Hermann Muthesius: Reactions in the Artistic Craft

Slowly, the artistic craft was being purified of the dross of the Secessionist stylistic delusions and in 1906 appeared at the artistic industry exhibition in Dresden as a successful child of the new age, with new demands, new ideals, and new requirements for beauty. All collaborators in this purifying development were then convinced that the decades-long practice of imitating historical styles was finally settled for good. The results of these stylistic exercises undoubtedly represented weak performances of an aging era, which had lost its self-confidence. It seemed that what replaced it emerged from the spirit of today's time and somehow represented a crystallization of modern thinking.
Further intellectual processes joined in. Leaning on English impulses, the German nations now concentrated all modern artistic-craft activities within themselves and, without a doubt, accomplished pioneering work for the entire world, which was becoming increasingly international. While the Romance nations still stuttered through their old stylistic formulas, English work, after creative decades marked by the influence of William Morris, somewhat flattened, it seemed that it was now reserved for German-speaking nations to take the lead in further creating stylistic forms of expression; moreover, there was an opinion that it did not matter if the most significant consequences from the standpoint of commercial policy were also associated with this. The example of France was readily available.
The new development of the artistic craft, which indeed provided a perfect image both in 1906 in Dresden and at the Munich exhibition in 1908 and the same year at the Vienna Kunstschau (see the author's article on the significance of these exhibitions in Style I, p. 201, translator's note), was nevertheless initially limited only to the highest circles. Despite the modern performances of a large number of active and lively artists, the broader public still favored the entirely imitative period's activities. Only gradually did new efforts gain the favor of wider circles. However, these supporters were mostly members of the middle classes; the wealthy, primarily the nobility, distanced themselves from everything. It is, of course, not possible to blame the nobility for not caring about new trends in creating contemporary art when they live in a well-furnished castle from the 18th century. For them, it is unnecessary to shake off the old forms; they do not understand the effort to change the existing mold because they live in a perfectly finished environment. However, it is characteristic of this nobility that otherwise, they have long since detached themselves in their daily lives and their sporting activities from the forms of the 18th century. Their saddle, rifle, walking stick, pocket watch, cigarette case, travel suitcase, and even their carriage no longer have any relation to the 18th century, being creations of their own time, and it would be downright unthinkable for the barrel of a hunting rifle to today be adorned with metal sculpture, as it was in the 18th century, or for a travel suitcase to be covered with embossed ornamentation in leather. In this field, we find lively modern sentiment everywhere. From this, we realize: Completely aside from the conscious creation of forms in artistic craft, as practiced for decades in the 19th century in alternating sequences, there has developed in our simple utilitarian tools, in clothing, in carriages, and in weapons a stylistic evolution striving for simplicity, a smooth surface, and logic, while at the same time seeking elegance and nobility in the new sense of the word, a stylistic evolution that is distant and completely independent of all artistic trends. No one can today doubt its distinct and characteristic results. In the intentions of the new artistic craft of the last decade, there echoed a memory of these involuntary stylistic transformations in utilitarian tools. And this echo undoubtedly brought a strong impulse along. Thus, the hopes for the endurance and far-reaching influence of this art-industrial movement were all the more justified.
Unfortunately, just at the moment when no one expected it and when it seemed that everything was seized by development, there followed a sudden reaction. Suddenly, styles began to be imitated again. Abandoned fringes reappeared on salon chairs, flounces and trim on curtains reminiscent of women's petticoats, artificially curved lines of salon tables flaring upward, on which a tabletop seemed accidentally placed as if it were a random object, carved wooden cornucopias spilling their contents onto the dressing table while coincidentally supporting the mirror, fabric mimicking gilded picture frames, which, when placed on the floor like carpets, struck terror that we might stumble over them, beds with canopies, and decorative window adornments. Suddenly everything appeared, and today one of the "workshops," which was still the vanguard of modern artistic craft, is entirely adapting to these stylistic copies.
What is most surprising, however, is not that styles are being copied, but that the models are drawn from the peculiarities of the 1850s. Decorative motifs from that decade, which the modern movement had deemed the most dreadful, were presented to us. Even more astonishing is that this audacious attempt finds enough resonance in an audience that, in anticipation of unheard-of things, finds these objects very pleasant and loves this madness of a childish period, even though for so long and so often they had before their eyes in the performances of modern interior art the entire seriousness of life for which there was no mood at that time, having banished all other arts with vaudeville art that was tedious to them. We have witnessed a renewed influx to the artistic craft, coming from social strata that were previously uninterested. In this sense, these new decorative means appear as an extension of the scope of artistic craft, and therefore it is not surprising that manufacturing circles are engaging with this new toy. It is even possible now to hope that higher classes, wealthy people, and nobility will be won over, although they had previously behaved reservedly.
Moreover, it would be a mistaken view to think that only commercial interests have awakened and supported this reactionary movement. There are deeper causes of two kinds. Firstly, it can be observed that in the last half-century, a different direction has emerged approximately every 15 years. From this, we can conclude that the human mind is adapted to this turn, succumbing to boredom after a certain period due to the continuous observation of the same forms of expression. It would also follow that the changed direction regularly falls into repetition. If we set the beginnings of the modern movement to 1896, precisely 15 years have passed. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that modern interior art suffers from a certain one-sidedness. The complete rejection of plastic ornamentation on furniture and wall decoration does not align with the sentiments of people who have a justified fondness for a richer impression. This richer impression has always been an important component in all periods, and even in recent years of the modern movement, we felt directly that the need for the revival of plastic ornamentation was increasingly escalating; however, this need has not been met at all, or at least only imperfectly. It seemed that modern interior artists stubbornly held onto smooth forms, but in reality, it was due to the circumstance that there was no artist capable of creating plastic ornamentation. Ornamentation does not suit our time, and even if viewed as a whole, in flat ornamentation, the creations of the modern art movement are insignificant compared to the rich fullness of form in former artistic periods. Modern art has not yet created a plastic ornament. It seems that our time is cursed with infertility in fields where it is necessary to elevate from simply comprehensible concepts. The orientation of the time has indeed replaced poetry with utility, art with economy, and mystery with realism. Thus, it was possible in modern architecture to come back to severity and rhythm again, but it was altogether impossible to cover this severity with the poetic charm of organic decoration, which speaks to us so clearly from the works of old art.
This is where the problem lies. If we are unable to create ornamentation, we should strive to logically get by everywhere without ornamentation. We also do this in modern creations such as cars, two-wheelers, yachts; even in men’s suits, poetry is now limited to 5 cm² of tie fabric. Only in our own homes have we not yet dared to take this step. Here, the habit of having decorative objects around remains a serious contributor; a large part of the public still lives among them.