His ‘Rustic Vignettes for Artists and Craftsmen’  is like a series of windows to a lost world. He shows travellers resting by the roadside, quarrymen sawing stone, families of brickmakers, the girls with arms like modern wrestlers. There are brewers at work, horses driving mills, and my  favourite, a tinker, with a tiny forge at work on the back of his cart, with his horse still hitched to it. and he did repeated studies of men at work with scythes,  people in all sorts of poses, in the clothes and with the tools of their trade, none of which you will find anywhere else. These images allow people from history to step out of the flat page, and really engage with us. They help me to get involved with the past that I write about, they breathe life into history.

He attracted the attention of the German publisher Rudolph Ackerman, originally a coachmaker, he was responsible for the current coach used by the Queen. But as a publisher, he was also a patron to Pyne, and he published an unusual – if not unique – collaboration between him and the artists in 1808, the Microcosm of London, a sumptuous volume on the capitol.

The text was by Pyne, and was illustrated by Rowlandson who often worked with Ackerman, who produced the figures, with the architectural details by A.C. Pugin, father of the author/designer, Augustine Welby Pugin. The idea for the book is said to have come from Pugin, but Rosemary Hil’s monograph on Pugin the younger credits Charlotte,the  wife/mother.

According to Ms Hill, “the Microcosm was unique among A.C. Pugin’s works, as Contrasts was to be in his son’s, in having a conceptual rather than an exegetical basis. This, it seems likely, was the reflection of Catherine Pugin’s more analytic mind.

She was of Coleridge’s generation and intellectually typical of it. A reader of Thomas Paine and Rousseau in her youth, optimism had been turned, by disillusionment with the ideals of the French Revolution, to pessimistic conservatism. “

Her son, A.W. Pugin, became responsible for some of the most iconic architectural images of Britain, the houses of parliament and Big Ben. The former was in collaboration with the official architect Barry, but it is a famous hybrid, combining Barry’s classicism with Pugin’s passion for Gothic.Barry was paid a massive £40,000 for his design, but Pugin who designed all the gothic trims on the outside, as well as producing thousands of drawings for the ornate interior, got a mere £1500.

In a recent BBC documentary By Richard Taylor on Pugin, God’s own Architect, much was made about how overlooked A.W. Pugin has always been, the train of overwork eventually sending him to a mental breakdown, to a period in Bedlam, and an early grave.

But his book,Contrasts, is claimed by some to be the most important book on British architecture. It is basically a picture book, contrasting mediaeval gothic architecture with the allegedly inferior modern, Georgian. Catherine wrote of the visit to Wells with her son in 1832, she wrote of the beauty of the cathedral, how it drew tears to her son’s eyes, but bemoaned the risk to the structure from the area being mostly methodists, so with no interest in preserving the ancient structure.

Pugin became passionate about producing architecture that made people feel good, that made them wish to become better citizens, and that meant producing high quality, well designed and detailed buildings, not just churches but all buildings. He saw the Georgian buildings as being dull, uninspiring and often only a single room deep, so contributing little to townscapes or to human life. The problem with his theories is that they were based on authors bemoaning the damage of the Reformation, but he had no idea why Georgian architecture looks as it does, or why people chose it as a style.

Simply put there are two styles of architecture, Classical, especially Roman, and the Gothic. Classical is cheap and easy to produce, and generally chosen by people on the way up, for example The White House. It is meant to inspire simple honesty, democracy, and military strength. But once these people are established, they can indulge in a few luxuries and spend more time on their buildings, so opt for the lack of uniformity, the degenerate style of Gothic.

Incidentally, Gothic has nothing to do with Germans – it comes from the French order of Cistercians, but the style later became a term of insult, so called after the barbarian Goths who brought down the Roman empire.

Stuart Durant’s “Ornament, A Survey of Decoration Since 1830” discusses the background and key influences for Artists working with Decoration and Ornament from the 1830′s onwards.

In the chapter entitled “Nature and Ornament“, Durant discusses the mass appeal of nature-inspired ornament.

“During the nineteenth century, as never before, nature was viewed as inexhaustible fountainhead, providing an endless supply of decorative motifs.”

The Author states that this belief that Nature was beautiful and key for design, was closely linked at that time to beliefs in God.

He references Giorgio Vasari‘s “Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects” (Le Vite de’ più eccellenti pittori, scultori, e architettori da Cimabue insino a’ tempi nostri) of 1550, which established a foundation for Art-History, and also placed nature at its core.

Vasari’s Le Vite has also been said to be “by far the most influential single text for the history of Renaissance art.” Vasari held Nature in the highest of regards and is quoted as saying that the first model for the artist was:

“the beautiful fabric of the natural world.”

This led to Naturalism, a school of thought which had the firm belief in a world of beauty made by God, being the dominant design philosophy for the Gothic and Renaissance periods.

Durant comments that reference texts such as “Natural Theology: or evidence of the attributes of the Deity collected from the appearance of nature” by William Paley (1802) was so popular and widely used that it had 20 editions printed by 1820.

Durant remarks that industrialisation, which grew quickly during the 1830′s led to an increased demand for decoration.  This then led to searches for new designs for use in Ornament.

Durant states that the next contributor to the field of Nature and Ornament was William Dyce.  Dyce studied in London and Rome and assisted in writing teaching material for the Government School of Design.  Dyce believed students should do the following:

1. Drawings of simple geometry.
2. Then drawing outlines of Classical ornaments.
3. Then “cloth” these outlines with foliage.

Dyce Outlines - Click To Enlarge

According to Durant, Dyce placed an emphasis on botanical studies, and Dyce’s method was accepted for many years.  Dyce was in favour of an abstract form of nature being used in designs.

Durant also cites the works of A.W. Pugin as also promoting Nature as a source of material for Ornament, with the publication of his book, “Floriated Ornament” (1849). Durant states that Pugin’s work shows a sense of conventional or stylised design.

A.W. Pugin's Curtain

Durant states that it is likely that Pugin’s work was influenced by Owen Jones, who had been preparing principles for the proper use of Ornament.

One of Jones’ principles was that flowers and natural forms should not be copied but instead used as inspiration for a contemporary interpretation.  Owen Jones called this process “Conventionalism.”

Durant states that there was a particular common ground between Pugin’s and Jones’ work.  Jones preferred abstract and flat artwork.  Pugin also wrote that decorative design should be “without shadow“, suggesting flat geometry.

The Author states that there was some opposition to the idea of stripping Nature down to its most basic shapes and forms.

John Ruskin is given as an example of an artist who was against abstracting Nature’s form.  Durant states that Ruskin found the idea of symmetry, regularity and uniformity too precise and scientific and not in keeping with his view that Nature was Holy and should be reproduced as closely as possible to the original source.

Ruskin delivered many lectures on the damage being done to contemporary art by the idea of abstracted natural forms, e.g. Owen Jones’ Conventionalism.  Ruskin was also a strong supporter of a new movement, called the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, as:

“Their treatment of nature was always reverential and never mechanical.” (pp 27)

Ruskin also believed that Nature, Art & Society were all linked together.

Durant then discusses Christopher Dresser.  Dresser’s early studies at the Government School of Design were directed at the study of Botany, but not in a scientific sense, but more of an artistic observations so that he would be able to draw them accurately.  Dresser contributed work to Owen Jones’ Grammar of Ornament, as well as contributing several more books to the field of “Art-Botany” including “The Rudiments of Botany.”

Christopher Dresser Drawing

Durant next discusses a range of related artists, who he terms “Art-Botanists.”  These include George Charles Haité, and James Kellaway Colling.  These artists followed closely the approach of Dresser and Ruskin in their recognition that Nature and Flora should be studied in-depth.

Haité's design for printed shawl

Lastly, Durant discusses the works of Ernst Haeckel. Haeckel was a German biologist, but also had a strong belief in Nature.  His studies of aquatic life and the detailed drawings of jelly-fish and water-plants is highly praised.

Haeckel’s book titled, “Artforms from Nature” (Kunstformen der Natur) was published over a five-year period from 1899 to 1904 and provided much new source material and detailed drawings for use by Ornamentalists.

Although Haeckel was a scientist, his respect and appreciation for Nature led to his works being admired and used by many in the field of Art-Botany.

Haeckel's Conifer

Haeckel's Orchids

Durant’s survey of the works of Decoration from the 19th century offers great insight into the key sources of inspiration to the Ornamentalists and Artists of that time.  Also, it provides insights into the divides that occurred and why.

Summary:

I found Durant’s discussion of Nature and Ornament to be very valuable.  I was not aware of the works of Vasari and the emphasis he placed on the Natural world and how beautiful he found it.  The way his work impacted the Gothic and Medieval eras was also interesting.

The discussion of the role of God, and how some Artists saw Nature and God as one was also an interesting point.

Then the discussion of how Loos and other Modernists may have been influenced by the scientific research being carried out by Charles Darwin, which was rejecting God as the creator of the universe, and instead promoting the importance of scientific investigation, was all insightful and not something I had considered.

I found the discussion surrounding Art-Botany to be the most interesting.  The emphasis that Ruskin and Dresser especially placed on the study of Nature is something I would agree with.

Also, I found that Ruskin was a key source of inspiration for William Morris and the Arts & Crafts Movement, an artist and movement that I have admired for quite some time.

Reference:

Durant, Stuart, 1986, “Ornament, A Survey of Decoration Since 1830,” McDonalds

V&A Collections Search, http://collections.vam.ac.uk/

This is not the place to attempt a biography of the man (interested readers may follow the footnotes to this piece to find one), or to do anything other than place on record (as biographers have previously done) his five and a half weeks’ residence at Bethlem in the summer of 1852, suffering what a contemporary psychiatrist with access to Pugin’s Victorian medical notes has described as ‘mania without psychotic symptoms’ (F30.1 in the 1992 edition of International Classification of Diseases), and in a state of collapse following a sustained period of overwork. At one point Pugin’s Bethlem doctor, Alexander Morison, described how he ‘got him to make a sketch of his church at Ramsgate’ – St Augustine’s, on which he had been working since 1845 – but ‘so soon as he had completed [the sketch], he tore it up’. No mental improvement was recorded by Morison, yet at the end of July Pugin was discharged at the request, and into the care, of his friends and family. He died within seven weeks of leaving the Hospital, the cause of death recorded as ‘convulsions followed by coma’.² His life, though short, left a legacy which can still be seen today in the built heritage of Britain. It is appropriate, perhaps, that the once-derelict house in Ramsgate in which he lived and died, The Grange, has been restored by a conservation charity and is now available for holiday lettings.

¹ Rosemary Hill, God’s Architect: Pugin and the Building of Romantic Britain (Penguin, 2008), p. 1.

² ibid. p. 492

Chirk Castle, located in Wrexham, Wales dates to 1295. The Castle was built by Roger Mortimer, Justice of Wales during the reign of Edward I. The Castle sits on a hill with views overlooking the Ceiriog Valley to the south. Roger Mortimer , a member of the powerful Marcher family, was granted the land where the Castle was constructed after the Welsh defeat in 1282. The spirit of the 14th century structure is preserved in the Adam’s Tower (near the well on the south-west), which has a magnificent dungeon on two levels and a number of upper rooms clearly showing the 5m-thick walls. Two of them contain ‘murder holes’, through which material could be poured on to anyone trying to batter or burn down the doors below. This tower, like the others, was originally at least one storey higher, the upper parts probably being removed after the Civil War bombardment of 1659.

After the War of the Roses, the castle settled in royal hands on the execution of Sir William Stanley in 1495. The south range was partially rebuilt in 1529, reusing stone from earlier work. The old hall was subdivided and new living accommodation provided to its west. In 1563, the castle was granted to Elizabeth I’s favorite, Robert Dudley, soon created earl of Leicester and Baron Denbigh, who held it as part of his extensive north Wales properties until his death in 1588. He may have reroofed it and added some of the square windows. The castle was purchased in 1595 by Sir Thomas Myddelton, a son of the governor of Denbigh Castle and successful London merchant. As a founder of the East India Company, an investor in the expeditions of Drake, Raleigh and Hawkins, he had the means to convert Chirk into a comfortable Tudor residence. His new stone north range contained a hall, buttery and kitchen, with upstairs drawing and dining rooms. This range, with alterations, became the main living quarters of the castle, while the old south range was gradually given over to servants.

Chirk Castle interior

Sir Thomas’ son, the second Sir Thomas, took up residence on his marriage in 1612 and as MP for Denbighshire from 1625, found himself on the Parliamentarian side in the Civil War. Royalist supporters seized the castle in 1643, and held it for three years. Sir Thomas’ Parliamentary forces meanwhile enjoyed some successes, including the capture of Powis Castle, although he could not bring himself to attack Chirk. The castle was eventually regained by bribery and Sir Thomas’ son (Sir Thomas III) installed as governor. By 1651, however, the general had changed sides, and further payoffs were needed to dislodge the Parliamentarian garrison. Chirk was nevertheless besieged and taken by the Parliamentarians in 1659 as punishment for the Myddeltons’ support of the Cheshire Rising. At the last moment it sustained the damage they had for so long sought to avoid. Most of the eastern side was demolished, and much of the rest burnt, leaving the family with a huge rebuilding task after the Restoration in 1660.

A new stone range was now added on the east, in conjunction with the reconstruction of the curtain wall and towers. The new towers, although externally similar to their predecessors, had much thinner walls, while the range included a drawing room and long gallery at first floor level, with an arcaded walkway facing the courtyard beneath it. The old state bedroom in the south-east tower was given a new entrance from the long gallery. Sir Thomas III predeceased his father, and his son Sir Thomas IV, who came of age in 1672, supervised the decoration of the newly built rooms, completed, possibly with the help of William Wynde, in 1678. Only the long gallery survives to show the original style of this work.

Within the east range, the main structure of the castle was complete, although minor alterations continued to be made. After an abortive episode in 1762-4, when a scheme for a Gothic interior was abandoned at an early stage, the north range was extensively refurbished in neo-classical style by Joseph Turner of Chester in the later 1760s and 1770s, the drawing room being completed by John Cooper of Beaumaris in about 1796. In the 1820s, however, gothic vaulting was added, and from 1845 the interior was almost totally reworked in the Gothic manner by A.W. Pugin, architect of the Houses of Parliament. Most of these alterations have been undone in recent years, with the exception of the Cromwell Hall, where a collection of Civil War arms is displayed. The castle remained in the hands of the Myddelton family, who still own and work much of the estate, until 1978. It is now in the care of the National Trust

Chirk Castle