American Arts and Crafts: Production and Fulfillment
The Arts and Crafts movement was a design philosophy and style created by British designer William Morris in response to the rapid industrialization of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Morris argued that the intentional choice to make a quality furniture and home goods by hand would both preserve the dignity of the craftsman in the face of industrialization and create spiritually sound environments for the consumer. As a socialist, he believed that the work should be integrated into the common man’s home for broader societal well-being. However, the labor to make bespoke quality artisanal furniture, especially in competition with the speed of industry, made Morris’ work prohibitively expensive for the average household.
In the United States, a greater tolerance towards the factory and a growing middle class allowed Arts and Crafts to thrive. The philosophy of democratic design and the ideal of the individualist self-made craftsman meshed well with existing American priorities, and a desire to create a uniquely American design movement fostered creativity and experimentation. Further, the style’s appreciation for natural materials and homemade lent itself to the American connection to the land. Analyzed in a broader philosophical context, the American manifestation of the Arts and Crafts movements demonstrates how art, craft, and design reflect our cultural understanding of individuality and democracy.
In his 1978 essay “Arts and Crafts,” Howard S. Becker analyzes the distinction between “art” and “craft” in both cultural and professional terms. According to Becker, while “craft” typically describes both the skill to create a useful object, the virtuoso craftsman has the opportunity to consider beauty within the primary function, becoming an artist-craftsman (865). The virtuoso is respected as a leader in their field, becoming a creative inspiration for fellow craftspeople. In contrast, an artist using craft is not interested in adding function to his beautiful object, rather, “Artists invading a craft want to make sure that the works they produce cannot be used as people have been accustomed to using them” (Becker 868). The artist, while appropriating craft skills, is not interested in engaging an object that is useful or usable. This relationship changes when we consider an artist with, to be blunt, craftsman envy. An artist, functionally, is a skilled academic. The lines blur in United States, where arts education is presented even in public schools, as early as the 1870s, as an economic opportunity (Stankiewicz 165). The young creative is pressured to justify their pursuit of their passion within a capitalist system. American design schools taught trades, essentially, to unmarried gentlewomen, providing them with a manner of establishing their economic independence without sacrificing their dignity as ladies of society (Kaplan 252). Academia creates an environment where labor that might normally be inappropriate for a person of class may be allowed as the decision of an individual.
Inversely, the integration of a craft-like goal of usefulness into an otherwise academic artistic process justifies the art as productive. From the movements’ inception in Britain, William Morris’s interest in Protestant revivalism gave the movement a religious tone. As Robert Winters writes, “… Morris's pronouncements against the materialism of the nineteenth century still smacked of the dogma of the cloth. What else, after all, was Morris’ lifelong devotion to instilling love in work but an attempt to revive the Protestant work ethic- without Protestantism” (36). Within this framework, the true artist— interested in mere beauty, art for art’s sake, and superficial vices— is morally and spiritually condemned to pride and vanity. Who is the artist to say that their mere object can possess beauty greater than, or even in imitation of, the life and nature given to man by God? This moral aversion to “true art” is only exacerbated by American capitalist moral system, where economic success, supposedly, is directly correlated to devotion to labor. From within this system, the “true” artist must be a starving artist, because for the artist to be successful would blur the understanding that work must produce a commodity. Further, this state is not romanticized as self-sacrificial devotion and passion for the advancement of culture, but dismissed as foolish self-centeredness, excuses made by the inherently lazy to justify being a burden on society. Despite the ego inherent to “art for art’s sake,” it’s lack of interest in profit or service to a greater corporate entity make it worthless, nullifying the individualist conceit with a lack of self-interest.
Therefore, the American artist must find fulfillment in design. Design implies goal, hierarchy, and reasoning. It allows for the individual to make aesthetic choices without precluding the object from generating profit. The Arts and Craft philosophy aims to unite designer and maker, using the designer’s artistic sensibilities to help the maker create objects which transcend beyond aesthetically pleasing into the spiritually sound, in the effort of creating environments which reflect life’s meaning in their simplistic beauty. While the Arts and Crafts designer embraces spirituality, he does not dare to broach the sublime, his designs are earthly in both materiality and form. While Morris’ wallpapers are floral and intricate, they are not overly delicate or ethereal. This down-to-earth spirituality mirrors the designer’s conception of the craftsman himself. The designs themselves exude the virtues of consistency, care, and dedication, which is then solidified by the handiwork of the trained craftsman.
According to the philosophy itself, the Arts and Crafts movement aims to elevate the craftsman to an individual, in opposition a system which has condemned labor to the faceless generality of factory work. In practice, however, hierarchical devision of labor becomes necessary to reap the benefits prescribed to the consumer. Factories and efficiency create availability, and art cannot be of and for the people at the prices bespoke artisanal handiwork requires. Arts and Crafts thrived in the US, in part, because of Gustav Stickley’s eventual embrace of the factory. Stickley himself migrated away from the Arts and Crafts movements socialist tendencies, even losing sight it’s original sense of dignity in labor in favor of the consumer. As Jonathan Clancy points out, “ Instead of uniting the craftsman and designer - or at least the recognizing the contributions of both - the metal shop employed a strict division of labour in which workers were paid according to their place in the hierarchy and through which their individual identities were muted.” (179) If Arts and Craft’s benefit to the laborer is spiritual fulfillment in craft and self-actualization, it is sacrificed here. We can assume then that Stickley is more interested in the benefits to the consumer of finding sound mind and body within a space of authentic and harmonious construction and design. This, however, is also superficial: “In metal work, this tension was often mediated by eliminating the highly planished finish - which a generation before would have been the mark of a craftsman's skills - in favour of the tool marks as a visual record of the individual worker’s presence” (Clancy 176). This acknowledges the unspoken truth that, in many ways, the consumer cares more about the image projected by an object, rather than its actuality. While the items were genuinely hand-wrought, the factory’s perfect finish opens up the desire for imperfections and evidence of humanity— which are then exaggerated to maintain the image.
In contrast to the commercialized aspects, American women built unique broader artistic movement founded in social groups and revived folk traditions, supported by an overarching academic philosophy. Anthea Callen criticizes the Arts and Crafts notion of division of labor as, “Thus, women were also often limited to the "feminine," executive aspect of the creative process, that which supposedly only demanded manual dexterity which, in itself, is underrated as a result of hierarchical notions of creativity” (4). Essentially, Victorian women were limited to production, in direct conflict with the unification of designer and craftsperson— of course, “craftsperson” must be elevated to the status of an individual in this system, a privilege not easily afforded to women. In the United States, however, ladies of society such as Candace Wheeler, Margaret Whiting, and Ellen Miller, were able to find practical educations in newly established design schools, and, educated in the progressive and socialist tradition, “Programs were also initiated to provide the economically disadvantaged with new skills, not just recreational relief from the tedium of factory work or psychological solace” (Kaplan 251). These programs spread from charity oriented towards the urban workforce to an interest in reviving the home industry. The muted floral works created by groups like the Saturday Evening Girls’ Club, Newcomb College Pottery, and the Deerfield Society of Blue and White needlework have more in common with William Morris’ floral wallpapers than with to Stickley’s or Frank Lloyd Wrights impulse towards the geometric and streamlined, but they do not lose the rustic roughness that seems to define the American artistic character. “Feminine” crafts tend to be disregarded both as art objects and as economic pursuits, but the collaboration between professionally trained designers and rural craftswomen for social improvement and artistic creation seems like one of the most successful iterations of the Arts and Crafts philosophy.
The American willingness to embrace industry, however, did make the Arts and Crafts style more accessible and financially viable for both producer and consumer. The American version of the philosophy, in its interest in democratizing the design process, made rhetorical justifications for this concession within the philosophy itself. Professor Oscar Lovell Trigs, for example, an advocate and fan of the style and philosophy at University of Chicago, “… responded to the call for organic wholeness, convinced it could be achieved by combining proper design training with a transformation of the factory system: machines would do the soul-deadening repetitious work, allowing individual expression to flourish” (Kaplan 273) Workshop communities are an interesting manifestation of this phenomenon. Groups like Elbert Hubbard’s Roycroft community and Rookwood Pottery of Cincinnati integrated commercial and industrial aspects, respectively, to increase production while giving the craftsmen more quality life or artistic fulfillment (Kaplan 275, 278). The simple designs and rustic minimalism of the works made them more efficient to produce in large numbers, as did the lack of non-functional ornamentation, despite the emphasis on high quality materials. As a result, they style was highly accessible to the growing American middle class.
In his magazine The Craftsman, Stickley published relatively affordable designs for what he called “craftsman homes” which, while rustic and well made, are not really aimed at the craftsman himself. Rather, these were aimed at the new white-collar middle class, newly freed from urban density by the rising popularity of the mass-produced automobile in the early 1900s. Stickley writes, in the intro to an essay published in one of his magazines, “We are a country of self-supporting men and women, and we cannot expect to develop an honest significant architecture until we build homes that are simple, yet beautiful, that proclaim fine democratic standards and that are essentially appropriate to busy intelligent people.” (6) The American property owner must not outwardly flaunt wealth, according to the Protestant ethic, so Stickley uses “Plain” and “Rustic” to describe luxuries of summer homes and mountain retreats. (81, 85) Individuality and “homelike” qualities are prized, quietly acknowledging the need for respite from the faceless and rapid pace of the modern era. The American democracy assumes that its participants are individuals or citizens— it is not a voice of a collective, but a conclusion drawn independently by each person granted the right to vote. Therefore, each voter must be raised to the standards of the individual. Accumulated wealth and stability justify the “cog in the machine” element of commercial capitalism’s laborers, while the ownership of property— as Stickley proposes— completes the ascension. The man who builds and owns his own unique property, yet does not farm on it himself, is raised to the Jeffersonian ideal of the gentleman farmer, and is thus included in “We the People.”
Arts and Crafts, being as much a social-philosophical movement as a design one, seeks to elevate its participants entire way of life to a higher standard. It tends to use a mythic/ahistorical conglomeration of pre-modern European design to communicate naturalism and universalism. While William Morris is able to draw from Britain’s own long history of architecture (the medieval elements at Red House, for example), this largely only works because he finds it familiar. America has a much smaller range of “familiar architecture,” and even less with homey connotations— no one would call the American neoclassical movement cozy. Defining “Familiar” for an American becomes a definition of culture. A universalist American culture does not exist, so instead, designers are tempted to discover innate character to the land. This leads to the largely geometric and material-centric rise of Wright and The Prairie School movement, which emphasized organic design unity across ornament and the structure. Meanwhile Arts and Crafts architecture in California embraced the ahistorical impulses Spanish and Asian influences, led by Charles Sumner and Henry Mather Greene (262, 267). Both movements believed they could make the land “speak.” Besides inspiring many a middle-class home, these movements were democratic in that the whole home would theoretically reflect the individual, or at least establish that he was one. I would argue that a home which accurately asserts the occupant as an individual leaves room for the history and future of that person in particular, rather than constructing an untouchable “always” from the land and the design. If we think of the individual as an innate and unchangeable political entity, rather than acknowledging the person’s experiences that might lead them to come to those conclusions, it works well enough, I suppose.
Arts and Crafts creates an odd paradox where, while it’s products are of and for the home, it is truly a philosophy of work and production. For the Protestant United States, the rise of the working middle class poses a risk to work ethic. We are not interested in the decadence of the European urban bourgeois, rather, we insist that not only have we worked to deserve what we have, but that newfound stability has not lessened our dedication to bettering ourselves within the capitalist social order. Wright’s “Side Chair,” for example, while anchoring the sitter to the earth, does not allow the sitter to remain seated comfortably— remember where you come from, yet do not stop moving forward. In the 21st century economy, the idea of quality, individualized home ownership and consistent, fulfilling work seems distant and out of reach, but I do believe that there is something deeply American to the dedicated pursuit of that stability. As a study, the Arts and Crafts movement reminds us not to lose sight of the initial “joy” aspect. The craftsman should not only be fulfilled, but find joy in his work. The homeowner should not only be defined by the home, but find peace in it. In an era of extreme mass production, we must push aside the drive to keep pace with the world, and find joy in the objects with true significance.
Works Cited
Becker, Howard S. “Arts and Crafts.” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 83, no. 4, 1978, pp. 862–89. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2777719. Accessed 25 Apr. 2024.
Clancy, Jonathan. “Gustav Stickley’s Metal Shop: Reform, Design and the Business of Craft.” Journal of Design History, vol. 25, no. 2, 2012, pp. 171–89. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/ stable/41687793. Accessed 25 Apr. 2024.
Callen, Anthea. “Sexual Division of Labor in the Arts and Crafts Movement.” Woman’s Art Journal, vol. 5, no. 2, 1984, pp. 1–6. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/1357958. Accessed 25 Apr. 2024.
Kaplan, Wendy. The Arts & Crafts Movement in Europe & America: Design for the Modern World. Thames & Hudson, 2005.
Stankiewicz, Mary Ann. “From the Aesthetic Movement to the Arts and Crafts Movement.” Studies in Art Education, vol. 33, no. 3, 1992, pp. 165–73. JSTOR, https://doi.org/ 10.2307/1320898. Accessed 12 May 2024.
Stickley, Gustav. Gustav Stickley, Craftsman Homes: Mission-Style Homes and Furnishings of the American Arts and Crafts Movement. Gramercy Books, 1995.
Winter, Robert W. “The Arts and Crafts as a Social Movement.” Record of the Art Museum, Princeton University, vol. 34, no. 2, 1975, pp. 36–40. JSTOR, https://doi.org/ 10.2307/3774439. Accessed 25 Apr. 2024.