Better Design
THE arts and crafts of England, and, for that matter, of Europe and the rest. of the civilized world are at the present time at a very low ebb, and possess little artistic significance. To realize this it is only necessary to compare the design of modern buildings and furniture, modern fittings and domestic articles with those of the eighteenth century. The English craftsmen of the eighteenth century, nur- tured in tradition, possessed an extremely keen under- standing of, and feeling for, design. To-day, in an essentially commercial age, design is not considered of primary importance. The commercial mind is apt to overlook design because it is not a concrete asset, and therefore unnecessary either in contemporary life, or to posterity. Sporadic attempts are made from time to time by learned societies, architects and critics to revive an interest in good design : but all to no purpose. The individual unsupported effort of an architect who builds a house of good design is overwhelmed and its effect nullified by the ten thousand other houses of bad design which spring up around it. The same stultification of isolated endeavour applies equally to decoration and to furniture, and, in fact, to every branch of modern applied art. The great mass of the people never demand what they do not understand and therefore cannot appreciate. For this reason, fundamentally bad design may be said definitely to predominate to-day.
To make a tradition of good design to-day, as it was in the past, would be an impossible task. Organized educational campaigns throughout •the world would have but little if 'any effect' in' bringing its enor- mously increased population under the sway of an artistic tradition. An artistic' tradition is born and not made. Whether this century is a period -of transition, undecided and experimental, and whether the next century will succeed in resolving the doubts of this and evolve an artistic creed of traditional design, which all artists, architects, designers and craftsmen will possess in com- mon, may be open to question. We of -this century, however, must live in the hope that it will be so, and that the England of the future will reflect in its buildings and interior decoration, in its furniture and household appur- tenances, a school of traditional design equal to that which obtained in the past. What has been said may be criticize-a on the ground that I have disregarded the many people to-day who so sincerely appreciate good design. But I should like to make it clear that, in theae.remarks, am only referring to modern design. The design that persisted previous to the decadence of the nineteenth century is recognized as good and of a high standard* but to-reproduce this old design, or merely to rehash it, does not result in good modern design. To rebuild a modern house in the Georgian style, or to reproduce a Queen Anne chair, or again to make an electric light fitting in imitation of an old candelabra, is to ignore the basic principles of design. If the designers of the past had done this, then their work would never have approached the high standard that it actually reached. It would have been untrue to the period to which it belonged, and would, accordingly, have been- only a sham and an imitation. The aesthetic principles of design cannot be applied as a mathematical formula. They are not man-made laws, but owe their existence to such extraneous influences as the natural development of a human requirement, the limitations of a material, and the exigencies of a climate. The correct application of these aesthetic principles, therefore, does not require a studious or learned mind, but a temperament to which creative power, imagination and breadth of vision belong. In order that the man in the street may be able to grasp better the meaning of the principles of design the following examples may be cited. Greek architecture had square openings, owing to its trabeated construction. In such a construction an opening was spanned by a beam of stone or marble. This necessitated the openings being narrow, as such materials were unable to withstand a * An exception to this is the eighteenth century Gothic revival, and the extravagances in the Chinese manner which owed their conception to romanticism and a love of the exotic, transverse strain. In Roman architecture, on the other hand, the openings were arched, as the Romans used the method of forming an arch with-wedge-shaped blocks, The pointed arch of Gothic arehitecture owed its formation to constructional and not aesthetic reasons. It came about owing to the difficulty of vaulting an oblong compartment with semi-circular arches.
To use the design of a Gothic covering with a steel construction is to misapply the principles of design, as the Gothic arch in this case is of no constructional use, and is merely a sham. Houses in hot countries have small windows, and where there is much snow, as in Switzerland, wide eaves overhang the roofs. Sky-scrapers in New York have been evolved because New York is built on an island, and the only way of increasing the building area is to go upwards. It would be absurd to erect a sky-scraper in the Sahara for reasons of design. Doors are made of vertical proportions because the human form has more height than breadth. All chairs are designed with seats 18 in. high because this is the most convenient height ; writing tables are 2 ft. 6 in. for the same reason. The above examples show how design is affected by requirements, both human, materialistic and climatic. To go against these laws creates unnatural conditions, invites inconvenience and discomfort, and results in bad design because it is fundamentally incorrect. As a striking example of this the aeroplane may be cited, This machine is designed by an engineer, and its form and shape are entirely subservient to its functional purpose. The designer never had any thought of giving its form an artistic significance, and therefore, owing to the form being subordinated to the function the design is aesthetically good. This can• he appreciated from the appearance of an aeroplane in flight. That the material of which an object is made affects its design can clearly be seen by comparing Nelson's Victory,' made from timber, with the modern steel battleship. Both are of excellent and, graceful design but, if the mate- rials were reversed, the design of each would then be bad. To-day, the only people who achieve good design natu- rally are engineers. This is because they consider the function only and not the effect.
Architects, unlike engineers, are hampered by the existence of examples of architecture belonging to the past, familiarity with which prevents them from looking upon design with an unbiassed eye. They are for ever puffing the cart. Before the horse by thinking first of the design and then deflecting the principles ruling to-day to suit it. These principles, created by human wants and necessities, economic conditions, and the requirements of material, should necessarily produce a definite style of modern design, as different from past styles as the design:of Nelson's Flag Ship from that of H.M.S. Hood.' If, therefore, designers would follow the engineers, and permit the basic principles to control modern design, we should get a plainer and purer form of aesthetic expression which, in its initial stages, through the lack of tradition and precedent, might be " robotish " in character, but which, if it were faithfully adhered to by several generations of architects and designers, would eventually, surely result in the formation of a definite English style ; something that fitted our racial characteristics, that suited our social conditions, and was aesthetically harmonious with the Englishman of the twentieth century, just as the Eliza- bethan house was suited to the requirements of our ances- tors of the sixteenth century. R. W. SYMONDS.
(Copyright reserved.)
Previous page
