: Twenty-one etchings
Combs Ditch and Bokerley Dyke reviewed (Proceedings of the Bournemouth Natural Science Society. [Offprint])
The Itchen Valley from Tichborne to Southampton;
The New Forest and Heywood Sumner
STONEHENGE TODAY AND YESTERDAY
 

The Deutscher Werkbund

Illustration: Deutsche Werkbund Exhibition, 1914.

Within the first few years of the twentieth century, certain aspects of German design was beginning to show signs that it was moving away from the formula of mainstream decorative styles, but perhaps more importantly, it was beginning to drift away from the precepts and philosophy of the Arts & Crafts movement, towards a more utilitarian form of design work.

Richard Riemerschmid was an early advocate for the concept that design should align itself much more closely with the world of manufacturing. He argued that the only way that well designed products could be produced at an affordable price was by the use and help of mass production. With this argument, Riemerschmid set himself squarely against the philosophy that had been adopted at an early stage and was headed by the English Arts and Crafts movement.

Many in Germany were convinced that the British were mistaken in their attitude of mistrust and antagonism towards industry, and that the Arts and Crafts movement, while having a worthwhile philosophy of hand made products for all, were in fact producing small amounts of very expensive goods purely for the wealthy consumer. The poorer and largest section of the community, while having the Arts & Crafts sympathy, were largely ignored by the movement.

The Deutscher Werkbund was founded in 1907 as an organisation that was to bind together both designer and manufacturer in a worthwhile relationship that was meant to be of benefit to both sides of the manufacturing equation, the creative and the profit led. Among the founding members were Richard Riemerschmid, Peter Behrens, Josef Maria Olbrich and Bruno Paul. However, also included were a number of manufacturers such as Poeschel & Trepte and Peter Bruckmann & Sohne. Interestingly, a number of design groups were included within the structure of the Deutscher Werkbund, incorporating such prestigious organizations as the Wiener Werkstatte and the Vereinigte Wekstatten fur Kunst im Handwerk.

Illustration: Deutscher Werkbund Yearbook, 1913.

In 1912, the Werkbund started to publish a yearbook that included a list of addresses and, perhaps more importantly, the various specialisations of its members, which by 1915 had reached nearly two thousand.

However, not all was harmonious within the Werkbund as the old issue of craftsmanship versus industrial production kept recurring, as not all members were convinced that mass production methods were compatible with the individual ideal of the craftsman. It was felt by some members that designers were having to make too many compromises in order to accommodate the machine.

By the end of the First World War, much of this debate had become irrelevant. By the start of the twentieth century, the explosion within the European consumer culture meant that the only way that supply could ever meet demand was through the standardisation and mass production of products.

In 1924, the Werkbund published Form ohne Ornament (Form without Function). This milestone publication praised industrially produced design work that showed brutally plain surfaces lacking in any form of ornamentation or decoration. The road was set irreversibly towards Functionalism.

The Deutscher Werkbund was closed down in 1934 by the Nazi party. However, by then it was far too late to stem the flow of contemporary design work and practises. The Nazis hoped to turn back the tide and dismantle Modernism, but what they saw as an aberration or an unfortunate fashion fad, was much deeper than they imagined. Modernism survived because it was a movement that was convinced that good design married to mass-production was the answer to affordable consumer goods for everyone, not just the few who could afford it. Interestingly the Nazi's, often more pragmatic than not, used Modernism and its ideals when it suited their needs.

When we consider the world we live in today. We all sit in front of our computers, but only because they are not hand crafted. They are mass-produced in order to make them available to everyone at an affordable price. We may well bemoan the situation we find ourselves in and the one we have willingly made for ourselves. We now live in a world where hand production is no longer the norm. We have become ensnared in the ever-tightening mesh of the consumer market. Many feel we have lost more than we have gained, but that is perhaps a prospect for future generations to analyze.

Further reading links:
The Werkbund: Design Theory and Mass Culture before the First World War
The German Werkbund: The Politics of Reform in the Applied Arts
German Design for Modern Living
German Design 1870-1918
German Modern: Graphic Design from Wilhelm to Weimar (Art Deco Design)
Masterpieces of German Design (Masterpieces of Design)
Towards Post-Modernism: Decorative Arts and Design Since 1851
Modernism in Design (Reaktion Books - Critical Views)
Modernism: Modernist Design 1880-1940 : The Norwest Collection, Norwest Corporation, Minneapolis
Modernism in Art, Design and Architecture
Henry Ford: Mass Production, Modernism and Design (Studies in Design and Material Culture)
Design in the Twentieth Century: Birth of Modernism (1900s-1910s)
Modernism: Designing a New World
Pioneers of Modern Design: From William Morris to Walter Gropius; Revised and Expanded Edition