Art Nouveau. Jean Lahor

1894, reserving a large space for decorative displays, and in December of the same year, the Maison d’art (established in the former townhouse of prominent Belgian lawyer Edmond Picard) opened its doors to buyers in Brussels, gathering under one roof the whole of European decorative art, as produced by celebrated artists and humble backwater workshops alike. More or less simultaneous movements in Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, and Denmark (including Royal Copenhagen porcelain) had won over the most discriminating collectors well before 1895.

      The expression “Art Nouveau” was henceforth part of the contemporary vocabulary, but the two words failed to designate a uniform trend capable of giving birth to a specific style. In reality, Art Nouveau varied by country and prevailing taste.

      As we shall see, the revolution started in England, where at the outset it truly was a national movement. Indeed, nationalism and cosmopolitanism are two aspects of the trend that we will discuss at length. Both are evident and in conflict in the arts, and while both are justifiable trends, they both fail when they become too absolute and exclusive. For example, what would have happened to Japanese art if it had not remained national? And yet Gallé and Tiffany were equally correct to totally break with tradition.

      Unsigned, Peacock Table Lamp.

      Patinated bronze, glass and enameld glass.

      Macklowe Gallery, New York.

      James McNeill Whistler, Peacock Room from the Frederic Leyland House, 1876.

      Freer Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C.

      Maurice Bouval, Umbellifer, Table Lamp.

      Gilt bronze and moulded glass.

      Exhibited at the Salon of the Société des Artistes Français in 1903 in Paris.

      Macklowe Gallery, New York.

      England: Cradle of Art Nouveau

      In the architecture of its palaces, churches, and homes, England was overrun with the neoclassical style based on Greek, Roman, and Italianate models. Some thought it absurd to reproduce the Latin dome of Rome’s Saint Peter’s Cathedral in the outline of Saint Paul’s Cathedral, its Protestant counterpart in smoky, foggy, London, along with colonnades and pediments after Greece and Rome, and eventually England revolted, happily returning to English art. The revolution occurred thanks to its architects, first to A.W.N. Pugin, who contributed to the design of the Houses of Parliament, and later to a whole group of mostly Pre-Raphaelite artists who more or less favoured art before the pagan art of the sixteenth century, before the classicising trend so hostile in its origins and its nature to English tradition.

      The main proponents of the new decorative art movement were John Ruskin and William Morris: Ruskin, for whom art and beauty were a passionate religion, and Morris, of great heart and mind, by turns and simultaneously an admirable artist and poet, who made so many things and so well, whose wallpapers and fabrics transformed wall decoration (leading him to establish a production house) and who was also the head of his country’s Socialist Party.

      With Ruskin and Morris among the originators, let’s not forget the leaders of the new movement: Philip Webb, architect, and Walter Crane, the period’s most creative and appealing decorator, who was capable of exquisite imagination, fantasy, and elegance. Around them and following them arose and was formed a whole generation of amazing designers, illustrators, and decorators who, as in a pantheistic dream, married a wise and charming fugue to a delicate melody of lines composed of decorative caprices of flora and fauna, both animal and human. In their art and technique of ornamentation, tracery, composition, and arabesques, as well as through their cleverness and boundless ingenuity, the English Art Nouveau designers recall the exuberant and marvellous master ornamentalists of the Renaissance. No doubt they knew the Renaissance ornamentalists and closely studied them, as they studied the contemporaneous School of Munich, in all the fifteenth- and sixteenth-century engravings that we undervalue today, and in all the Munich school’s niello, copper, and woodcrafts. Although they often transposed the work of the past, the English Art Nouveau designers never copied it with a timid and servile hand, but truly infused it with feeling and the joy of new creation. If you need convincing, look at old art magazines, such as Studio, Artist, or the Magazine of Art,[2] where you will find (in issues of Studio especially) designs for decorative bookplates,[3] bindings, and all manner of decoration; note in the competitions sponsored by Studio and South Kensington, what rare talent is revealed among so many artists, including women and young girls. The new wallpapers, fabrics, and prints that transformed our interior decoration may have been created by Morris, Crane, and Charles Voysey as they dreamed primarily of nature, but they were also thinking about the true principles of ornamentation as had been traditionally taught and applied in the Orient and in Europe in the past by authentic master decorators.

      Finally, it was English architects using native ingenuity and artistry who restored the English art of old, revealing the simple charm of English architecture from the Queen Anne period, and from the sixteenth to the eighteenth centuries in England. Quite appropriately they introduced into this revival of their art – given the similarity between the climates, countries, customs, and a certain common origin – the architectural and decorative forms of Northern Europe, the colourful architecture of the region, where from Flanders to the Baltic, grey stone was subordinate to brick and red tile, whose tonality so complements the particular robust green of the trees, lawns, and meadows of northern prairies.

      Jan Toorop, Soul Searching, 1893.

      Watercolour, 16.5 × 18 cm.

      Kröller-Müller Museum, Otterlo.

      Now, the majority of these architects saw no shame in being both architects and decorators, in fact achieving perfect harmony between the exterior and the interior decoration of a house by any other means was unfathomable. Inside they sought harmony as well by composing with furnishings and tapestries to create an ensemble of new co-ordinated forms and colours that were soft, subdued, and calm.[4]

      Among the most highly respected were Norman Shaw, Thomas Edward Collcut, and the firm of Ernest George and Harold Ainsworth Peto. These architects restored what had been missing: the subordination of all the decorative arts to architecture, a subordination without which it would be impossible to create any style.

      We certainly owe them such novelties as pastel decor (as in the eighteenth-century domestic interior) and the return of architectural ceramics (likely Oriental in origin), which they had studied and with which they had much greater skill and mastery than anyone else, given their constant contact with it. Thanks to these architects, bright colours like peacock blue and sea green started to replace the dismal greys, browns, and other sad colours that were still being used to make already ugly administrative buildings even more hideous.

      Julia Margaret Cameron, Profile (Maud).

      Photograph, 32.3 × 26.5 cm.

      Musée d’Orsay, Paris.

      William Morris, Cray, 1884.

      Printed cotton, 96.5 × 107.9 cm.

      Victoria and Albert Museum, London.

      Arthur Heygate Mackmurdo, Chair, 1882.

      Mahogany and leather.

      Victoria and Albert Museum, London.

      Charles Rennie Mackintosh and Herbert McNair, Poster for “The Scottish Musical Review”, 1896.

      Colour lithograph.

      The

2

The Studio, the Magazine of Art and L’Artiste were art magazines published in London and Paris. This type of publication proliferated in the late nineteenth century as the public showed renewed interest in the decorative arts. Art et décoration, first published in Paris in 1897, is another magazine in this tradition.

3

There were many English book illustrators (especially for children’s books): William Morris, Walter Crane, Sir J. Gilbert, Dante Gabriel Rossetti and Aubrey Beardsley. France had Eugène Grasset, Dinet and M. Leloir.

4

The school, which arose out of the work of Viollet le Duc, considered the architect as a project manager responsible for designing and harmonising construction, decoration and furnishings.