Under Louis XV., Boucher and Watteau, in France, produced designs that were well suited to tapestries and embroideries. All the heathen G.o.ds, with Cupids, garlands, floating ribbons, crowns, and cyphers were everywhere carved, gilded, and worked. It was the visible tide of the frivolity in which poor Marie Antoinette was drowned; though before the Revolution she had somewhat simplified the forms of decoration, and straight lines instead of curves, and delicacy rather than splendour, had superseded, at least at court, the extravagant richness of palatial furniture.
This was followed by the Revolution; and then came the attempt at cla.s.sical severity (so contrary to the French nature) which the Republic affected.[71] Dress was adorned with embroidered spots and Etruscan borders, and the ladies wore diadems, and tried to be as like as possible to the Greek women painted in fictile art. Napoleon attempted a dress which was supposed to be Roman at his coronation.
Trophies were woven and embroidered, and the "honeysuckle," "key," and "egg and anchor" patterns were everywhere. With the fall of the Empire the cla.s.sical taste collapsed, and the Egyptian, Greek, and Roman furniture were handed over to hotels and lodging-houses. In most of the palaces on the Continent an apartment is still to be seen, furnished in this style. It was the necessary tribute of flattery to the great conqueror, who in that character inhabited so many of them for a short time. But there was no sign of the style being taken up enthusiastically anywhere out of France.
After the fall of the Empire, all pretence of style was in abeyance, and it was then gradually replaced by a general craving for the "antique," the "rococo," and finally the "baroc," as the outcome of that part of a gentleman"s education called the "grand tour." Every one bought up old furniture; Italy and Spain were ransacked; and foreign works of all ages were added to the hereditary house furnishings. Every wealthy home became a museum. Now the numerous exhibitions of the last few years, bringing together the works of all Europe and other continents, have enabled us to continue to collect and compare and furnish, without any reference to a particular style.
Meantime "Young England" had become aesthetic. Bohemianism was the fashion, and the studio had to be furnished as a picturesque lounge:--ragged tapestries for backgrounds; antique chairs and bits of colour as cushions and draperies; shiny earthenware pots to hold a flower and to catch a high light. All these bridged the s.p.a.ce between the new aestheticism and the old family museums; and from their combination arose the style called by courtesy the "Queen Anne"--a style which can be brought within the reach of the most moderate fortunes. In humble mansions you will be aware of the grouping of the old pieces of furniture, culminating perhaps in "my grandmother"s cabinet," and her portrait by Hogarth; or "my great-grandfather"s sword and pistols, which he carried at Culloden;" and his father"s clock, a relic perhaps of the Scotch Dutch.
The English style of to-day is really a conglomerate of the preceding two hundred years, and it is formed from the debris of our family life. It belongs mostly to the period of the pigtail; but it stretches back, and includes all that followed the Protectorate, and is therefore coeval with the wig. The name of "Queen Anne" would really do as well as any other, only that the style of her reign, which was heavy Louis Quatorze, is looked upon with suspicion, and never admitted for imitation. The "Nineteenth Century" would be a better name, for it has formed itself only within the last thirty years, in the very heart of the century, and is, in fact, a fortunate result of preceding conditions. It owes its existence, as I have said, partly to the archaeological tendencies of the day.
The maimed tables and chairs, which had painfully ascended from saloon to bedroom, nursery, and attic, till they reposed in the garret (the Bedlam of crazy furniture), now have descended in all the prestige of antiquarian and family interest. Their history is recorded; the old embroideries are restored, named, and honoured. What is not beautiful, is credited with being "quaint"--the "quaint" is more easily imitated than the beautiful; and we have elected this for the characteristic of our new decorations. To be quaint, is really to be funny without intending it, and its claim to prettiness is its _navete_, which is sometimes touching as well as amusing: this was the special characteristic of the revival in the Middle Ages. To imitate quaintness must be a mistake in art; as in life it is absurd to imitate innocence.
The nineteenth century "Queen Anne" has its merits.[72] It combines simplicity, roominess and comfort, colour, light and shade. Soft colouring to harmonize the new furniture with the tender tints of the faded quaintnesses just restored to society; care in grouping even the commonest objects, so as to give pleasure to the eye; a revived taste for embroidered instead of woven materials, giving scope to the talents of the women of the house;--all these are so much gained in every-day domestic decoration. The poorest and most trivial arrangements are striving to attain to a something artistic and agreeable. This is still confined to the educated cla.s.ses; but as good and bad alike have to begin on the surface, and gradually filter through to the dregs of society, we may hope that the women who wore the last chignon and the last crinoline may yet solace their sordid lives in flowing or tight woollen garments, adorned with their own needlework; and that the dark-stained floor of the cottage or humble lodging will set off the shining bra.s.s kettle, and the flower in a brown or blue pot, consciously selected with a view to the picturesque, and enjoyed accordingly.
From what we know, it would seem that a vital change in a national style is never produced by the inspiration of one individual genius or great original inventor. It invariably evolves itself slowly, by the patient, persistent efforts of generations, polishing and touching up the same motive, and at last reaching human perfection.
The annihilation of a style is oftenest caused by war pa.s.sing over the land, or revolution breaking up the fountains of social life, and swamping the art and the artist.
But another cause of such an extinction--perhaps the saddest--is that having reached perfection as far as it may, it deteriorates, sickens, corrupts, and finally is thrown aside--superseded, hidden, and overlapped by a newer fashion; and the worst and latest effort discredits in the eyes of men, the splendid successes that preceded its fall. Though the next succeeding phase may be less worthy to live than the last, yet, carrying with it the freshness of a new spring, it is acceptable for the time being.
The moral I should draw from this is, that you cannot force style; you may prune, direct, and polish it, but you must accept that of your day, and only in accordance with that taste can your work be useful.
Not accepting it idly or wearily, but cheerfully, on principle, seeking to raise it; refusing by word or deed to truckle to the false, the base, or the lawless in your art, or to act against the acknowledged canons of good taste. Not for a moment should ambition be checked, but it should always be accompanied by the grace of modesty.
To the young decorator or artist who feels the glow of original design prompting him to reject old lines, and follow his own new and perhaps crude ideas, a few words of warning, and encouragement also, may be of use.
In art, as in poetry, we may recognize the Psalmist"s experience: "My heart burned within me, and at the last I spake with my tongue."
In small as in great things, crude ideas should not be brought to the front. No one should give his thoughts to the world till his heart has _burned_ within him, and he has been _forced_ to express himself.
Another wise saying, "Read yourself full, and then write yourself empty," also applies to art. Knowledge must first be acc.u.mulated before you can originate.
Wait till your experience and your thoughts insist on expression; then subject the expressed idea to cultivated criticism, and profit by the opinion you would respect if another"s work, and not your own, were under discussion.
It is true that taste is surprisingly various. Some will dislike your design, because its style is a reflection of the Gothic; another may be objected to as being frivolously Oriental-looking and brilliant, whereas the critic likes only the sober and the dull. Few are sufficiently educated to appreciate style: and we cannot rule our own by anybody"s opinion; but we can generalize and find something that shall be agreeable to all--something approaching to a golden mean. The artist for decoration should be sensitively alive to any suggestion from the style of that which he is to adorn, remembering the antecedent motives of its form, its history, and its date. He should try to make his new work harmonize with the old; but of one thing he may be certain--unless he absolutely copies an old design, his own will carry the visible and unmistakable stamp of his day.
Even while suggesting copies this difficulty arises--how can a perfect facsimile be obtained? No reproduction is ever really exact, unless cast off by the hundred, stamped or printed by a machine.
It has been said that the translator of a poem adds to, or takes from the original, that which he has or has not of the same poetical power; and in art the copy requires the same qualities to guide the hand that transmits the original motive to another material. An artist usually carries out his own ideas from the first sketch blocked out on the canvas, or scribbled on the bit of waste paper, to the last finishing touch. It is, as far as it can be in human art, the visible transcript of his own thought. In needlework this can hardly ever be. The designer, whether he be St. Dunstan, Pollaiolo, Torrigiano, or Walter Crane, only executes a drawing which leaves his hands for good, and is translated into embroidery by the patient needlewoman who simply fills in an outline, ignorant of art, unappreciative of its subtleties, and incapable of giving life and expression, even when she is aware that they are indicated in the original design. This is almost always the case; but there are exceptions. Charlemagne"s dalmatic, for instance, shows signs of having been either the work of the artist himself, or else carried out under his immediate supervision.
FOOTNOTES:
[15] Boyd Dawkins" "Early Man in Britain," p. 285. See also chapter on st.i.tches (_post_), p. 195.
[16] Some of these styles survive; some are still perceptible as traditions or echoes; some have totally disappeared in our modern art, such as the Primitive or the Egyptian.
[17] See Semper, "Der Stil."
[18] The history of Gaul begins in the 7th, and that of Britain in the 1st century B.C., while the civilization of Egypt dates back to more than 4000 B.C.; therefore the historical overlap is very great. It is probable that a large portion of Europe was in its neolithic age, while the scribes were composing their records of war and commerce in the great cities on the Nile, and that the neolithic civilization lingered in remote regions while the voice of Pericles was heard in Athens, and the name of Hannibal was a terror in Italy.--See Boyd Dawkins" "Early Man in Britain," p. 481.
[19] See chapter on patterns.
[20] In the Troad.
[21] Some of the Egyptian arts we know are pre-Homeric (if Homer really sang 800 B.C.), and Asiatic art was then in its highest development.
[22] See chapter on st.i.tches, cut work (_post_). This funeral tent is a monumental work, inasmuch as the inscription inwrought on it gives us the name and t.i.tle of her in whose honour it was made, and whose remains it covered. See Villiers Stewart"s "Funeral Tent of an Egyptian Queen."
[23] Herodotus, book ii. c. 182; book iii. c. 47 (Rawlinson"s Trans.). See Rock"s Introduction, p. xiv.
[24] Homer mentions "Sidonian stuffs and Phnician skill" (Iliad, v. 170); also "Sidonian Embroidery."
Ibid. vi. 287-295.
[25] The a.s.syrian designs are such as are now still worked at Benares, and being full of animals, they are called Shikurgah, or "happy hunting-grounds." See Sir G.
Birdwood"s "Industrial Arts of India," p. 236. See also Plate 4.
[26] See Perrot and Chipiez (pp. 737-757); also Clermont Ganneau"s Histoire de l"Art, "L"Imagerie Phenicienne,"
Plate 1, pt. 1. Coupe de Palestrina. He says that certain scenes from the "Shield of Achilles" are literally to be found on Phnician vases that have come down to us--vases of which Homer himself must have seen some of a.n.a.logous design.
[27] Homer speaks of Sidonian embroideries, "Iliad,"
vi., 287-295.
[28] See Egyptian fragments in the British Museum, and the specimens of Peruvian textiles; and Reiss and Stubel"s "Necropolis of Ancon in Peru."
[29] At Cervetri, Dennis" "Etruria," ed. 1878, i. p.
268.
[30] The restless activity of the Phnicians has often helped to confuse our aesthetic knowledge, and has caused the waste of much speculation in ascertaining how certain objects of luxury, belonging to distant civilizations, can possibly have arrived at the places where we find them.
[31] "The Beautiful Gate of the Temple was covered all over with gold. It had also golden vines above it, from which hung cl.u.s.ters of grapes as tall as a man"s height.... It had golden doors of 55 cubits alt.i.tude, and 16 in breadth: but before these doors there was a veil of equal largeness with the doors. It was a Babylonian curtain of blue, fine linen, and scarlet and purple; of an admixture that was truly wonderful. Nor was the mixture without its mystical interpretation; but was a kind of image of the universe. For by the scarlet was to be enigmatically signified fire; by the fine flax, the earth; by the blue, the air, and by the purple, the sea;--two of them having their colours for the foundation of this resemblance; but the fine flax and the purple have their own origin for this foundation, the earth producing the one, and the sea the other. This curtain had also embroidered upon it all that was mystical in the heavens excepting the twelve signs of the zodiac, representing living creatures."
Josephus (Trans. by Whiston), p. 895.
[32] See also M. E. Harkness and Stuart Poole, "a.s.syrian Life and History," p. 66.
[33] The visions of Ezekiel and St. John remind us of the composite figures and animals in Ninevite sculptures, and the prophetic poetry helps us to interpret their symbolism.
[34] G. Smith"s "Ancient History of the Monuments,"
Babylonia, p. 33. Edited by Sayce.
[35] In the British Museum. See "Bronze Ornaments of Palace Gates, Balawat," pl. E 5.
[36] See Auberville"s "Ornement des Tissus," pl. 1.
[37] The Egyptian queen in question was mother-in-law to Shishak, whose daughter married Solomon. After his son-in-law"s death, Shishak plundered the "King"s House," and carried to Egypt the golden shields or panels (1 Kings xiv. 26). The golden vessels went to Babylon later, and the golden candlesticks to Rome.
[38] Sir G. Birdwood repeatedly points out that the Vedic was the art that worshipped and served nature. The Puranic is the ideal and distorted. The Moguls, about 700 B.C., introduced their ugly Dravidian art. Through the Sa.s.sanian art of Persia, that of India was influenced. Possibly the very forms which in India are copied from a.s.syrian temples and palaces, may have travelled first to a.s.syria upon Indian stuffs and jewellery (Sir G. Birdwood"s "Industrial Arts of India,"
i. p. 236).
[39] Ibid., p. 130 (ed. 1884).