Alex Webber
Blog 2
2.2.2013
Prof. Middleton
William Morris and the
“Guild of Handicraft”
William Morris (1834-1896)
was a pivotal figure in not only the architectural and design facets in the
late 1800’s in England, but he also played a part in its ethical and cultural
position. He believed that you could not separate ethical issues from social or
cultural issues, and that the change brought on by the industrial revolution
wasn’t best for modern society. He and Ruskin thought that the art of the
handcrafting could never be replaced by industrialization and the touch of a
hard-working craftsman was more beautiful than the gears of industrialization.
Morris saw architecture as a method
to express the ideals of a society and the effect commercialization was having
on the everyday worker. His attention to detail and the objects that fill architecture
as well as the building itself was a fresh perspective. Poor quality of life
created by the Industrial revolution lead to a poor quality of art; similar to
Ruskin’s idea that art is a reflection of its society. Art was “the expression
by man in his pleasure in labor.” It was this school of thought that laid the
groundwork for great, detail-oriented architects in the future and how their
architecture and design could impact society. It became a new role in
architecture, because now it was the job of the architect and the craftsman to
improve the everyday life of ordinary people.
Morris was a fan of the medieval
style and saw its emphasis on manual labor and craftsmanship as something to imitated.
He looked at medieval design and nature for inspiration in his design and
design philosophy. Nature was a
perfect example of god’s design and nature spoke to the truth of the material. Bold
forms and strong colors from medieval styles inspired Morris because they were
derived from nature. Those same ideals went on to inspire the likes of Frank
Lloyd Wright and his colleagues in his Prairie School. Morris believed that the
machines of the industrial revolution had degraded the quality of life as well
as the quality of art and society. It was his passion for arts and crafts that
would revive a mechanized society.
“Artist should design, Designers should make
things.”
Morris appreciated and demanded knowledge of how to make
things, but the nature of the material as well. He saw it to be part of the
designer’s job to understand how a chair is made, and how metal is cast. An
artist, designer, and architect should be one in the same. All three must think
and apply the principles in the other 2 professions. This leads to the idea of
the “all knowing architect” and reflects the now traditional thought of an
architect being involved in every aspect of a project. That same idea can be
found in the works of Frank Lloyd Wright and Bernard Maybeck as well.
“Guild of Handcraft”
was Morris’ 19th century firm that looked at architectural
components and more so, the handcrafted goods that filled his architecture. The
object of the Guild was to craft everyday items delicately and skillfully for
ordinary people so that their lives would be enriched. Craftsmanship was a
thing of leisure to the craftsman, so work wasn’t considered work; it was a
pleasure to the worker. Morris idealized passion in the workplace and
commitment to your craft and making yourself a better craftsman through
practice and dedication. These values could not be found in the factories of
industrialization. In the end though, the labor and time required became too
expensive for the guild and their works could only be afforded by the wealthy,
therefore undermining his original goals.
Perhaps greatest gift the Guild
gave society was not the beautiful handcrafted goods they produced, but the
style of business they ran. Morris saw the world and its economy as becoming
too big, so he reflected that in his business model both as an architect and as
leader of the Craft Guild. Morris found great value in Ruskin’s idea of being a
socially responsible businessman, and forging your own market. Taking limited
work and even refusing some works were common practice for Morris. He had to
create his own label, while still using his work as a benchmark for responsible
business growth. He realized that you brand yourself by your work, so whatever
you design or build is a reflection on you and will impact your future business
model. Doing the cheap and easy work with no craft, will only lead to more
cheap, craft less work.
These values that drove Morris and
his guild are values that are still emphasized in today’s market. Branding has
become such a hot topic that corporations will spend millions of dollars
working on a logo. Architecture firms design with sustainability in mind and
make sure that the user knows it. LEED and the USGBC have driven green branding
to a whole new level. Architects now know that if you aren’t designing
sustainably, that it reflects poorly on their firm. The ability to maintain a
positive public image through websites, newspapers, magazines, and social media
has become multi-million dollar investments. William Morris obviously didn’t
have social media, but he knew that by taking the projects he firmly believed
in and putting craft into his work would brand him the way he wanted. All
architects and designers can feed from Morris in this way.
APA CITATIONS
Harvey, C., & Press, J. (1995). John ruskin and the
ethical foundations of morris & company. Journal of Business Ethics, 14(3), 181-194.
Kinna, R. (2000). William morris:art, work, and leisure.Journal of the History of Ideas, 61(3), 493-512.
Salmon, N. (Photographer). (n.d.). William morris
internet archive. [Web Photo]. Retrieved from
http://www.marxists.org/archive/morris/works/chrono.htm
Webb, W. (Designer). (1859). Architectural drawings for the red house. [Web Drawing].
Retrieved from http://www.victorianweb.org/art/architecture/webb/7.html
No comments:
Post a Comment