It is not intended, in these lines, to consider what are generally termed the Fine Arts, painting and sculpture. These are perfectly competent to take care of themselves and, indeed, the author can make no claim to an ability to discuss them. In the field of applied art, however, there are certain principles to be observed, principles, moreover, which are frequently lost sight of because of the lamentable separation of the functions of the artist and artificer.
It is extremely difficult to draw the line between art and manufacture. For example, a wall paper, designed with skill and executed by machinery in actual reproduction of the work of the designer; is it a work of art or is it a product of the factory? It is both. Primarily a work of art is the product of the artist's own hand. It reveals his individuality. It is the language in which he expresses himself to his audience. It is the note of his voice. Such a work may or may not appeal to a large section of the public. This will always be so. An artist, be he poet, musician, painter or craftsman, is one who can see more than others. What he sees he endeavors to express but it is inevitable that he be sometimes misunderstood. Hence it the more necessary that his message be delivered at first hand. To look upon a replica of the work of an artist is like reading a sermon or an oration from a printed page. One may gather much of the teaching but the personal note, the tone and gesture, must be lost.
But there are many who can gather the words of great men only from books. There are, moreover, books which have never been spoken and wherein alone the message is to be found. In like manner there are works, emanating from the hand of great designers which can only be made available for the many in a form of reproduction. The wall paper cited as an illustration is of this class. Were it not for the printing press this beautiful design could not have passed beyond the studio, and while it is a great thing if a wealthy man can commission a Whistler to decorate a peacock room, it is an advantage by no means to be ignored that a well designed wall paper can be purchased by the piece.
But while this is true of such of the household goods as cannot be procured except by the medium of the machine, there are other examples. In the case of the wall paper the function of the machine is simply to transfer the proper design to the paper itself. This has no identity except as a surface. It is no more to be considered than is a canvas upon which a picture is painted. But when a chair or a table is formed out of pieces of lumber uniformly shaped by one machine, the seat or top put together by another and the legs or back carved or stamped by a third, art or individuality is lost because mechanical construction is involved.
Still more is this the case in the product of the manufactory of pottery. In commercial practice not only is a shape designed without regard to decoration but the same decoration is placed upon several forms, or a single form is made to suffer as the vehicle for many decorations. Some of the results may be pleasing, even beautiful, but it is more by luck than guidance and no piece produced in this way has any claim to be classed as a work of art.
On the other hand it may happen that a work of art, in the sense of individual expression, may not even be beautiful and one is tempted to ask the reason. If a work which is a genuine expression of a man's personality fail to please the senses of those who are trained in the finer perceptions there must be something wrong.
If the adverse opinion be at all general amongst the critics it may be assumed that they are right and that the worker is wrong.
For example, the form of a flower is not a fit receptacle for a . It often happens that a designer, struck with the beauty of, say, a tulip, has modeled the flower in clay and made it into a candlestick. Now it is obvious that the more closely the model simulates the flower the less appropriate it is for such a purpose. If the model be heavy enough to be of use it must be far removed from its prototype. If a conventional design for a candlestick be adopted the petals of a flower may be shown in relief upon it but there must always be a solid foundation to account for the possibility of use.
A favorite form with some designers is a bird's nest made into a flower holder. In this the same criticism applies. A bird's nest is always built to let water escape. Even a mud-lined nest is not impervious and the idea is obviously inappropriate. It is important that imitation be avoided and especially the imitation of material. One often hears the remark "How beautiful, it looks just like bronze." This, of course, comes from the casual observer to whom the skill of the imitation appeals but it cannot be too strongly insisted upon that to imitate one material in another is false from every point of view. Nor is it necessary. Clay is sufficient in itself. There are so many effects possible in pottery which are not possible in any other medium that it is entirely superfluous to seek outlandish texture and color. To be sure, such things are popular but that does not make them sound in principle or true in taste.
It should not be a purpose of any craft to make pieces merely as an exhibition of skill. This is done sometimes by such versatile workers as the Japanese, but it may be laid down as a law that a production of the nature of a tour-de-force, an object which simply excites wonder at the skill of the worker, is undignified and meretricious. It is akin to the work of certain painters who delight in painting marble or velvet so as to exhibit a perfect texture only and is but one degree removed from the skill of the pavement artist who with colored chalk draws a lamb chop or a banana in such a manner that the real article seems to be lying on the ground at his feet.
The true artist, be he potter or painter, works primarily for his own satisfaction. It sometimes happens that a defect, not large enough to be obvious, is a temptation to concealment. The public will never know. But the consciousness of the existence of such a blemish will destroy the pride of achievement which should accompany every finished piece.
If the worker aims to draw any expression of opinion from the untrained observer it should be in the nature of a remark on how easy the work looks. Art will always conceal effort. Just as the poet or orator is at his best when he clothes sublime thought in simple words so the artist or craftsman glorifies his vocation when he makes use of means which appear to be within the reach of every observer.
In addition to the work of the producer there must be considered the function of the critic. Artists are commonly impatient of criticism. Tennyson voiced this sentiment when he wrote of "Irresponsible indolent reviewers," but the power of the critic is rarer than the skill of the craftsman. True, there are critics and critics. There is the man who knows what he likes and who cannot be persuaded that he likes what is false, and there is the trained critic who sees with an educated eye and dissects with an unerring word. It is not common to find critic and craftsman in one and the same person and it not infrequently happens that the persons exercising these functions are at variance with each other.
But if the critic be correct why is the craftsman wrong? In this let it be presumed that there is nothing wrong with his craft as such; that he handles his tools skilfully and has perfect control over his material. More than this, however, is necessary. The first requirement is a sense of form, a term which includes outline, proportion and structure. Often and often it is found that a designer depends upon novelty alone for acceptance. He is not altogether to blame in this for the great American public will, more often than not, ask, "Is it new?"
Novelty in itself is no claim to consideration; in fact, on being shown some product of which it is said "Nothing like it has ever been seen before," the temptation is great to respond, "May its like never be seen again." Novelty apart, form must possess proportion, balance and grace. A chair must invite the sitter, a vase must stand securely, a carpet must lie flat. The absence of these things may evidence an individuality on the part of the designer but it is art at the expense of truth.
The second necessary condition is fitness which again is expressed in several ways. A porcelain vase is required to be light, graceful and refined. A piece of ruder pottery may be no less satisfactory if it exhibit vigor, strength and solidity. A large pot for a growing tree is, for these reasons, more appropriate in grès than in porcelain. Porcelain is translucent but such a quality is of no advantage in the case of a flower pot; the strength of a massive body is, however, demanded by the circumstances of use and hence the unfitness of the one and the fitness of the other.
Another point of fitness is concerned in the correspondence between size, form and weight. It often happens that one takes hold of a piece of pottery and experiences a shock. The mind unconsciously forms an estimate of what the weight will be but the piece does not respond. The effort put forth in accordance with the appearance of the object either lifts it suddenly into the air or fails to raise it from the table. The artist critic takes note of these things. To handle his wares is a constant pleasure, for one is not continually disappointed by unexpected violences. This correspondence or equilibrium is apart from the use of a piece of pottery. It is quite as legitimate to express one's ideas in clay in the presentation of simple beauty as it is to express them with paint upon canvas. At the same time there is always a satisfaction in a vase or flower pot that it can be used if required. Thus a vase which will not hold water is technically imperfect and the bête noire of the conscientious potter.
It is in the harmony of these things that the rôle of the critic is seen to advantage. If the artist be capable of criticizing his own work he is in a position to command attention but he must either discipline himself or be disciplined by others, which, after all, is the way of the world at large.
It must always be an open question how much credit for artistic feeling can be given to primitive races. The production of pottery was, at first, the supplying of a need. Clay offered a medium for the making of household utensils which were at once fireproof and impervious. The work does not belong strictly to the earliest stages of civilization but is a development of advancing refinement.[A]
Crude and unprepared clays were used for the most part but the makers could scarcely have been conscious of the charming color-play produced by the burning of a red clay in a smoky fire. The pottery of the Indians is artistic in the sense of being an expression of an indigenous art and much of it is beautiful, though whether the makers possessed any real appreciation of beauty is open to doubt.
The pottery was exclusively the work of the women. No wheel was employed but the ware was mainly constructed by coiling. Long strips of clay were rolled under the hands and made of uniform size and these were then coiled in spiral form, the rolls being welded together with water. After proceeding a certain height the walls of the growing jar would become weak under their own weight. The piece would then be set aside to undergo a partial hardening upon which the work would be carried forward another stage. The shape being completed and partially dried, the maker would work over the whole surface with stones or simple tools until the marks of the coils had disappeared and the walls had reached a sufficient thinness. A great deal of skill was exercised in accomplishing this.
Many of the Indian forms are transitional. The basket, the gourd and the bark-made jar suggested their shapes to the potter; indeed it is sometimes evident that clay vessels were constructed as linings to wicker forms, the outer layer of twigs being afterwards burned off. The firing was performed in the open flame without any protection, a fact which accounts for the great irregularity found in quality and color.
The decorations used by the Indian women were of the type common to unglazed wares. The clay was incised or embossed and natural earths were used as pigments. This accounts in great measure for the fitness which may be observed in aboriginal decoration. There is an absence of artificial coloring, nor is there any straining after effect, but instead there is shown a sober strength and a sane expression of values which would do credit to a modern designer.
America is fortunate in possessing abundant relics of primitive times but it cannot be doubted that in other lands similar work was done, making allowance, of course, for the characteristic variations in national traits. The potter's craft is of such a nature, using an omnipresent material and requiring the minimum of tools, that almost every nation on the globe has practiced it. In some it has never been developed beyond the narrow limits of the stone age, in others it has reached the utmost perfection of cultured skill.
For perfection of quality in crude pottery, no ware has ever surpassed that of Greece. It is not practicable here to deal with the numerous branches and sub-branches of Greek pottery; let it suffice for the present purpose to speak of only two main groups. In the first, the background of the decoration was supplied by the tint of the bare clay; in the second, this tint afforded the color of the decoration itself, the background being covered with a black pigment. To speak briefly these groups are known as black-figured and red-figured wares.
The wheel was early adopted by the Grecian potters as a means of producing form and although molds were sometimes used, the wheel was, to all intents and purposes, the sole method of manufacture. Greek pottery is once fired. Birch classes it as glazed terra cotta, but the glaze is nothing more than the black pigment with which the decoration is carried out. The uncolored part of the clay is not glazed but polished with a hard tool. Probably some famous potters employed assistants either to make the pieces or to decorate but it does not appear that there was any reproduction, at least, during the best period. At first primitive ideas prevailed. Geometric designs were succeeded by rhythmic friezes of beasts and birds done in black. When the human figure made its appearance the faces were all in profile with full-fronting eye while the prominent details of feature and drapery were scratched with a sharp point before burning.
The change of method to red on black gave much wider scope for the treatment of the human figure, rendered a fuller expression possible and enlarged the power of pictorial action. Great skill in drawing was manifested and details of both drapery and features were expressed with great care by means of the brush.
Such was the state of the art when the decadence set in and the work fell into the hands of plagiarists and charlatans. Meretricious coloring and gaudy ornament succeeded the refinement and restraint of the earlier days and so the art perished.
To the inventive power of the Romans the ceramic art owes more than one novelty. It would appear that the desideratum of the early days was a black ware. Homer in his hymn wrote:
The Greeks accomplished this blackening by means of a pigment, the Romans secured a similar result by a manipulation of the fire.
It is well known that the oxide of iron which imparts to the clay a red color will, if burned in what is known as a "reducing" fire, turn black. This is accomplished by keeping the air supply at the lowest possible point and the effect is heightened by the smoke which is partly absorbed by the clay. This black ware is known as Upchurch pottery from the name of a locality in England where large quantities have been found, but numerous examples occur in Germany and, indeed, wherever the Roman hosts encamped.
A second type of pottery is called Castor ware and consists of a dark clay upon which the decoration is traced in clay of a lighter color. The decoration was applied as a slip or cream and hence was the forerunner of the modern slip painting or pâte-sur-pâte. This ware is well worth a study. The decorations consisted largely of conventional borders and panels but it is specially notable on account of the free use of motives drawn from daily life. One of the commonest scenes depicted is the hunt of hare or stag, the animals and trees being often woven into an almost conventional frieze.
The most valued type of Roman pottery seems to have been the Aretine or Samian ware. This is a bright red color and possesses an extremely thin glaze. A particular clay was evidently used, but all knowledge of its source has been lost.
With the importation of Chinese porcelain by the Dutch the whole trend of pottery manufacture was changed. No longer was black a desirable color, white was seen to be much more delicate and beautiful and henceforth the endeavor of the potter was to produce a ware which should be as nearly like porcelain as possible. The crudeness of the clay kept this ideal from being realized, but various expedients were adopted and gradually better results were obtained.
Throughout the East a type of white pottery was made which, though stimulated by the Chinese example, may have been a relic of the knowledge of the Egyptians. A crude clay was coated with a white preparation, possibly ground quartz, and upon this there were painted conventional designs in sombre colors. A clear glaze covered the whole and imparted to the colors a beautiful quality as of pebbles under water. The nature of the glaze is made evident by the hues assumed by the metallic oxides employed as colorants. Copper oxide affords a turquoise blue, manganese, a wine purple, and iron, a brick red. If the glaze had contained any considerable amount of lead oxide, these colors would have been quite different; copper would have produced green, manganese, dark brown, and iron, yellowish brown. The iron pigment was evidently a clay, sometimes spoken of as Armenian bole. The red color is always in raised masses because if a thin wash had been used the color would have yielded to the action of the glaze.
This ware, commonly called Oriental engobe ware, affords a fruitful study. Effects similar in character were produced by the late Theodore Deck of Paris, but no considerable use of the ancient methods has ever been attempted.
The use of tin and lead in glazing was known to the Arabian and Moorish potters but these ingredients were not abundant in the East. When, however, the Moorish hosts conquered a part of Spain in the twelfth century it was found that both lead and tin were available. The result was the development of the enameled ware known by the generic name Maiolica. Some have maintained that this was first made in Italy but the name is derived from the island of Maiorca from which much of the pottery was exported. The famous Alhambra vase remains as a monument to the skill of the Hispano-Moresque craftsmen, but it was the Italian artists of the Renaissance who brought the enameled wares to perfection. The interest here is artistic and technical rather than historical, but no one can study the work of the period without learning something of Luca della Robbia and Giorgio Andreoli, of Gubbio and Pesaro and Castel Durante.