toward a redefinition of tradition in french design, 1895 to 19149
TRANSCRIPT
-
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 -
7/26/2019 Toward a Redefinition of Tradition in French Design, 1895 to 19149
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
-
7/26/2019 Toward a Redefinition of Tradition in French Design, 1895 to 19149
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
-
7/26/2019 Toward a Redefinition of Tradition in French Design, 1895 to 19149
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
-
7/26/2019 Toward a Redefinition of Tradition in French Design, 1895 to 19149
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
-
7/26/2019 Toward a Redefinition of Tradition in French Design, 1895 to 19149
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
-
7/26/2019 Toward a Redefinition of Tradition in French Design, 1895 to 19149
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
-
7/26/2019 Toward a Redefinition of Tradition in French Design, 1895 to 19149
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
-
7/26/2019 Toward a Redefinition of Tradition in French Design, 1895 to 19149
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
-
7/26/2019 Toward a Redefinition of Tradition in French Design, 1895 to 19149
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
-
7/26/2019 Toward a Redefinition of Tradition in French Design, 1895 to 19149
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:
-
7/26/2019 Toward a Redefinition of Tradition in French Design, 1895 to 19149
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
-
7/26/2019 Toward a Redefinition of Tradition in French Design, 1895 to 19149
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
-
7/26/2019 Toward a Redefinition of Tradition in French Design, 1895 to 19149
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
-
7/26/2019 Toward a Redefinition of Tradition in French Design, 1895 to 19149
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
-
7/26/2019 Toward a Redefinition of Tradition in French Design, 1895 to 19149
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
-
7/26/2019 Toward a Redefinition of Tradition in French Design, 1895 to 19149
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