It was the desire to improve both aesthetic standards and working conditions that generated a further article of faith shared by many active within the Arts and Crafts movement: the belief that the material and moral fabric of society had been infinitely better sometime in the past, be it in the England of the Middle Ages or the America of the pioneer age. The ethos of industrial capitalism demanded production for profit rather than need and had generated shoddily designed goods in the process at the expense of both their aesthetic appeal to consumers and the well-being of the workforce. These miserable conditions were in stark contrast to those of a pre-industrialized past in which, it was generally believed, production took place under far more wholesome conditions. The crafts of medieval society had none of the "engine-turned precision" of modern industry, but they retained the sense of humanity that [John] Ruskin so admired. Writing on "The Nature of the Gothic" in the second volume of The Stones of Venice, published in 1853, Ruskin insisted that: "You must either make a tool of the creature or a man of him. You cannot make both. Men were not intended to work with the accuracy of tools, to be precise and perfect in all their actions. If you will have that precision out of them, and make their fingers measure degrees like cog-wheels, and their arms strike curves like compasses, you must unhumanize them."
(from The Arts and Crafts Movement by Steven Adams, 1996)
The more things change, the more they stay the same? We might not face exactly the same conditions as in the mid nineteenth century. But the process that Ruskin decried, wherein the industrialist's technological measurement becomes the standard for all activity, hasn't left us.
The Arts and Crafts Movement itself is intriguing. In a way it was backward looking. Of course. If you're looking for ideals and ideas, you have to examine the past at least a little. You can't look exclusively at the future, because the future isn't here yet and hasn't revealed its intentions.
2 comments:
At the time the Arts and Crafts Movement began it was the opinion of John Ruskin and others that there was still time to change the direction of the techno-mechanical culture that had been rapidly taking charge of events. The original Luddites were a group of skilled textile workers in the early 1800s who could see their jobs as hand weavers disappearing as machinery was being introduced.
Another famous member of the Arts and Crafts Movement was William Morris, artist, textile designer, poet, fantasy fiction writer, and medievalist.. among other things. I came to appreciate their deep passion for beautiful handmade goods and architecture. There are many examples of the work done by skilled craftsmen and women to prove the worth of his maxim: "one should have nothing in your houses that you do not know to be useful or believe to be beautiful."
I'm well aware the major proponents of the Arts and Crafts Movement were neither poor nor disadvantaged. Many were. Many still are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Morris_textile_designs
It's very strange that "Luddite" is so often used as an insult, and has been for about 200 years. Not only were the actions of the original Luddites understandable, we have little evidence they were wrong, in the long run. Of course the Arts & Crafts Movement wasn't uniformly against the use of machinery. They were, however, united in seeing craftsmanship as an important thing.
William Morris could well be called a Renaissance Man, although this is somewhat ironic given his enthusiasm for the Middle Ages. He probably did as much as anyone to spread the spirit of the Pre-Raphaelites outside of painting. His advice on what you should have in your house is very sound.
They tended to have the time and resources to devote to their avocations. The world could still look to their example, in any case.
Post a Comment