Comparing the views of the Arts and crafts movement on

mass production of artistic and designed goods as opposed to

the approach of 20th century artists such as Lucienne Day and
her Husband.

‘So long as the system of competition in the production and exchange of the means of
life goes on, the degradation of the arts will go on; and if that system is to last forever,
then art is doomed, and will surely die; that is to say, civilization will die.’ (William Morris)
Morbid and filled with the mongerings of the death of civilization; could William Morris
have had a point? We live in an age where we can simply go online, parooze and browse
to our hearts content until we stumble into some cushion with a cute design we like, but
to only find that there more or less 100 of the same done by different people but yet.
Over-saturation would be a fitting term for the state of designs and art currently. We are
spoiled for choice in the number of beautiful designed products we have access too. One
can churn out a design and pay some printing company to ink up a shirt, jumper or bag
with said design. But is this inherently a bad thing?

I personally believe that one's income should not limit the beauty and appeal of the
product one buys, however when it comes to quantity of said product over the quality I’m
undecided. Does making a beautiful designed product available to the general public
mean sacrificing the overall quality and craftsmanship of the product?

In the late 1800s, William Morris helped found the Arts and Crafts movement along with
the philosopher John Ruskin. This movement could be considered one of the most
influential of modern Art movements and some believe was a response and criticism of
the industrial revolution and its negative social and aesthetic effects. Morris believed in
the value of craftsmanship and traditionally crafted art but felt a lot of guilt due to him
growing up in wealthy middle class family and having access to beautiful sights and
objects and later when his designs became popular among the middle and upper class.
(Pevsner 1991; Morris and Briggs, 1977; Visual-arts-cork.com, n.d.; MacCarthy, 1995;
MacCarthy, 2014 ) It was Morris and John Ruskin shared disliked the industrialisation and
shared labour of art and design; this ideology was mostly instilled within members of this
movement, though there would be some that didn’t fully embrace the no-use-of
machinery mentality. Even Morris despite his views on mass production had been willing
to commission work from various manufacturers who could meet his standards.(Pevsner,
1991; Morris and Briggs, 1977; Pye, 1968)
However many view this endeavour to persevere craftsmanship and statement against
industrialism to have failed but why might this be? (Worsley, 2005; Richards, 2013;
Pevsner 1991) I believe it is because the two ideals of the movement weren’t compatible
at the time and just in general; I strongly agree that everyone should be able to own nice
items, designs ect, but pairing that idea along with the preservation of crafts and guilds is
what I feel doomed the movement. For an example let’s take a look some of William
morris’s designs; both are beautiful, elaborate and portray natureal and floral forms
which was typical of arts and crafts movement. It is immediately clear that these designs
that a lot of time went into the creation of them but would one expect to see this in the
everyday home? Would a family with a limited income and time find this appealing or
even necessary?

These designs, though beautiful didn’t and now still don’t appeal to the mass and are
something you’d expect to see in the middle or upper class’s rooms. The designs
themselves didn’t have mass appeal. Now considering the amount of time required to
produce these designs, the ink and materials that go into creating them; how on earth
could you expect those low income foke of industrial Britain to afford these? (Victoria and
Albert Museum, 2018; Pevsner 1991) These designs wouldn’t have been produced in
mass due to the beliefs held by Morris and what was produced would have been more
expensive due to the time and labour spent on it. Trying to make artisan goods that take
considerably more time and effort than the factory, mass produced alternatives and were
more expensive and this isolated the very people that Morris and the movement were
trying to reach.

These were two juxtaposing ideas that didn’t have a chance to work together due to the
beliefs of the movement and the limits of the time. However Morris wasn’t the only
individual who would get the idea of good for the masses; in a post world war two Britain
another textile designer by the name Lucienne day and her husband Robin Day made
waves at the festival of Britain with their works. Lucienne made Calyx, a fabric for the
interoir of a room display her husband Robin had made for the show (Day, Day and
Jackson, 2011; Robinandluciennedayfoundation.org, 2018 )

As the picture shows, the overall aesthetic of the room is very modern and geometric and
reflects the change in taste that occured after world war two; people wanted something
morden. Robin created the rather spidery and steel framed furniture and in the left corner
we can see Calyx in it’s abstract glory. As can be seen in Fig.4 the design is rather
botanical and are highly abstract mushrooms and both compliment and contrast with the
steel framed furniture. Lucienne was said to be strongly inspired by European abstract
painters like Wassily kandinsky (Victoria and Albert Museum, 2018; MacCarthy, 2010;
Robinandluciennedayfoundation.org, 2018) Clayx became very popular, large quantities
being produced and several varieties varying in colour being available; it is even still
available to this day. Lucienne was able to cross a bridge that the Arts and crafts
movement had been unable to do; her work was in households all around Britain. Printed
onto cheaper fabrics like rylon so people with limited budgets could afford quality designs
and printed for longer periods of time to allow more people to have access to her work.
(MacCarthy, 2010; Day, Day and Jackson, 2011; Victoria and Albert Museum, 2018)

Similarly to William Morris, both Lucienne and Robin believed that art should be for the
people, and in the post-war year of social optimism this seemed an achievable aim. Her
furnishing fabrics, wallpapers and table linens were to decorate ordinary homes. After her
breakthrough in 1951 and despite her growing success, Lucienne remained committed to
the idea that art should be affordable for ordinary people. In an interview at a
retrospective exhibition of the Days’ work, ‘her husband said, "If you have any social
conscience at all you can't remain an elitist and work just for the few. Good design should
- and I still believe this - enhance people's quality of life. I suppose that's a fairly vain
thing to say. But that's what we thought." Lucienne added,’ (Higgins, 2001)

So much of what makes art is special is the fact that Art is an expression of oneself and
many, including Morris I think, feel that mass production can lessen the value of both the
item and the artist. One can appreciate the sentiments that were held by Morris and the
arts and crafts movement; one could even argue we are going through a bit of an
industrial revolution right now. With the advancement of our technology at an alarming
speed and the ever looming possibility of mass redundancy by replacing humans with
robots. And what does this mean for Art, as AI becomes more advanced and mimicking
the human brain, would the role of artists and designers also be made redundant.I would
argue that it wouldn’t and I feel that Lucienne Day and her work are an example of
embracing advancement and progress in technology yet not losing one’s artistic integrity
and views. I don’t think sacrificing the quality of the materialise necessarily takes away
from the quality of the design; it gives people who might not normally have access to
good design and chance to enjoy them, even if it isn’t for as long.

Both in their own rights are highly talented artists, William Morris, in my opinion being
incredibly important and influential for 19th century design. Lucienne day though maybe
not as well-known as William Morris I think is also a very important figure in morden
design. She might not be known as a revolutionary however her beliefs on Art and design
are far more suited to a modern capitalist society and a necessary adaptation of the
ideologies of the Arts and Crafts movement.