ORNAMENTAL DESIGN.
8, Sandfield Place, Blackheath, 31st January 1855.
Sin—I now send you my promised remarks upon your criticism of my- lecture on Ornamental Design, delivered last month at the London Institu- tion ; and although your observations were short and unimportant, I incline rather to consider the worth of the subject itself, and of how much conse- quence it is to any country that her ornament be good, not only for the re- finement of the social habits of her people, but for the increase of her wealth; for nearly everything is ornamented to a certain extent, and of most things.
i the value is regulated by their ornamentation ;. consequently, the quality of the ornament of a country becomes a very serious element in the value of her industrial productions. In my lecture I endeavoured to show that it is character which gives the greatest attraction to ornament; that therein our ornament is particularly defective ; and that it would be well if our designers would remit a little of their attention to geometry, and study character. Well, in the first place you have after remarking that I gave more than due praise to the Pompeiian and Medieval decorations, said, that in the last. the gorgeousness of their colour might have misled me. Would you allow me to remind you, that the character presented in the Gothic I described as austere and sad. The example happened to be of painted glass ; and the splendour of colour consequent upon the transparency of the medium rather interfered with the austerity of the design—with that character to which I was calling attention : it was a disadvantage and could not possibly have raised my estimate of their excellence. With regard to the Pompeiian pat- terns, one of our most distinguished architects, who was present, came to me after the lecture, and, after making some remarks upon the Gothic, said, " As to your eulogy of the Pompeiian decorations, it is hardly possible to speak too highly of these admirable works." In another part you have spoken of the development of character being that part in ornamental design which the least can be affected by education. Surely the great press of interesting matter with 'which such a paper as yours must at this critical time be occupied had led away your attention from the subject when you made this remark ; for, with your knowledge of what is doing, you must surely have been aware that in fine art enuncia- tion of character is that which requires the most profound and well-directed. study : and if it be so in fine art, it must be at least as much in orna- mental.
I shall not seek to trespass further on your valuable columns ; but as the refinement of our decoration generally is a subject which interests me much, if any of your readers should wish to investigate the principles of character in the examples by which my lecture was illustrated, and would call on me at my rooms, No. 11 Leadenhall Street, in the City, where the said examples, now are, I will with great pleasure show them and comment thereon.
Allow me to be, Sir, your very obedient servant, JOHN ZEPHANIAH BELL.
[The promise to which Mr. Bell alludes in his opening sentence was made
in a letter which other demands on our space compelled us to omit. As re- gards his present remarks on ours, (which will be found at p. 1367 of the last volume,) we have only to repeat what we there said. We agree with Mr. Bell that character is the prime essential ; but we also continue to maintain. that a man of strong character, superior mind, and enough artistic faculty to
him to engage in decoration at all, will produce character in his work,
with or without much education,—although, of course, the more of that the better. The case of the individual Gothic design is a minor matter : we did not fully acquiesce in Mr. Bell's view of its excellence, but observed that the original might possess another excellence—that of colour. With these ob- servations, we must leave the question of "Character in Ornament" GA it stands.]
Previous page
