Why did the Arts + Crafts movement fail?
Why did William Morris and the Arts & Crafts movement fail? And how does it live on today?
“The past is not dead, it is living in us, and will be alive in the future that we are now helping to make.”
Kennet- William Morris, 1883
The understanding between a craftsperson and their work is a complex and multidimensional connection. To take a raw material, and painstakingly shape it into the creation of an object requires a level of unrequited respect from the worker, for both the material and the process, and this respect ultimately leaves a mark on the output, whatever it may be. This process is beautiful, and William Morris recognised this beauty as an integral element in preserving his notion of humanity.
Hand to material connection - Photo credit Benjamin Thomas
Prominent art critic John Ruskin, whose ideologies are widely considered to be the basis of the Arts & Crafts movement, believed that the separation of the designing and manufacturing processes had been vastly detrimental, both to society and the goods being produced. He demonised the rise of Industrialisation, labelling it ‘mechanised slavery of the workforce’ and arguing that perfection and accuracy were inhuman, only for ‘God and machines’. Whilst not quite as damning in his views on machine production as Ruskin, Morris believed wholeheartedly in the relationship between an individual and the fruits of their labours, and it was here that he thought industrialisation was failing its workers. This belief provided a springboard to create a movement that was not just artistic, but social too.
There was an awareness even as early as the 1850s about the devastating effect that industrialisation was having on the condition of society. Increasingly cheap manufacturing led to the swift deterioration of both working and living conditions for workers, which in turn gave rise to slums, tenements, overcrowding, child labour, and disease. The rise in machine manufacture also led to a decline in product quality, rendering centuries-old craft traditions and furniture-making specialists a thing of the past. The Arts & Crafts movement failed, without a doubt, in its mission to revert to traditional production practices and therefore halt the spread of industrialisation. We still feel the repercussions of the industrial revolution today; mass production and consumption are consistently on the increase, prioritising the ethical production and the rights of workers generally requires ‘an alternative business model’, and production quality is frequently determined by a product’s planned obsolescence.
Still taken from the final speech in ‘The Great Dictator’ starring Charlie Chaplin, 1940
So, where did Morris and his contemporaries go wrong? Perhaps it could be argued that in trying to rally against modernisation, Ruskin and Morris in fact placed both the production methods and the workers they were so desperately trying to “save” at a disadvantage. The nature of industrialisation seeks to turn everything into a trend, especially an aesthetic as distinctive as Arts & Crafts, and by the time it became out of fashion in the very early 1900s, the movement had been appropriated by mass production and commercialisation. This, in turn, rendered the initial ideals of the movement into virtual obscurity.
There is also a distinct irony in the fact that the entire Arts & Crafts movement relied heavily on funding from its bourgeois patrons, and Morris, Marshall and Faulkner & Co designs primarily furnished the homes of wealthy industrialists. A prime example of this is Cragside, the Northumberland home and estate of Tyneside industrialist Lord Armstrong. Commissioned by Lord Armstrong and designed by Richard Norman Shaw, Cragside is famous for being the first house in the world to be powered by hydroelectricity. It is also lauded as a key example of a typical Arts & Crafts décor, which is again ironic, considering that Lord Armstrong was in the arms manufacturing business, and essentially the antithesis of everything the movement stood for. Despite his industrial roots, the house is a clear indication of Lord Armstrong’s desire for the nostalgia and charm of the ‘rustic life’, contradicted by his interest in new technology and manufacturing methods.
The Socialist League Manifesto, 1885, Annotated by William Morris
The leaders of the Arts & Crafts movement resented this irony, and expressed regret at catering to ‘the swinish luxuries of the rich’, but this hypocrisy is arguably what lost the movement the majority of its momentum. Despite great effort, the social elements of the Arts & Crafts movement were not financially feasible when in competition with mass manufacture, and the fact remains that many of the craftspeople producing for Morris and his contemporaries would not be able to afford the items they were making.
This remains a dilemma for modern designers and craftspeople. How can we operate in an industry built on demand and supply? How can we uphold values within our work when faced with corporations who have monopolised our industries?
As demonstrated by the failure of Arts & Crafts, we cannot stem the flow of industrialisation, nor can we ignore it entirely. Instead of trying to return to bygone eras, we must take the lessons we can learn from them and work out how we can apply these to our own practices.
“What would William Morris do with an Instagram account? ”
One of the great successes of the Arts & Crafts movement was its revival of Medieval “Craft Guild”-style collectives for artists and designers to come together and share their skills and knowledge, and as a society, we have taken this notion even further. Collaboration and collective thinking remain an essential part of the current design and craft landscape, and furthermore, the introduction of technologies such as social media and the internet has facilitated that in a way that would be completely unfathomable to the creators of the late 1800s. What would William Morris do with an Instagram account? Would he embrace a more efficient and accessible way of connecting and collaborating with fellow creators? Or would he have taken a stance against social media, citing ‘the good old days’? Given Morris’ anti-industrialisation rhetoric, the latter seems likely.
Next generation of modern crafters - Photo credit Vance Osterhout
“As the craft and design landscape becomes increasingly multi-disciplinary and technology-oriented, we must envision a future that incorporates these advances. ”
Though it looks a little different to the 1870s, we, as craftspeople, are still connected to the objects that we create. Where we are today is a sum of the successes and mistakes of our past, and this is ever-present as we enter a new era of wealth creation and global connection. This has been emphasised, even accelerated, by the current world events, as craftspeople far and wide have had to experiment with new forms of communication, social engagement, and methods of producing creative output. As the craft and design landscape becomes increasingly multi-disciplinary and technology-oriented, we must envision a future that incorporates these advances. How can we use current technologies, and embrace them?