toward a redefinition of tradition in french design, 1895 to 19149

7/26/2019 Toward a Redefinition of Tradition in French Design, 1895 to 19149

1/18

Toward a Redefinition of Tradition in French Design, 1895 to 1914Author(s): Nancy TroySource: Design Issues, Vol. 1, No. 2 (Autumn, 1984), pp. 53-69Published by: The MIT PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1511499

Accessed: 09/10/2008 07:33

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpress.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the

scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that

promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The MIT Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toDesign Issues.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1511499?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpresshttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mitpresshttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1511499?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/18

Nancy Troy

Towarda Redefinitionof Tradition

in

French

Design,

1895

to

1914

The author

s

grateful

o the

American

Council

of Learned

ocieties nd

to the

National Endowment or the Human-

ities,

which

provided rants

n

support

f

the

research

or this

essay.

1)

John

M.

Jacobus,

r.,

reviewof

Sources

of

Art

Nouveau,

by

Stephan

Tschudi

Madsen,

Art Bulletin 40

(December,

1958):

64.

2)

SeigfriedBing,

"L'Art

Nouveau,"

The

Architectural

ecord12

(August,1902):

281.

3)

Seigfried

Bing,

"L'Art

Nouveau,"

The

Craftsman

1903);

reprinted

n

Artistic

America,

Tiffany

Glassand

Art Noveau

(Cambridge,

MA: MIT

Press,

1970),

227.

The

phenomenon

of Art

Nouveau

has

generally

been

defined as

an

international

style

characterized

by long, flowing

lines

that

gained prominence

around 1900.

Twenty-five

years

ago,

John

Jacobus already

observed that "the

Art

Nouveau

is

thought

of

primarily

as a

'style'

movment:

conventionally

its

history

is

sketched with

emphasis upon

furniture and the decorative

arts,

architecture

following

in

second

place

and

painting

relegated

to a

minor

position."1

If, however,

the focus is turned from

scholarly

criticism

to

original

sources of the

period,

a

very

different

image

emerges. Siegfried Bing,

whose L'Art

Nouveau

gallery

provided

a

focus for the art of the

period

as well as the name for the

style by

which it

eventually

came to be

characterized,

emphatically

stated

that

originally

"no

definite

style

was

prescribed"

by

his

enterprise.

Bing

wrote,

"L'Art

Nouveau,

at

the

time

of its

creation,

did not

aspire

in

any way

to the honor

of

becoming

a

generic

term. It was

simply

the name of an establishment

opened

as

a

meeting ground

for all ardent

young spirits

anxious to manifest the

modernness

of

their

tendencies.

..."

Indeed,

Bing suggested

that the aim of his

gallery

"would

be indicated more

clearly

-

if the

name

of

an estab-

lishment

could

be

extended to a

phrase

-

by

the

denomination:

Le Renouveau dans

l'Art,

the Revival of Art.

"2

In

arguing repeatedly

that

"'L'ArtNouveau' is

the

name of

a

movement, not of a style,"3and in characterizing ts aim as one of

renewel or

revival,

Bing

touched

upon

a

complex

of issues that are

fundamental to an

understanding

of

fin-de-siecle

Art

Nouveau

and of

subsequent developments

in

the field of

French

design

dur-

ing

the

early years

of the twentieth

century.

For

Bing

was but the

first of

many

to

suggest

that

decades

of

eclectic historicism had

corrupted

not

only

the

products

of

design,

but

also the

very

func-

tion of

style

in

relation

to

history.

The situation that was

confronted can

be described in

the most

general

terms.

During

the

course

of

the

nineteenth

century,

a

succession of

early

historical

styles

were

revived

and,

at the

same

time,

machines were intro-

duced into

the

design

production process, very

often with the

intention of

reproducing

the effects of

handwork. As a

result,

the

average person

found it

difficult to

distinguish

between

antique

objects

fashioned

by

hand

and modern

objects

made with the aid

Design

Issues,

Vol.

I,

No.

2

53


3/18

of

machines:

the

style

of

both was more or less the same.

Style

not

only

became

independent

of

any precisely

defined

relationship

of

contemporary

modes of

production,

it'

also ceased to function

automatically

as an index of

placement

within a

historical

con-

tinuum.

It

therefore became

increasingly

difficult to define

modernity as the latest stage in a progressive evolution or to view

it

in

terms

of

a national

heritage

embodied in a succession of

coherent

styles.

As

will

become

clear

in

the

following pages,

tradition was even-

tually

to be associated not with

style

but with

production

itself.

In

order to maintain the

high

quality

of French

design

that had been

achieved before the breakdown of traditional craft

production,

it

was

necessary

to

establish

an

equivalent

production

system

that

would

respond

to

contemporary

industrial conditions.

The

crisis

in the

French decorative arts that climaxed around 1910

was

gener-

ated

by

these

problems

and

it,

too was marked

by

a concern simi-

lar to

Bing's,

that

is,

for the need

to establish

modern

design by

reinterpreting

the nature of

its

link to the

past.

At stake

in

both

cases was not a return to

a

particular style

for

the

sake

of

simple

historicist

revival,

but a reaffirmation

of

the

basic circumstances

that made all

styles

of the

past

viable

within

a

continuing

tradition:

The fundamental

structure of

design production

for centuries

was

founded

on craft

education

in

an

apprenticeship

system

main-

tained

by guilds.

Both the Art Nouveau designers Bing championed and the

designers

active

around 1910viewed the destruction of the

guilds

in

1791,

at the time of the

French

Revolution,

as a

major

turning

point

in the

history

of French

decorative

art,

one that had contrib-

uted

directly

to

a

precipitous

decline in

professional

training

and

consequently

to

a decline

in the esthetic

production

of the de-

corative arts metiers.

They

believed that historicism

prevalent

in

the nineteenth

century

was a result of the failure to

maintain

the

Bibliothequem

~,,.

dsAt

eoai,Pas..

.

...

Fig.

1)

Georges

de

Feure,

Boudoir,

1900,

L'Art Nouveau

Bing, Exposition

Universelle, Paris,

1900. Photo:

..

Bibliotheque

des Arts

Decoratifs,

Paris.

54


4/18

Fig.

2)

Andre Mare and

others,

Salon

Bourgeois,

1912,

Salon

d'Automne,

Paris,

1912.

Photo:

L'Art

Decoratif,

1913.

4)

Bing,

"L'Art

Nouveau,"

(1902):

285.

5)

Gustave

Kahn,

"La

realisation

d'un

ensemble

d'architecture et de

decora-

tion,"

L'Art

Decoratif29

(1913):

93. This

and

subsequent

translations

by

the

author.

6)

Marcel

Bataillat,

"Le

reve dans

l'art,"

in

Oeuvres de

Georges

de

Feure

(Paris:

L'Art Nouveau

Bing,

1903?),

n.p.

7)

Henri

Frantz,

'Le meuble aux

Salons

de

1902,"

Art et

Decoration

11

(1902):

178.

8) Kahn, 'La realisation d'un ensemble,"

92.

Design

Issues,

Vol.

I,

No. 2

consistent

development

of

craft

techniques

hat constituted he

true

national

heritage

n

the

decorative

rts.Art

Nouveau

design-

ersjustified heirappropriationf lateeighteenth-centuryorms

as

models for

their own on the

basisof

theirdesire o

place

their

work within the

context of

this

interrupted

radition,

n

Bing's

words,

"just

as

if

the

thread

had

not

beenbroken or

nearly

a cen-

tury.

"4

Moreover,

because

hey

sought

o raise he

statusof

design

to the

same evelas

thatof fine

art,

they

naturally

ookedfor

inspi-

ration

to the

"precious

urniture"

nd

"museum

pieces"

created

before

the

FrenchRevolution.5

Rococo influencesare

especially

evident n

the

delicate,

gilded

wood furniture f

Georges

de Feure

(figure1),

who was described n

1903 as

having"properly

on-

tinued

he

tradition f

eighteenth-century

rtisans.

6

A

year

before,

however,

another ritic

reproached

de

Feure or

failing

to consider

utility

in

his

designs,

comparing

hem

to

"sculptures

f extreme refinement hat

are

nothing

more

than

bibelots,

precious

art

objects

no

doubt

within the reachof

only

a

very

few

collectors."

By

1910,

this attitudehad

become wide-

spread

as

many young

designers

condemnedArt Nouveau for

promoting

an elitistview

of

design

as

fine artandfor

introducing

"complexity,

he

impudent

and clever

arabesque"

hat reflected

suchan elitistattitude.8ThedesignerAndreMareandhiscollabo-

ratorsare

ypical

of

others

during

his

period,

as

they

chosenot to

takethe

style

of a

grand

roi,

for

example

LouisXV or

Louis

XVI,

as their

point

of

departure.

nstead,

n

their

designs figure

2)

they

looked

to

the

style

of

Louis

Philippe,

he

"bourgeois

monarch."

The

simplicity

and

practicality

ssociatedwith

the

large, softly

cuvring

ormsand

flat,

modestly

decorated

urfaces haracteristic

of this

style

were said

not

only

to have reflected he

socialcondi-

tions of its own

era,

but also

to

correspond

o what

were seen

as

the

comparable

circumstances,

also dominated

by

the

middle

class,

of

the

period

around

1910. These

designers

argued

that

Frenchcraft traditions

had in

fact survived he

abolitionof the

guilds

and remained

ntact until the

1840s,

when

production

passed

nto the hands

of

designers

who had not been

trainedas

craftsmen

ccording

o

the

prerevolutionary

uildsystem.

Having

55


5/18

9) Andre Vera, "Le Nouveau style," L'Art

Decoratif27

(1912):

32.

Fig.

3)

Georges

de

Feure, Settee,

1900.

Photo:

L'Art

Decoratif,

1913.

10)

Bing's

comments

in

this

regard

were

echoed ten

years

later

by

Kahn,

who

wrote with

respect

to the next

generation

of

designers:

"Besides,

what is

style,

what are

the

styles

for

these

young

people?

They

say

that the word

style

is

generally

used without

rigor,

that 'this

expression, style,

is

simply

a

point

of

reference,

a means of

cataloging

a

period

['],

but that

properly speaking

there is no

such

thing

as a succession of

styles.

There

is

rather a transformation of taste corres-

ponding

to

the

needs of each

era,

to

which,

unconsciously

and

simultane-

ously,

artists are

subjected."

Kahn,

"La

realisation

d'un

ensemble,"

95.

Fig. 4) Andre Mare, Settee, 1912.

Photo: L'Art

Decoratif,

1901.

lost touch with their

metiers,

designers

in the 1840s

began

to sub-

stitute

pastiche

for innovation

and,

in

the

eyes

of the

generation

of

1910,

thereby

initiated the

historicist debasement of French

design.

As Andre Vera noted

in

1912,

"It is therefore from the

Louis-Philippe style

that we

can draw

the best

lesson,

especially

when one considers that the point is not to repeat it but rather to

continue it.

"9

In

light

of

these

considerations,

the

particular

historical

refer-

ences

embodied

in

the

very

different

stylistic

forms of

Art

Nouveau

on one hand

(figure

3),

and those

objects

produced

by

the

subsequent

generation

of French

designers

on the

other

(figure

4),

conceal

an

underlying

similarity

in both movements

for

emphasizing

the

metier

and the

production

process

-

rather than

style

alone

-

in the creation of modern

design. Style

was crucial

to

all these

artists not for

its own

sake,

but because

it

provided

them

with a means of

identifying

their work with the

systematic

interpretation

of French tradition.

This identification is

what

gave

meaning

to their choices of

particular

styles

of

the

past

as

inspira-

tion for

their own

work,

despite

the fact that

the

notion

of

style

in

a

general

sense

always

remained

suspect.

10

If

Bing

can be taken

at

his

word,

(the

gallery

he

opened

in

1895

was not

intended to be a locus

for the

promotion

of a

single,

unified

style)

why

did

L'Art Nouveau

eventually

come to

repre-

sent the

opposite

of

Bing's original

aims?

What

transpired

after

the

inaugural exhibition that forced Bing to defend the premises

underlying

L'Art Nouveau

in

the

early years

of

the twentieth

cen-

tury?

The

answer to these

questions

is

in

Bing's

fundamental

attitude to

design,

which was

embodied

in

L'Art

Nouveau,

and

the

critical

reception

this attitude was

accorded

when

it was

first

offered to the

public.

?,- - -- - 1-t-.1.

- :-

._- .

~

' ?

.

~...

.

.

_ _ _

_ . _. __? . . '

Bing

believed

that sound

modern

design

and,

indeed,

art

in

general

were

products

of

universally

valid

priciples

hat all

too

often

went

unrecognized

because

of

prejudices

nculcated

by

"pedantic

theories" and

narrow,

inflexible

aesthetic

conventions.

56

I

I


6/18

Decades

of

experience

s a collector

anddealer n

Oriental

arthad

convinced

him that a "certain

relationship,

close or

distant,"

existedbetween

he artof

Japan

andthatof the

West,

"which

can

11)

Seigfrieding,Estampes

'Outamaro

et

be found

secretly

ontained

herein.

11

He

felt, however,

hat he

de

Hiroshige

Paris:

Galeries

Durand-

contemporary

French audience

was misled

by

the

initially

exotic

Ruel,

1893),

vi.

appearance

of

Japanese

art and failed to look

beyond

its

superficial

stylistic

characteristics o the fundamental conditions that

contribute

o

style

"in

which are concealed

principles

hat are

12)

Bing,

Estampes,

vii.

common

to all

conceptions

of the

ideal."12

Furthermore,

he

manner

n

which

Japanese

art was

being

revealed o

European

audiences

by Bing

himself as well as several

other

prominent

dealers

and

connoisseurs)

as the

expression

of a

slowly

and

consistently

evolved esthetic that for centurieswas

protected

within nationalboundaries lso

corresponded

o

the

value

Bing

placed

on a continuous

ultural

radition.

Bingrecognized

hat

he

artof Japanwasnew as well asforeign o France.He arguedhat

it was

precisely

because

apanese

rt

was "so ancient

n

itself,

and

13)

Seigfried

ing,Exposition

e la

gravure

for us

so

new,

"13

that t

presented

French

designers

with unfamil-

apona

(Paris:

cole Nationale

des

iar

forms

that

were

nonetheless associated

with

an unbroken

BeauxArts,

1890),

xv.

tradition.

It fulfilled

Bing's

criteria

for modern

design;

it was

linked o the

past

butnot

condemned

o

repetitions

f

past

stylistic

forms. He therefore

suggested

that

the

corruption

of

Western

design,

which n his view historicism

eflected,

ould be amelior-

ated

by

an

appeal

o the art of

Japan:

"There

we find

examples

worthy neveryrespect fbeing ollowed,not, of course, n order

to shake he foundations

f our venerable esthetic

difice,

but to

add

one more

element to all those which

in

past

centurieswe

14)

Seigfried

Bing, "Programme,"ejapon

appropriated

n order o

suport

our

genie

national.

"14

Artistique

1(1888):

.

With these deas n

mind,

andwhile

continuing

his activities s

a

dealer,

Bing

published

he

journal

Le

JaponArtistique

etween

1888 and 1891. Its

purpose

was

to

promote

the

principles

of

Japanese esignamongEuropean

ndAmerican rtists.

By

1895,

his interestshad shifted

from

Oriental

art,

and

Bing

decided o

transform is

gallery

nto a

showplace

or works n various

media

by contemporary

Western

rtists.Rather handefinemodern

art

and

design

by

meansof a new

but nonetheless

eadily

dentifiable

style, Bingpresented

modernity

n a

variety

of forms

by

obtaining

what he determined o be

the best

products

of

decorativeand

industrial rt rom

Europe

andthe

United

States.

Bing's

efforts

mmediately

ncounteredntensecriticismwhich

focusedon

two issues.

First,

Bing

was

attackedor the

mplication

made

by

the name

of his

gallery

hatthe workshe exhibited here

constituted

nything pecifically

ew. Not

only

were

many

of the

artistswell known, but some of the objectshad been exhibited

elsewhere. Criticism

of L'Art Nouveau

as an

inappropriate

epithet

was

further

and

more

significantly

ueled

by

charges

hat

Bing

was

attempting

o

pass

off incoherence

ndconfusion s

origi-

nality

in his

gallery.

Second,

Bing's enterprise

was

critically

rejected

or his

refusal

o be

limited

by

national

boundaries.He

Design

Issues,

Vol.

I,

No.

2

57


7/18

15)

For a

summary

of

the adverse

criticism,

see Victor

Champier,

'Les

expositions

de l"Art

Nouveau,'"

Revue des

Arts

Decoratifs

16

(1896):

1-6.

16)

This comment is attributed to ttienne

Moreau-Nelaton by JuliusMeier-Graefe

in

Geschichten

neben der Kunst

(Berlin:

S.

Fischer,

1933).

102.

17)

Bing,

"L'Art

Nouveau,"

(1902),

182.

Fig.

5)

Henry

Van de

Velde,

Dining

Room, 1895,

L'Art

Nouveau, Paris,

1895.

Photo:

Bibliotheque Royale,

Brussels.

Fig.

6)

Edouard

Vuillard, Plate, 1895,

Josefowitz

Collection,

Switzerland.

assembled

n

array

f works

by

modernartistsand

designers

rom

England,

America,

and

throughoutEurope

-

not

only

France.

The

intermingling

f mediaand

styles

was thus

compoundedby

the

inclusion

of other nationalitiesas

Bing sought

to

present

a

cross-section

of

objects

that reflectedhis criteria or

modernity,

rather han those of the prevailing stablishment ominatedby

conservative,

cademic,

ndmore

strictly

commercialnterests.15

Bing's

refusal o

adhere

o the

unity

eitherof

style

or of nation-

ality

left

him

open

to the attacks f those

who

viewed

diversity

as

pastiche

and

anythingforeign

as a

challenge

o the

primacy

of

French aste. As one

contemporary

ut

it,

".

. .

only

a

foreigner

like

Bing,

who lacks

any

sense of the Parisian

pirit,

would have

been

capable

of

creating

an establishment hat

is so

un-French.

One

might

almostattribute he cold shoulderwith which L'Art

Nouveau

was

greeted

o a hidden

nationalism.

6

Eventually,

ven

Bing himselfacknowledged hat the results he obtained"had a

chaotic

appearance."17

he

problem

was

apparent

n

many

of the

interiors

hat

Bing

commissioned or L'ArtNouveau's irstexhi-

bition;

Henry

Van de Velde's

dining

room

(figure

5)

offers an

instructive

xample.Although

Vande

Velde'scedar

paneling

and

furniture,

all inlaidwith

copper

n

the form of linear

arabesques,

provided

a

unifying

theme for the

room,

its two

other

major

decorative lementswere at odds with

one

another.The

orange

and earth ones of PaulRanson's even

wall

panelsmay

havehar-

monized with Van de Velde's

color

scheme,

but the

subject

of

peasant

women

working

n

the fields

hardly

provided

an

appro-

priate

background

or the

ceramic ervice aid out on the

dining

table. This had been decorated

by

EdouardVuillardwith

images

of

fashionable,

istinctively

rbanwomen

(figure

6)

who,

accord-

ing

to an account

published

n

1897,

were

depicted

with

"

the

large

spotted

sleeves,

the silk

blouses

of

assorted

patterns,

the low

bodices,

the

large

bows and

the

ribbonswith

which our women

folk bedeck their

persons;

the immensehats with

feathers,

he

58


8/18

18) Jean

Schopfer,

"Modern

Decoration,"

The

ArchitecturalRecord 6

(1897):

283.

19)

Edmond

Cousturier,

"Galeries S.

Bing:

Le

mobilier,"

La Revue Blanche 10

(1896?):

92.

20)

Martin

Eidelberg,

"The Life and

Work

of

E.

Colonna,

part

2: Paris and L'Art

Nouveau,"

The

Decorative Arts

Society

Newsletter

7

(une

1981):

1.

21)

Bing,

"L'Art

Nouveau,"

(1902),

283.

22)

Bing,

"L'Art

Nouveau,"

(1902),

283,

285.

23)

Gabriel

Weisberg,

"The

Importance

of

S.

Bing's

Art Nouveau

Craftsmen's

Workshops:

1898-1904."

(Paper

deliv-

ered to a

colloquium sponsored by

the

Center

for

Advanced

Study

in

the

Visual

Arts,

Washington,

D.C.,

March

31,

1983.)

wavingplumes

with which

hey

crown

hemselves in

fact,

all

the

frivolous

and the

charming

ide of feminine ife of

the

present

day."18

This was

only

one

instance

of

the

eclecticism that

many

critics

harshly

condemned

n

Bing's display,

suggesting

hat he

would have been "betteradvised o

commissiona

single,

patient

individual o executehis modern uiteof

rooms."19

The

discrepanacies

hat visitors encountered

n

the exhibition

have

recently

been

emphasizedby

Martin

Eidelberg,

who has

describeda

small

portion

of the 662 items listed

in

the

catalog:

"Therewas

a

very

rich

but

bewildering

isplay

of

styles,

including

a

bedroom

designed

by

the

Nabi

painter

Maurice

Denis,

a

boudoir

in

the

Rococo

style by

the

English

artistCharles

Condor,

and

a

series of three rooms

by

Henry

Van de Velde and

Georges

Lemmen in the most "modern"

Belgian style.

There

was

an

equally

wide

range

o the decorative

bjects

which

Bing

exhibited,

includingthe British Arts and Crafts metalworkof William

Benson,

the

jewelry

of

Lalique;

he

simple

Englishglassware

nd

the fantasies n

glass

of

Tiffany,

Galle,

and

K6pping;

he

sophis-

ticatedly

oberceramics f

Delaherche;

he

exotic ridescentwares

of Massier

and,

as

well,

the traditional ustic

pottery

of

England,

France,

andFlanders.

20

Smallwonder hat

Bing

had o

admit hat

many

objects

were

"faulty

n

conception,

due

to

inexperience;

ll

suffered

n

their

aspect

rom

a

want of

cohesion,

due to

extreme

diversity

of

origin.

"21

Bingsubsequently cquiescedo the critical ondemnationhat

greeted

his initial

attempt

o establishL'Art

Nouveau as a focal

point

for

what he

perceived

s an

nternationalmovement oward

artisitc

renewal

n

modern

design.

In

his

capacity

as

dealer,

he

realized

he

hadbeen

unable

o

prevent

his

opening

xhibition rom

becoming

an eclectic

assemblage

f

heterogenous

bjects

whose

chaotic sum

did not do

justice

to the

integrity

of

its

individual

parts.

In

order to save the

"new-born

movement,"

Bing

deter-

mined

to assumea

much

more

active role than a

conventional

dealer

was

allowed;

there

was,

he

argued,

only

one

way

to

ameliorate he situation:

"namely,by

having

the articles

made

under

my

personal

direction,

and

securing

he

assistance

f such

artistsas seemedbest

disposed

o

carry

out

my

ideas."22

ccord-

ingly,

in

1898

Bing

establisheda numberof

workshops

on

the

gallerypremises

and,

as

Gabriel

Weisberg

as

shown,23

he

began

to

turn out

designs

according

o

a

highly organizedproduction

system

basedon a divisionof tasks

hat

was

hierarchicallyrranged

under

his own

control. The

production

process

he

instituted

was similar to the

recently

established

Vereinigte

Werkstatten

(AssociatedWorkshops) n Munich. Artists supplied designs

made

by

craftsmenn

centralized nd

carefully

upervised

work-

shops.

Despite

the

relationship

o a

German

ystem

of

produc-

tion,

the

designs

Bing

turnedout were

firmly

based on

French

stylistic prototypes

and

were

clearly

ntendedto

appeal

to the

Design

Issues,

Vol.

I,

No. 2

59


9/18

24)

Max

Osborn,

"S.

Bing's

'Art

Noveau'

auf

der

Welt-Ausstellung,"

Deutsche

Kunst

und Dekoration

6

(1900):

558.

25)

Gabriel

Mourey,

"L'Art Nouveau

de

M.

Bing

a

l'Exposition

Universelle,

part

1,"

Revue des Arts

Decoratifs

20

(1900):

265.

26) Mourey,

"L'Art Nouveau

de M.

Bing,

part

2,"

Revue

des Arts

Decoratifs

20

(1900):

280.

27)

Martin

Eidelberg

contends

that

Bing

was

bankrupt

by

1903. See

Eidelberg,

"E.

Colonna,"

9.

Although

no records

to

that effect

have

been uncovered

to

date,

accounts of the

gallery

written

by

con-

temporaries

of

Bing support

Eidelberg's

hypothesis.

See

Meier-Graefe,

Ges-

chichten

neben

der

Kunst,

101-102;

Gab-

riel

Mourey,

Essay

sur

l'art

decoratif

moderne

(Paris:

Librarie

Ollendorff,

1921),

103-104.

In

correspondence

with

the

author

(July

17,

1983),

Peter

van

Dam

cited evidence

that the

activities

of

L'Art

Nouveau

consumed

large

sums

of

money.

Van Dam

notes that

Bing

put

large

selections

of

his

stock

on

the

mar-

ket

through

auction

sales,

not

only

in the

mid-1890's

when

he needed

to

raise

funds

to

launch

his new

gallery,

but

also

in

1901,

well

after

it

had

been established.

Bing

also

secretly attempted

to sell his

personal

collection

of

Japanese

prints

and other art

works

in

Germany

in

1904.

28) Julius

Meier-Graefe,

like

Bing

a German

living

in

Paris,

was another influential

tastes of

French collectors who were

steeped

in

their nation's

decorative

rts

raditions.

In

entering

he

ranksof

the

producers,Bing

confronted

pow-

erful

complex

of

well-established ommercialirmscommitted o

the

promotion

of

luxury

objects

upon

which France's

eputation

and

dominant

osition

n the

European

market adbeen

based

or

centuries.It was

impossible

for him to avoid a

compromise

between his

original

desire to

forge

an internationalbasis

for

modern

design

on one

hand,

and the chauvinism f his conserva-

tive

competitors

n

the other.As a

result,

he

objects

he

produced

after1898were

governed ncreasingly y

a

pronounced

eference

to

specifically

French

characteristics

ather

han

an

eclectic

nter-

nationalism.

n the words

of

Max

Osborn,

Bing

had

proceeded

according

o the

following

rule: "It should be a combination

r,

better

yet,

an

organic

union of French radition

with

the

modern

artistic ensibilityhatarisesoutof thepresentand s embodiedn

motifs."24Because riticshad

traced he

incoherence

f his inau-

gural

exhibition o an overabundancef

influences rom

abroad,

henceforth

Bing

andthe

designers

who worked or him

-

French-

men

and

oreigners

like

would

emphasize

Frenchness bove

all:

". .

.they sought

to

protect

themselves rom

foreign

nfluences

andto

renew he

traditions

f the

truly

French

tyles,

rather han

following

the fluctuations f fashion

and

'Parisianizing' nglish,

German,

or

Belgian

models

-

and for

this

they

deserve our

praise."25

he Frenchness f

their

designs

was not confined o

the

invocation

of

tradition

by

means

of

reference o

paststyles

alone.

It also

involvedan

attempt

o

tap

the

very

essenceof the French

conception

of

the

nation's

cultural

heritage

by exalting

"those

traditions,

ll

French,

of

grace,

of

refinement,

f

elegance,

and,

to

be

sure,

of

luxury.

"26

The critical

riumph

if

not

the commercialuccess27

of L'Art

Nouveau

came

about

only

when

Bing

relinquished

his

goal

of

promoting

an international

movement

or which a unified

style

was not

paramount.Although

Bing's

ntervention

n the

produc-

tion

process

demonstrated is desire o reform he decorative rt

establishment,

t

also

heralded nd

made

possible

his

capitulation

to it. The

workshop

system

he instituted

had

virtually

no

impact

in

France,

perhaps

because

the

objects

it turned

out,

however

stylistically

unified,

were still

expensive

and often

individual

pieces

that

reinforced he

French

prediliction

or

bibelot

collect-

ing.

In this

they

were not

markedly

different

rom

anything

done

before. It did not

take

long

for

Bing's

revised

version

of Art

Nouveau

to enterthe lists of codified

historical

tyles

in

opposi-

tion to whichyoungartistswouldin turndefine heirwork.

Although

he

importance

f

professional

raining

nd

methods

of

production

were

recognized

by

Bing

and

others28

uring

he

Art

Nouveau

period,

hey

didnot

become

an

explicit

ocus

of con-

cern

for

the

industry

n

general

until

the

earlyyears

of

the twen-

tieth

century.

At that

time,

even conservative

manufacturers

f

60


10/18

figure

who

shared

Bing's

oncern.Soon

after

Bing

established

orkshops

n

the

premises

of

his

gallery

n

1898,

Meier-

Graefe

opened

La Maison

Moderne,

which

Kenworth

Moffethas

described s

"anassociation f

artists

or

commercial

purposes

based

on the

precedent

f the

Munchener Werkstatten."As with

Bing'sworkshops, o too in LaMaison

Moderne,

"the

dealer

was

also the

pro-

ducer;

he artist

provided esigns,

over-

saw

the

execution,

eceived

royalty

on

every

piece

sold,

and

helped

determine

the

price." Despite

these innovative

practices

or

perhaps

ecause

f them

both

enterprises

ere

plaguedby

finan-

cial

difficulties.

Meier-Graefe

ost his

entire nvestment nd closedLa

Maison

Moderne

n

1903;

n thator

the

ollowing

year,

Bing

was

orced o do

thesame.On

La Maison

Moderne,

see

Kenworth

Moffett,

Meier-Graefe

sArt

Critic. tu-

dien zur Kunstdes neunzehnten

ahr-

hunderts,

19

(Munich:

Prestel-Verlag,

1973),

38,

and

"Korrespondenzen:

Paris,"

Dekorative

Kunst12

(1899):

15-

16.

On

Bing's

L'Art

Nouveau work-

shops,

see

Eidelberg,

E.

Colonna,"

art

1;

Weisberg,

Craftsmen's

Workshops;"

and

Gustave

Soulier,

"Le

mobilier,"

rt

et

Decoration

(1898):

0.

29)

The

profound

nd

enduring

mplications

of this

debate,

particularly

s it

affected

painters

but also

designers

n

France,

have been

brilliantly

demonstrated

y

Kenneth ilver,n"Esprit eCorps:The

GreatWarand

French

Art,

1914-1925"

(diss.

Yale

University,

1981).

Silverwas

the first to

explore

he

significance

f

such

notions

as

discipline

nd

organiza-

tion

n

the context f the

rivalry

etween

French nd

German rtists hat s set

out

below.

30)

M.-P.

Verneuil,

Lesarts

appliques

ux

Salons,"

Art

et

Decoration

15

(1904):

194.

31)

Verneuil,

Lesarts

appliques,"

68.

32)

Leon

Moussinac,

Le

meuble

francais

moderne

Paris:

Hachette,

925),

17.

33)

See G.

Quenioux,

"Le Dessin et son

enseignement,"

L'Art

Decoratif

15

(1906):

43-54.

machine-made,

eproduction

urniture

egan

o

sense

hat

France

was no

longer

able o maintaints

long-standing

nternational

po-

sition as

arbiterof

taste in the decorative

artson the basis of

its

historical

tyles

alone.

Increasingly

ware

of the threat

posed

by

foreign

competitors, articularly

erman

esigners

who united

n

associations

not

only

the

Vereinigte

Werkstitten n

Munich,

but

also the Dresdener Werkstatten fur Handwerkskunstwas

founded n

1898,

and

numerous

others

were

established

n

sub-

sequentyears),

French

designers

began

o

reassess he

nature

of

their

own

professional

nstitutionsand

production

methods.

In

the course of

a

debate

hat

eventually

assumednational

dimen-

sions,

severalreasons

were

cited

repeatedly

or what

cameto be

seen as the

fundamental

roblemplaguing

French

designers:

heir

lack of

discipline

and

organization.29

irtually very

participant

lamented he

fact

hat,

n

France,

designers

were

generally

solated

fromoneanotherby the needtomaintain heirreputations s fine

artists,

creatorsof individualized

objects

of

high

quality

that

would

appeal

o

sophisticated

rench astes.

"Do

they

unitewith

one

another o

form

societies aimed

at

production?"

ne critic

asked.

"Or

else,

approaching

he

manufacturers,

o

they

attempt

to establish

logical

and

ndustrial

roduction

f theirwork?

Not

at all The

artists

stay put

in their

ivory

tower "30 or the

most

part, designers

emained loof from

manufacturers.

he few

who

produced

heir

own

pieces

often did

so

with

the

help

of

assistants

whom theywere unable o supervise dequately.Theytherefore

were

prevented

rom

entering

nto

quantity

production,

and as a

result

hey

could

realize

only

isolated

objects

at a

high

cost.

"Here

(in

France),

modernart

has,

with a

few all

too rare

exceptions,

remained n artof the

uniquepiece,

an

artof

the

bibelot.

"31

The

major

cause

of

this stateof

affairs

was traced

by

artistsas

well

as

designers

writing

n

the

early

1900s

to

the

principles

of

French

drawing

and

design

education hat

were

adopted

on a

nationalbasis n 1878.At

that

ime,

the

director f the

Beaux-Arts

prescribed

method

or

teaching

drawing

n

primary,

econdary,

and

professional

choolsbasedon

geometry

and

"respect

or

pre-

cision

'in

orderto

accustom

students)

o

reducing

he

complex

forms of

nature

to

fundamental

elements.'"32

This

classical

method

fostered an

abstractor

ideal

rather than

a

practical

approach

o

design,

and,

t

was

argued,

t

produced

designers

who

were ine

artists ather

han

craftsmen,

hereby

ontributing

o the

furtherdecline

of the

metiers.33

he

introduction

f

mechanical

processes

and

consequent

division

of labor

compounded

his

problem

and

rebounded o the

benefitnot of

innovative

esigners

who employed rainedartisans,but of large-scalemanufacturers

who

most often

used

relatively

unskilled

workers

to

turn

out

cheap

reproductions

itherof

traditional

esigns

or

of

designs

hat

had

recently

become

fashionable.The

dilemma

becameacute n

the

early

twentieth

century

when,

as had been

mentioned,

he

French

began

o

recognize

hat

hey

were

rapidly

osingground

o

Design

Issues,

Vol.

I,

No. 2

61


11/18

34)

"Lettre

ouverte,"

L'Art et les

Metiers 1

(November, 1908):2-3.

35)

Victor

Prouve,

"Art et

metiers,"

L'Art et

les Metiers 1

(November,

1908):

7.

36) Jules

Huret,

"En

Allemagne:

Munich;

Les

arts

decoratifs

a

l'exposition,"

Le

Figaro(January19, 1909):5. Huret's dis-

cussion

of the

exhibition

was

part

of a

larger

series on

Germany.

Two

years

after

it

appeared

in

Le

Figaro

it was

included

as a

chapter

in his

book,

En

Allemagne:

La

Baviere

et la Saxe

(Paris:

Bibliothique-Charpentier,

1911):

143-71.

37)

Rupert

Carabin

is a

fascinating

figure.

Born

in

Alsace

in

1862,

he moved

with

his

family

to Paris after the Franco-Prus-

sian

War.

In

the

1890s,

he

produced

highly

individualistic

wood

furniture,

most of which involves

naturalistically

sculpted

nude

female

figures

that often

assume

bizarre

positions

to form the

supports

for seats

of

chairs

or for

table

tops.

These

works,

together

with

Cara-

bin's

sculptural

oeuvre,

have

recently

been

the

subject

of

an

exhibition:

L'Oeuvre de

Rupert

Carabin,

1862-1932

(Paris:

Galerie

du

Luxembourg,

1974).

Hardly

anything

has been written about

62

competition

rom

Germany,

wherethe

design

establishment

as

said to

possess

precisely

those

characteristicshat were

sorely

lacking

n France.

Against

this

background

f

anxiety

over the

ability

of their

professional

nstitutions to overcome

the

challenges

posed

by

market

conditions,

a

group

of

French

designers,

artisans,

and

representatives

f related

organizations

met

in

1907

n

Besanqon

where

they

formed

the

Union

Provincialedes

Arts

Decoratifs.

Seeking

o

combat

he

overwhelming

ower

of the

Parisian

esign

establishment,which,

with

government

upport,

controlled

he

educational

system

and the

access

to

important

nternational

exhibitions

n

France

and

abroad,

he

Union

established

pro-

gram

whose salient

points

called

or

decentralization

nd he reor-

ganization

f

apprenticeship

s the first

step

in

the reform

of

pro-

fessional

design

education.34

Although

the

Union

probably

had

littleimpactduring hefirstyearof itsexistence, t gained onsid-

erable

nfluence

after

ts

first

official

congress,

whichat the invita-

tion of the

municipality

f

Munich,

was held

in that

city

in

1908.

The

meeting

coincidedwith

an

enormousexhibitionof

work

by

Munich

designerscelebrating

he

forty-fifth anniversary

f the

Munich

Kunstgewerbeschule.

he membersof

the

Union

were

thus

given

an

opportunity

to

assess what its

president,

Victor

Prouve,

describedas the

"methodical, ational,

and

powerful

regeneration

f

Bavarian ecorative

rt.

35

As

Jules

Huretrelated

in one of severalwidely read articles nspiredby the exhibition

(published

n

Le

Figaro

early

in

1909),

"It was

an

exhibitionof

industrial

nd

decorative rt

composed

xclusively

f

objects

rom

Munich

...

I

mustat the

outset

state

my

unreserved dmiration

for such

an

effort. Here is a

city

of

500,000

nhabitants

hat,

with

its own

resources,

organizes

a

strictly

ocal exhibitionand

that

manages

o fill six

large

halls

and

four

hundredrooms with the

products

of its own

activity

alone.

I

look

in

vain

for

another

ity

wherea work of such

magnitude

ouldhavebeen

produced.

36

An

official

report prepared

for

the

Conseil

Generale

du

Departement

de la Seine

by

the

sculptor

and furniture

maker,

Rupert

Carabin,37

n

the name

of the Paris

delegation

o the

Union

Provinciale,

urtherdemonstrateshe

profound mpression

hat

the Munich xhibition

made

on

the French.38

rmed

with a

strong

sense of

cultural

and

artistic

supremacy

over the

Germans,

he

Frenchwent to Munich

expecting

o find

in

the

objects

displayed

there

"'heavy

and

complicated

xecution

n

a

pastiche

of earlier

styles."'

Instead,

as Carabin

wrote,

"'our

surprise

and

stupefac-

tion were immensewhen

[we were]

confronted

by

the enormous

progressaccomplished y Munich n thespaceof tenyears since

the

Exposition

Universalle

f

1900].'"

Every

object

n

the

exhibi-

tion seemed o havebeenendowedwith

the

praiseworthy

harac-

teristicsof

simplicity,practicality,

nd,

in

particular,

ound

tech-

nical execution.

The

arrangement

nd

presentation

f a series

of

approximately

ifty

domestic

ettings

was

also

especially triking:


12/18

his activities

s an advocate f reform

n

the French

decorative arts

system,

although

Carabinwas

already

peaking

out

on this

subject

n the

mid-1890s,

s

evidenced

by

his remarks

quoted

in

Henry Hocq,

TendencesNouvelles:

Enquete

ur l'Evolutiondes Industries

d'Art

(Paris:

H.

Floury,

1896),

42-45.

Carabin'sdeaswere o haveaprofound

impact

on Charles-Edouard

eanneret

(later

to

be

known as Le

Corbusier,)

whom

he

probably

met n

1908

or

1909,

while

Jeanneret

was

living

in Paris. In

1912,

Carabinried

o

help

Jeanneret

ind

a French

publisher

or a secondedition

of his

book,

ttude

sur le

mouvement

d'art

decoratif

n

Allemagne,

whichhad

been

published

n

Switzerland arlier

that

year.

In

1915,

when

Jeanneret

was

preparing

o write

a

book

on the

rivalry

betweenFrance nd

Germany

n

the

ield

of

design,

he

appealed

o

Carabin

or

advice and

information.The

implica-

tionsof the

interaction etweenCarabin

and

Jeanneret

ill be

explored

n a

study

that he author s

presently reparing

n

French

esign

between 895and1925.

38)

The

citations

mmediately

elow have

been

taken

rom

portions

of this

report

quoted

n the

following

articles: Con-

seil

Municipal

e Paris

1908).

Rapport

presente

unomde a

delegation

nvoyee

par

la Ville de Paris

au

2e

Congres

de

l"UnionProvincialees

ArtsDecoratifs'

a

Munich,'"

L'Art

t

les

Metiers

(anu-

ary,1909): 2-67;andVictorRolly,"La

crise

des

arts

decoratifs n

France.

Le

Congres

de

Munich:

Rapport

de

M.

Rupert-Carabin,"

on

Chez

Moi

(Feb-

ruary

10,

1909),

40-42.

39)

See

Claude

Digeon,

La

crise

allemande

de

la

pensee ranfaise

1870-1918)

aris:

Presses

Universitaires

e

France,

1959),

463-76.

40)

"Conseil

Municipal

de

Paris

(1908).

'Rapport',"

6.41)

Carabin,

quoted

in

Rolly,

"La risedesarts

dcoratifs,"

42.

41)

Carabin,

uoted

n

Rolly,

"Lacrisedes

arts

decoratifs,"

2.

42)

Carabin,

quoted

n

Rolly,

"Lacrisedes

arts

decoratifs,"

2.

Design

Issues,

Vol.

I,

No.

2

"'There

was not a

single

room

n

whichthe

smallest

detailwas

not

studied n termsof the decorative

whole,

from the

windows,

the

iron

work,

the wall

hangings,

he curtains nd

he

lighting,

o

the

modern,

hot-water

heatingapparatus

hose

ugliness

was

ingeni-

ously

disguised.'"

The fact that the

objects

were

executed

olely

for the

purpose

of this

exhibition,

but wereavailableor

purchase

in

several

hops

n

the

city,

further

estified o the

practical

ather

than

merely

artisitcorientationof

the Munich

designers.

"'All

theseobservations

ausedour

surprise,"'

Carabin

dmitted,

"'but

this

was

transformednto

stupefaction

when we saw the

work

exhibited

by

the Munich

professional

chools,

from the

elemen-

tary

o

the advanced

evel

....

As for the

objects

xhibited

y

the

studentsof the

College

of

Decorative

Arts,

they

would

be

worthy

of inclusion

n

our museums '"

In

Munich,

the membersof the

Union

Provinciale ound

pre-

cisely what they were aimingfor in their own program,but to

their

surprise

-

and

evidently

also their consternation the

achievementwas German ather han French.

Against

he

back-

ground

of

growing

anti-German entiment in France at this

time,39

t was

immediatelyperceived

n

chauvinistic erms as a

dangerous hallenge

o the nation's

design

ndustry:

"'TheSedan

of

commerce,

with

which

we have been threatened or

so

many

years,

is

now no

longer

to be

feared,

t is a

fait

accompli

nd

we

must

play

our

part.'"40

aced

with

a

losing

battle

or

both domes-

tic andforeignmarkets, he French eluctantly cknowledgedhe

necessity

of

learning et

anotherbitter essonfromtheirGerman

rivals.

In

the

Union Provinciale

eport

and n numerous

publica-

tions that ollowed

during

he

next

several

ears,

French

designers

andcritics

analyzed

he educational nd ndustrial

esignproduc-

tion

systems

in

Germany,particularly

n

Munich,

contrasting

thesewith their

neffective

ounterparts

t

home.

Carabin,

mong

others,

repeatedly

rgued

hatthe

way

to

ameliorate

he

situation

in France

was

"'first

f

all,

and

by

everypossible

means,

o

recon-

stitute he

metiers

hroughaprenticeship,'"41

hus

providingprac-

tical

experience

with real

materials

n

order o

redress he balance

of

professional raining,

which,

as

constituted,

was

weighted

heavily

n favor

of

theory

and

designing

on

paper.

Carabinalso

demanded"'the

reconstitution

f

the

professional

chools,"'

nd

"'decentralization,

hich is

the most beautiful

of modern

civic

projects."'42

Only

this would

upset

the

preeminent

position

of

Paris

and allow France o

establish

a

networkof

educational nd

production

centerssimilar o that found in

Germany,

wherethe

modernmovement n

Munichwas matched

by

similar

rends

n

othercities, includingBerlin, Dresden, Dusseldorf,Hagen,and

Hamburg.

In

addition o

provoking

a

profound

and

ong-lasting

eevalua-

tion of

France's ecorative rts

ystem

relative

o thatof

Germany,

the Munichexhibitionalso

nspired

Frantz

ourdain,

president

f

the

Salond'Automne

and,

n that

capacity,

n

honorary

member

63


13/18

43)

Baron de

Pechmann,

preface

to

Exposi-

tion

des arts

decoratifs

de

Munich

(Paris:

Salon

d'Automne,

1910),

n.p.

44)

M.-P.

Verneuil,

"Le

Salon

d'Automne,"

Art et Decoration 28 (1910):137.

45)

See Otto

Grautoff,

"Die Munchner

Ausstellung

im

Urteil der

Pariser

Press,"

Dekorative

Kunst 19

(1910):

146-47.

46)

Verneuil,

"Le Salon

d'Automne," 130,

136.

47)

Henri

Bidou,

"Le

Salon

d'Automne,"

Gazette

des

Beaux-Arts

52

(1910):

378-

80.

48) From La Revue Bleue and Revue Heb-

domadaire,

quoted

in

German transla-

tion

in

Dekorative

Kunst

19

(1910):

150.

49)

This and

subsequent

citations in

this

paragraph

are from

Verneuil,

"Le

Salon

d'Automne," 130, 136,

and 160.

of

the Paris

delegation

to

the 1908

meeting

of the

Union

Provin-

ciale),

to

ask

the

Munich

decorators to exhibit

their work in

the

French

capitol

in

1910.

Upon

receiving

Jourdain's

invitation,

the

members of the

various

artists'

cooperative

societies in Munich

formed

a committee

that established a common

program:

"It

was

unanimously

decided

not

simply

to exhibit

[individual] objects,

but to

bring

them

together

in an

ensemble

in

such

a

way

as

to

demonstrate

above

all

the kind of

presentation

that had had

so

much

success

in

Munich in

1908."43

Accordingly,

their contribution

to

the 1910 Salon

d'Automne,

housed on the

ground

floor of the Grand

Palais,

included an

ensemble

of

interiors

designed

and

meticulously

appointed

so as

to

suggest

the lived-in environment

of

a

wealthy,

cultivated

family:

"salons, boudoir, bedrooms,

music

room,

and

dining

room,

even a

bathroom

-

nothing

is

lacking."44

The

total effect

was

powerful

enough

to overwhelm

virtually

all of the French

critics,

many

of

whom

had

already published

articles

anticipating

the

tremendous

impact

that the

exhibition

would

have on the

French

design

industry

in

the months before the show

opened

to

the

public

on

October

1.

Indeed,

the tone of their

response

was set

as

early

as March

29,

when

Le Matin

proclaimed

that the French

decorative

arts were

endangered by

the imminent German

inva-

sion.45 French critics

in

general

assumed

a

defensive

position

from

the

start,

typified by

M.P.

Verneuil,

who declared

that,

as

a

Frenchman, "it is from the Frenchpoint of view that I must judge

these artists

and their

works." "The

Bavarian s

certainly

closer to

us than the

Prussian,"

he

wrote,

"but he

nonetheless remains

German. And

our

Latin taste

will

never allow us to

accept

any

tendency

whatsoever

of the

German taste.

"46

Henri Bidou

spoke

of a

German

"genie

national,"

and

questioned

whether

it was in

fact

possible

for the French to

appreciate

designs

that

had been

made for a milieu

and

in

the context of

a

tradition that differed

significantly

from their

own.47

Another critic

explained

that the

French

designers'

lack of

regard

for the

ensemble's

character

which was

emphasized

so

successfully by

the

Germans,

could be

attributed

to the

French

conception

of

social life.

This

conception

was

directly

reflected

in the

decoration

of

the French domestic

interior: "'In the

French salon

-

and the same holds true more or

less for the other rooms

of the house

-

a certain

degree

of

preten-

tion is in

almost exclusive

control;

its

aim

is to focus attention

on

individual

objects,

a rare

piece

of

furniture,

a beautiful

rug,

or a

valuable vase. The

sensibility

of a collector

pervades

the entire

arrangement:

a museum or a

gallery

is

usually

the distant ideal to

which every rich and educated French couple aspires."'48

Many

commentators concluded that a

"question

of race"49was

ultimately responsible

for the distinctions

between

French and

German

designs,

the former

emphasizing

"suppleness,

restraint,

harmony,

and

grace,"

and the latter

composed

of

large, heavy

forms

involving

dark

lugubrious

colors,

or

strident

contrasts

of

64


14/18

Fig.

7)

Karl

Bertsch,

Bedroom

for

a

Woman,

Salon

d'Automne, Paris,

1910.

Photo:

L'Art

Decoratif,

1910.

;:E

acidic tones

(figure

7).

But

although

the French could

cite innate

differences of taste

or social

customs

peculiar

to each nation

as

reasons for rejecting the German designs on esthetic grounds,

they

could not fail to

acknowledge

and

praise

the

Munich

decorators'

demonstration

of the German characteristics

"of

work,

perseverence,

and

organization."

In what was

already

becoming

a familiar

refrain,

Verneuil

admitted

that "in this

Bavarian

exhibition we have a lesson

to learn: that

of

discipline.

The Munichois demonstrate

the beneficial

effects of common

effort,

as

opposed

to the individual effort

that

prevails

among

us,

where

truly,

anarchy

reigns."

In defense of his

countrymen,

Verneuil

explained

that the German

designers enjoyed

certain

advantages

that

were unavailavble

to their French

counterparts:

"The Munichois

spent

a

long

time

preparing

their

important

exhi-

bition:

they

work

according

to a

common

idea,

profiting

from the

collaboration of

manufacturers or from valuable

subsidies."

Indeed,

the German

emperor,

doubtless

cognizant

of

the value

that a Parisian

stamp

of

approval

would create

in the

marketplace,

granted

the Munich

designers

a

subsidy

of

200,000

marks to

sup-

port

their work for

the exhibition.

"Our

artists,

on the

contrary,

show

only

their

individual and most recent work. . . without

any

aid whatsoever."

French decorators

were

quick

to

learn the salient lesson

taught

by

the exhibitors from

Munich. In the

years

to

come,

many

of

them also concentrated

their efforts

by joining together

to

pro-

duce the kinds of interior ensembles

for which the Germans

had

been

so

widely praised

-

as far as execution and

presentation

were

concerned

-

in 1910. In

doing

so,

they

became

engaged

in a battle

over

the nature of French tradition

and the

proper

means of its

embodiment in modern

design.

Critics

were soon

able to describe

the situation

in terms of two

opposing

camps.

There

was a

group

of

designers, including

Leon

Jallot

and Maurice

Dufrene,

who

had

been

trained

as

craftsmen and who had

begun

their careersaround

1900,

working

in the Art Nouveau

mode.

They

had

developed

a

furniture

style

marked

by

a restrained

use of soft colors

and

by

flowing

linear elements and reminiscent

of

Art

Nouveau.

How-

Design

Issues,

Vol.

I,

No.

2

65


15/18

Fig.

8)

Maurice

Dufrene,

Study,

Salon

d'Automne, Paris,

1912.

Photo: Art et

Decoration,

1912.

50)

Raymond

Koechlin,

for

example,

was

even

reluctant to use what

he referred to

as "this

hideous new word."

See his

"L'Art

decoratif i

l'exposition

de

Turin,

L'Art

Decoratif26

(1911):

133.

51)

Henri

Clouzot,

"Le

mobilier moderne

au 6' Salon des

Artistes

Decorateurs,"

La

Revue

de I'Art Ancien et Moderne 29

(April,

1911):

262.

52)

Raymond

Koechlin,

Exposition

Inter-

nationale des

Industries et du

Travail de

Turin 1911.

Groupe

XIII,

Classe 71-B:

L'art

decoratif

moderne

(Paris:

Comite

Francais des

Exposition

i

l'ttranger,

n.d.),

24-25.

66

ever,

it was more

simplified

in

form,

also more solid and

substan-

tial as far

as the use of materials

was concerned

(figure

8).

These

designers

earned the title of

constructeurs or their

techni-

cal

proficiency

and for

the

sobriety

of their

approach.

The

second

group

resisted this

fundamental conservatism and

included

such

artists as

Louis

Sue,

Andre

Mare,

and others who had

originally

been trained as

painters

and

sculptors

and who turned

to the

decorative arts later than the

constructeurs,

for the

most

part

shortly

before

1910.

Lacking

knowledge

of a

metier,

these

designers

concentrated

less attention on the

construction

of

individual

objects

and, instead,

focused on

the

presentation

of

ensembles

in

which their

painting

interests were reflected in

the

dominant role that

bright,

strident colors

played

in

unifying

their

designs (figure

2).

Often referred to as

coloristes,

these

designers

were also described as

ensembliers,

a term

whose association

with

German

design

was

exploited by

hostile

critics to deride

the

French.

50

Both the

constructeursand the

coloristes

agreed

that in the

early

1900s Art

Nouveau had

been

compromised by

"a horde of

imitators" who

judged

its

products

to be

popular enough

to war-

rant

reproduction

in

much

the same manner as

the historical

styles

of the

past.

"The

manufacturers

got

involved,

and

instead of deal-

ing

with

artists who

had

proven

their

worth

they

put

their own

draughtsmen

to work

to do

everything.

They

ran to the

libraries.

They

plagiarized

from

the

modern art reviews.

They 'pinched'

motifs from no matter

where

and

applied

them

to no

matter

what .

.51 The

constructeurs

sought

to correct

this state of

affairs while

retaining

the

basic formal

vocabulary

established

by

Art

Nouveau,

to

which

they brought

"minute

attention to

draw-

ing,

a

search for

equilibrium

of the

parts,

and for the

appropriate-

ness of the

forms."52


16/18

53)

Kahn,

"La realisation d'un

ensemble,"

92.

54)

Andre

Mare,

Letter to Maurice

Marinot,

February

20, 1912,

Collection

Franqoise

Mare-Vene,

Paris. I am

grateful

to

Madame

Mare-Vene

for

graciously pro-

viding

access

to the

rich archival

mate-

rials

in

her

collection.

The

coloristes

ejected

his

approach

out of hand. Instead

of

attempting

o

preserve

he

efficacy

of Art Nouveau

ormsand

he

continuity

of late

eighteenth-century

otions of

grace,elegance,

and

delicacy

of

design

to which

the

constructeurs

emained

attached,

he coloristes

ebelled

gainst

he visionof French

design

as a

highly

refined diom.

They preferred

o

emphasize

he

com-

fort andease

of more

ample

orms

nspired

by

the

mid-nineteenth

centuryLouis-Philippe

tyle;

at

the

same

ime,

they

alsoturned

o

"classical,

rovincial,

ural nfluences"

where

they hoped

to

find

"echoes

of ancientFrance."53

ndre

Mare,

eaderof a

group

of

coloristes

who collaborated n several

nterior

design

projects

n

the

years

just

beforeWorldWar

I,

described heiraims n

terms

that reveal he

importance hey

too

placed

on the national

radi-

tion,

however

much their

interpretation

f it differed rom

that

put

forward

by

the constructeurs:First

of

all,

make

something

veryFrench, taywithin he tradition.Letusallowourselveso be

guidedby

our

instinct,

which forcesus to react

against

he errors

of

1900,

and this

reaction hould be constituted

n the

following

way:

first,

return

o

simple,pure,

ogical,

andeven

slightly

harsh

lines,

whereas he

period

hat

preceded

s was

horribly

ormented

[in

its

forms].

Second,

return o

very

bold,

very pure,very daring

colors,

whereas hat

same

preceding

period

always

delighted

n

washed-out,

discolored,

anemic

ones.

Be

vigorous

and naive n

drawing;

ender he awkward etailwithout

allowing

t

to

impose

itself;be awkward ather hanskillful.Forthedecoration,akeup

once

again

the

motif

that,

from the

Renaissanceuntil Louis-

Philippe,

did not

change.

Give

them renewed ife. In

sum,

make

things

hatare

a littlesevere n

outline,

he

harshness f whichwill

be

mitigated y

a

pleasant

decor,

boldly

colored,

and

he whole in

a

tradition

that is

very

French."54

Although

the fine-arts

background

f the

coloristeseft them

vulnerable

o

attackon the

grounds

hat

they

lacked oundtrain-

ing

in the

metiers,

t would

be

wrong

to assume

hatthe

position

they

took was in

no

way

affected

by

the

debates hat

France's

exposure

o

German

design generated

n

the

years

around

1910.

Indeed,

the

belief was

widely

held that

the

coloristes wed their

emergence

o

the exhibition

of Munich

decorators eld

that

year

in the

Salon

d'Automne

n

Paris.The

very

fact

that

they

concen-

trated on

groups

of

objects

displayed

n

ensembles

of related

interiors ike

those

presentedby

the

Munichoismade

comparison

with the

Germans

irtually

nevitable.

Moreover,

by

appealing

o

the

Louis-Philippestyle,

the

coloristes

eemed

to be

inviting

comparison

with

the

Germans

n

specific,stylistic

grounds.

For

the Germanshad alsobeeninspired n partby French urniture

fromthis

era,

or

by

its

German

ariant,

he

Biedermeir

tyle.

As

discussed,however,

he

coloristesnsisted

on

the

specifically

French character f

their work.

A

principal

argument

used

to

defend heirchoiceof the

Louis-Philippe tyle

was basedon their

assessment

f it as

the last coherent

expression

of France's raft

Design

Issues,

Vol.

I,

No.

2

67


17/18

55)

Leandre

Vaillat,

"Andre

Mare,"

L'Art

et

les

Artistes 10

(1914):

289.

56)

Emile

Sedeyn,

"Au

Salon

d'Automne,"

Art et Decoration 32

(1912):

144.

57)

Louis

Vauxcelles,

"Au Salon

d'Au-

tomne: L'Art

decoratif,"

L'Art

Decoratif26

(1911):

246.

tradition. n

response

o the

question,

"But

when was this tradi-

tion

abandoned?"

eandre

Vaillat

explained

he

reasoning

f

the

coloristes s

follows:

"Without

question

the

suppression

of

the

guilds

dealt

t

a mortalblow.

But

in

spite

of the abandonment f

the ancient

rules that

governed

access

o

the

position

of

master,

during

he next

half

century,

he

discipline

of

apprenticeship

nd

certaincustoms of

the

workshop

maintained hemselves

almost

intact,

until

the death and definitive

disappearance

f the old

artisanswho

had earned heir

metiersbefore

the

French

Revolu-

tion

of]

1793,

or their

sons,

or their

students.

Thus

our furniture

traditiondid not end in

1793,

but it

continued,

reflecting

ocial

changes

and

political

upheavals,

under the

Directory,

the

First

Empire,

the

toward a redefinition of tradition in french design, 1895 to 19149

Documents