Arts & Crafts Movement

 

In England, parallel to the Art Nouveau, another movement emerged which had a lasting influence on architecture. This was the Arts and Crafts movement, which arose out of the ‘Romanticism’ movement in literature, and promoted the simple rural lifestyle. Inspired by the writings of John Ruskin and William Morris, which centered on the evils of the industrial revolution, the movement laid a great stress on the virtues of pre-industrial society, and advocated the use of traditional arts & crafts as an antidote to the ill effects of the industrialization, and hence the name.

 

The disruption of the established social systems due to the industrial revolution were a cause of concern for many humanitarian writers. Moreover, the manufacturing by machines made the products cheaper but deprived them of the artistic craft traditions, and made them purely utilitarian. They thought of 'the craftsman' as free, creative, and working with his hands, 'the machine' as soulless, repetitive, and inhuman. In Ruskin’s view, the industrial production carried out by the ‘servile labour’ demeaned both the process and the product. A healthy and moral society, he argued, requires free workers who design the products they make, and incorporate in them both the knowledge base and aesthetic traditions of a society.

 

This was in tune with the ‘pre-Raphaelite’ movement in art, which was critical of both the industrial culture which they considered barbaric and the renaissance art (particularly after Raphael) too ornate & formal. The pre-Raphaelite movement thus shared the sentiments of the ‘romanticist’ movement in its glorification of the pre-industrial society and the traditional crafts which reflected the simple, down to earth nature of the rural lifestyle.  

 

It was natural, therefore, that the ‘back to roots’ philosophy of the Arts & crafts movement got its inspiration from the based its design on the British vernacular architecture expressing the texture of ordinary materials, such as stone and tiles, with an asymmetrical and informal composition of built form. Many elements of this traditions like the solid form, wide porches, steep roof, pointed window arches, brick fireplaces and wooden fittings became the identity of the style.

 

The Red House, in Bexlyheath, London, designed by Philip Webb and William Morris, is a one of well known examples of this style. Its plan organization is based on function and is asymmetrical, and the elevations are a result of this organization, which gives it quite an informal character. A major element of the elevation is the informal arrangement of a varied type of windows, made to suit the spaces they served, instead of any planned composition of the façade. The house was quite unusual for its time, in both its the informal composition and in the complete absence of surface any decoration. The house relies for effect solely on its massing and proportion, and the colour and texture of materials used, like the red brick and roof tiles.

 

Charles Mackintosh was another architect who was influenced by the movement, and his hill house near Glasgow, built after about 30 years after Red House, is similarly designed with its composition of solid masses, and its asymmetrical organization, though the brickwork in this case is plastered and painted. But Mackintosh also absorbed influences from the modernist ideas of Art Nouveau and the simple unadorned style of Japanese art which relied for effect on the natural texture of the material and use of light & shadow. A combination of these ideas made Mackintosh’s work original and unique. The interior design of the hill house is actually quite contemporary by today’s standards, in that Mackintosh uses great restraint in design, relying on the functional organization and use of natural texture of materials instead of ornamentation. The most notable of his work is the Glasgow School of Art, which effectively demonstrates his skill in free spatial compositions with use of double height spaces, and combination of the simple geometric façade in stone with large windows, and art nouveau style detailing for the main entrance, with a free-flowing curve of the entrance steps.

 

The arts & crafts movement extended to many other products of everyday use like furniture, textiles, and stained glass. A notable addition was light fittings. Electricity for lighting was the latest innovation and many fixtures were designed exclusively for lighting at home and other establishment, based on the simple geometric shapes that the vernacular style dictated.

 

But the practitioners of the movement like Morris were also influenced by medieval styles, particularly the Gothic, and though they refrained from using the overt elaborate detailing  ornamentation of the classical Gothic architecture, the principles of organization like symmetry, rhythm, balance and formal layouts which was actually against the professed ideas of the arts & crafts movement.

 

There was also an ambivalence in the use of machinery for making products. The art & craft practitioners were perfectly willing to manufacture a product designed by them by use of machines, provided exacting standards were met in the process. This actually led to a debate on whether the artist really has to make the entire product all by himself, or whether he should be content in designing and letting others carry out the execution, including manufacturing of some components by machine. This contrasted sharply with the vision of arts and craft as a movement going back to roots, where the craftsmen did everything from design to execution, without involving the machinery.

 

Even with these contradictions the association of the arts & craft with the British vernacular architecture made it popular because of its nostalgic appeal and influenced many other architects, notably Sir Edwin Luytens, who later designed the Indian capital complex at New Delhi. In his early work, Lutyens followed the British vernacular style faithfully, with asymmetrical compositions, simple massive forms without any surface decoration except the texture & colour of the materials, creating informal spaces which was the hallmark of the style.

 

But his later work borrows heavily from the classical traditions. This was partly the result of the ideology the Arts & Crafts movement which glorified the past traditions, and partly the fact that in the design of palatial houses of the lords or the design of churches, the Arts & crafts movement had little to offer as design guidelines; its philosophy was based on the simple vernacular architecture of humble residences. For the same reasons, Luytens later work for the Indian capital is also based on the guiding principles of the classical traditions like symmetry, scale, proportions and so on. The agenda here was to create a monument befitting the strength & character of the British Empire, and the simple vernacular traditions could hardly be a guide for this kind of architecture.

 

In Europe & North America, the main appeal of the movement was its emphasis on rejuvenating the traditional culture through handicrafts. The American society looked forward to Europe for inspiration in arts & culture, and the movement spread there through journals & news papers and also by exhibition of exhibitions of contemporary craft objects. However, the movement remained largely concerned about the handicrafts, its appeal for architecture was not universal.

 

The architect who is said to have a significant contribution to the traditional craft traditions in the USA is F. L. Wright, whose early work shows distinct similarities with the vernacular architecture of Arts & Crafts. But F. L. Wright was a genius, and a far more original in all his work, which elevated the status of the craft traditions like stained glass and wrought iron, among others.

 

The major influence of Arts & Crafts on the modern architecture is its emphasis on simplicity and honesty in the use of materials. Its philosophy of following vernacular traditions was also followed by many eminent architects in the modern period, who found that the vernacular traditions of a place are culturally relevant, and reflect the lifestyle of society in its design & detailing. Not only that, in a world increasing concerned with the ecological impact of architecture, vernacular traditions are now seen as more eco-friendly in their use of local materials & a climate compatible design.

New Theories- Art Nouveau

While the literary world was centered on the new social order brought in by the industrial revolution, architectural theoreticians were engaged in the debates about the response of architectural design to the new phenomena. Though the classical traditions were in vogue and used for most of the public buildings, there were a few who argued that a new style of architecture was the need of the hour to match the requirements of the new age; historical examples were not appropriate for the new building materials & technology, and the functional requirement of the new building types.

One of the first of such thinkers was Viollet-le-Duc who postulated that each material has an ideal from and this form should dictate the design of the buildings. He called for studying the styles of the past and adapting them in a rational manner, taking into account both structure and design. He wrote extensively about the new style of architecture needed for the new era which would based on the capabilities of the new materials like cement and steel, and proposed many innovative designs for new kind of steel trusses. He also stressed the need for new forms of structure based on the organic forms in nature, like the leaves and animal skeletons. Many of his principles, including the emphasis on using the materials honestly and reflecting the rationale of the construction in its visual appearance eventually became the agenda for modern architecture.

But the time was not yet ripe for a totally different kind of architecture. Architects were looking for a new form of architecture, but they were still thinking in terms of a new visual style – Violet le Duc’s writings led designers to the use of new materials in their original state, like the new entrance to the Paris Metro, where the lightweight glass canopy with its metal frame was in stark  contrast with the heavy classical detailing of stone. But this is an exceptional example. Inspiration of form from nature changed only the detailing of ornamentation and many other minor features of the structure, it did not led to the overall change in the architectural form, as the search for a new style stopped at the external visual appearance. The Sagrada Familia by Antoni Gaudi is a classic example of the new architectural style, which changed only the external appearance of the church, but in its overall form, the church was not much different from the Gothic cathedrals of the earlier period.

In both of these examples, the inspiration for architectural form was derived from ‘Art Nouveau’, the  new movement in art, which had originally emerged as a style of painting. Art Nouveau had its inspiration from nature, its flowing curves and asymmetrical forms. This was quite distinct from the classical art form, and in this context, Art Nouveau had affinity with the pre-Raphaelites, who advocated natural forms in art in contrast with the strict symmetrical and idealized depiction of renaissance paintings after Raphael.

The freshness of the form and its contrast with the classical ornamentation of Art Nouveau had already led designers in other fields to experiment with the style – including graphic art, interior design, jewelry, textiles, and many other artifacts of everyday use.

In its adoption in architecture, Art Nouveau architects established the free form and honesty in the use of materials as the two major principles of design, and though the movement later gave way to the modern movement, these principles continued to be a part of the new theories of architectural design.

The free form of building was a major break from the traditional architecture. The new type of buildings had complex requirements for organization of functional spaces, and it was getting more & more difficult to manage these requirements in the classical symmetrical formats. Architecture thus was slowly coming of age, in trying to address the issues of functional organization and structural systems.

The new building materials like steel & concrete were capable of free-flowing & slender forms and they were now being creatively used in many elements of the structure. The steel & concrete were also capable of longer spans, and coupled with the large panels of glass now available with the new technology, a dramatic change in the appearance of the building was now possible.

But the inspiration from nature remained largely on surface, and the functional organization of building still remained subservient to the appearance of the building. A notable example of this can be found in design of an opera house, in which the architect argued that it was not possible to design the building so as to have the view of stage from every seat in the auditorium. Some people, he added loftily, will have to be content to listen to the music alone. An argument like this would put an architect out of work today, but was accepted at the time as aesthetics was clearly considered the more important aspect of the design than function.

On the philosophical front, ‘Art Nouveau’ as a movement was neutral about the social impact of the industrial revolution and the debate of industrial processes verses traditional craft traditions. It welcomed the new materials and manufacturing processes and went on to design with their help. A major element of the style was use of curvilinear metal forms with irregularly shaped glass, both of which was possible only because of the new industrial processes, and gave sculptural qualities to architecture. In fact, in many cases, the cost of the projects increased to a great extent due to the curvilinear forms, which was one of the major reasons for its discontinuation in architecture after the first world war, when the economy of many European countries had been suffered because of the war.

There are many notable architects from this period, but for our purpose the works by Victor Horta, Hector Guimard and Antoni Gaudi would be most illustrative.

Of these, the Belgian Architect Victor Horta is credited as the first architect to introduce 'Art Nouveau' to architecture. Horta was inspired by the free-flowing and curvilinear compositions of the Art Nouveau, and used this influence for the first time in his design of Tassel House. The design is done with a open plan floor layout and incorporated interior iron structure with curvilinear floral forms. Both of these features were path-breaking innovations for the design of a house at the time. He was also conscious of the context of the house and concealed his ornate and elaborate designs behind a stone façade to harmonize the building with its surrounding of rigid stone masonry houses.

However, the flamboyant style of detailing of Art Nouveau was no longer affordable in the aftermath of the first world war. Horta had already began experimenting for a more simpler style of design, and his post-war work is based on the simplified geometrical patterns. But Horta continued his use of rational floor plans, and application of the latest developments in building technology and building services engineering.

In France, the entrance to the Paris Metro, designed by Hector Guimard, still remains one of the most  outstanding examples of Art Nouveau. This was based on the theories of Viollet-le-Duc about the free form and honesty in the use of materials. Through this design, Guimard also wanted to standardize the components, and thus could be called a precursor of industrial standardization. His major breakthrough as an architect came in with his design of Castel Beranger, an apartment building that he designed for Mme. Fournier. It is a classic example of how the industrial arts could be combined with architecture, but in its essence, the elements of the exterior are a modified version of classical stone detailing.

Influenced by Victor Horta’s work, Guimard made many experiments in space & volume in his later projects, and employed structural innovations in his design, like the acoustical design with use of structural frame for the roof of the concert hall Humbert-de-Roman. He used abstract forms of plants and organic matter and created flexible mouldings which gave a sense of movement even though they are made in heavy stone masonry. He also created abstract patterns for stained glass, ceramic panels and wrought iron, in many of his buildings, and created custom-built interior design for his projects including wallpaper & fabric.

Antoni Gaudi’s work, which includes the world famous Sagrada Familia and many other projects like Casa Mila, and CasaBatllo, provides another version of the Art Nouveau architecture. Gaudi used the natural forms and the curvilinear flamboyance of the Art Nouveau in stone & concrete. Gaudi was also inspired by the oriental arts, and the philosophy of Viollet-le-Duc, but went on to develop his own version of architecture through organic form from nature.

But Gaudi’s style of architecture was more in tune with the ‘Romanticism’ which criticized harsh nature of the industrialization and called for a return to the cultural roots of the society. Thus the Catalan culture associated with Gothic architecture is a major inspiration for Gaudi’s architecture, though he also integrated the principles of design of ‘Art Nouveau’.

Another important contribution by Gaudí was in the field of structural design. He used scale models to experiment and used catenary curves and many innovative structural solutions in construction. These forms were most suitable for cheap materials like brick. In the construction of Sagrada Família, Gaudí used a complex form of columns inclined to resist better the angular load of the hyperboloid roof vaults, eliminating the need for buttresses. The hyperboloid roof vaults also allowed for voids in the design of the roof structure, which Gaudí used to provide light in the interior. In this way he used the structural logic of his times in combination with the form of the traditional Gothic architecture.

Summary

The ‘Art nouveau’ was basically a movement in art, but when it was translated in architecture, its practitioners established many principles of architectural design, which were later embraced by the modern movement in architecture. The most important among these principles were: the free form, functional organization of structure incorporating the structural aspects & building services and honesty in the use of materials. However, as a style, it related only to the external façade of the buildings, and its stylistic detailing made the construction very expensive. Both these factors were responsible for its discontinuation after the first world war.

 

Neo-classicism & Eclecticism - Architecture as status symbol

Architecture before the industrial revolution was essentially architecture of the establishment, be it the king & lords or the religious institutions. These patrons of architecture had huge resources at their disposal, and the agenda for architecture was to create monuments befitting the status of the establishment.

So it follows that a major part of architecture of this period is either the palaces or places of worship. Agriculture was the mainstay of the economy but the farmers were at the lowest level of the social pyramid and had no means to make any spectacular construction. It was the elite section of the society that collected taxes on agriculture, the landlords and the king, the so called idle rich, that had superfluous wealth which they used to build monuments.

Religion encompasses all the sections of the society, and it would seem that the religious structures would reflect the aspirations of the masses, but this was not the case for religious architecture. It was actually built with the support of the ruling elite as it was in their own interests to do so. When the Roman Emperor Constantine realized that majority of people under his rule had turned Christians, he embraced Christianity himself in order to prevent possible revolts against his rule. In fact it was Emperor Constantine who built Hagia Sophia, the biggest byzantine church, using all the resources he had as an Emperor. Rulers everywhere in the world were willing to support religious activities, including financial support to the religious establishment & building of religious structures. In turn the religious institutions granted sanctity to the ruler, by performing the coronation ceremony of every new king (symbolizing divine sanction) and thereby making his rule seem legitimate in the eyes of the people.

In the Egyptian culture, where the king was also the head of the religion, the tombs of the Egyptian Kings were symbols of power of both the state & the religion. It was not a question of how large a structure one would need as a memorial, it was basically an issue of how great & imposing monument could be built to commemorate the might of these institutions. The pyramids defy all norms in terms of functional suitability or the ratio of carpet area to built-up area. Greek & Roman temples fared better in this aspect, but that was not relevant anyway. What mattered was the visual quality of the structure, and hence the importance in the classical architecture on use of noble materials, scale and form, balance, rhythm and proportions, and ornamentation.

The later periods saw the bifurcation of the state & the religion, but both the institutions continued to build in the same fashion. Architecture, it is said, is the ultimate status symbol of a civilization. A permanent reminder of the might of the establishment, it is a tool to showcase the best a society can offer in terms of material wealth, its technological advancement and cultural finesse.

What the industrial revolution fundamentally changed was the very nature of power in the society. It was during this period that for the first time in human history that the divine right of the kings to rule was questioned, and United States America became the first republican state of modern history, a state managed by people themselves democratically. The French Revolution also tried to end the institution of monarchy and was nearly successful, though it gave rise to a new emperor in Napoleon. Many other states in Europe, though monarchial in their constitution, had slowly moved towards the democratic rule. In England the House of Commons became more important and though the British monarchy continued, the de-facto rule of the state was in the hands of the elected representatives of the people.

Naturally, the agenda for the state changed to the welfare of the people, and though the construction of new palaces did not end immediately with the industrial era, these had to be built with personal resources as the state support for construction of these kind of structures was not forthcoming anymore. 

The state support and funding was now directed towards institutions for the general public – education, health, and utilities like public transportation. As industries were now becoming the major source of employment for the people, development of infrastructure for the industries and trades became a priority for the state.

Hence architecture now had to cater to the new kinds of buildings that this changed focus of state required – public institutional buildings like government offices, hospitals, schools & colleges, Town halls, libraries, museums, railway stations and so on. The industries were another group of patrons for architecture, and they required trading halls, markets, industrial sheds & so on.

None of these building types had any historical parallels, and no standards for design. The issue before the architects was either to provide a new theory of architectural design for these new structures or to follow the classical renaissance architecture, modifying it to some extent to accommodate the new function of the building.

The first option was not only difficult as a new theory of design would need originality of thought, but its fate also would be uncertain because there was no guarantee that it would be accepted by the client & the society. The second option – following the classical building style - was easier and preferred by both the architects and their patrons alike, and was followed to a large extent for almost all the public buildings of the period.

It would seem strange that the symbols of the bygone powers would be embraced by the new democratically elected leaders of the state, but these leaders were also in search of new status symbols through architecture and thought it befitting to borrow from the classical traditions.

This apparently strange phenomena is not without its precedents. The St. Peters, the most important symbolic building for Christianity has borrowed its architecture from the idol-worshiping cultures of the Greek & Romans, and the grand obelisk in the center of its large piazza is borrowed from the Egyptian culture. It was simply a quest for providing the most impressive form in architecture, based on its visual quality, the origin of the form or its earlier religious, social & cultural association was irrelevant.

Thus the state sponsored architecture saw a revival of classical tradition all over the new democratic republic of the United State of America. The White House and the House of Representatives are both based on renaissance architecture, the Washington memorial is a replica of the Egyptian obelisk, and the façade of the Lincoln Memorial is a copy of Parthenon without the pediment. A powerful image for the democratic rule was sought using the classical renaissance architecture for the new national capital,  as it was associated with power and the cultural supremacy of the earlier feudal societies.

The Washington example was the model not only for other state capitols and government buildings in the United States of America, it became the architectural style for the new rich class of industrialists all over Europe & America, who were also obsessed with the idea of creating symbols of their newly acquired power through architecture. So the same architectural style was followed for the buildings of everyday use like banks & financial institutions, public libraries, museums and even theatres: what mattered was the visual quality of architecture, not the actual function of the building.

So large-scale was this phenomenon, that eventually historians gave it a title – neo-classicism. The buildings further got divided in two sub-categories – historicism & eclecticism. The difference is in these two styles was based on the extent to which the classical tradition was followed. Historicism would mean that the new construction would be based on some specific classical example (like Parthenon) and from the outside would look like a Greek temple or a Cathedral, but would be housing a bank headquarters inside.

Naturally, there arose a lot of issues with this kind of compromise. One often quoted example is that of a bank building, designed on the basis of Parthenon, where the architect refused to make any subdivisions in the ground floor, thereby cancelling out the demand for a partitioned cabin for the bank manager, stating that such partition would spoil the classical beauty of its architecture. The Owner of the Bank sided with the architect and the manager had to be content with a cabin in the basement.

Fortunately, the examples chosen were mainly cathedrals, which had good height, spacious outlay, and lot of light befitting its original purpose of religious assembly, and this was actually quite appropriate for majority of the public buildings of the period. The most popular among the classical examples was the Parthenon, with its huge colonnade and triangular pediment, which served as the entrance lobby for the new age public buildings. The main floor was raised high to create a huge flight of steps, and the subfloor was used to house most of the services required by the new function of the building like toilets & locker rooms and so on.

For a majority of public buildings, with large floor area and a few floors (typically two to three floors), the palaces were also a good model. The renaissance palace with organization of services on the ground floor, large reception halls on first floor and private rooms & bedrooms on the third floor, worked very well for such structures. Even here, the Parthenon frontage was used extensively for the entrance porch.

The capping feature of many of these buildings was the high dome of St. Peters with its lantern lighting, and has been used right from the House of Congress in Washington DC to many of the state capital buildings. The materials of construction and the technology however, was modern and this created certain issues for design. For example, when the roof was flat reinforced concrete slab, the pediment was out of question. The original Greek version was designed for a sloping timber roof, resulting in the front gable end. So we have here variations on theme, like elimination of the pediment in the Lincoln memorial at Washington, or creating a pediment for the front porch only, while the remaining portion of the building rose high with a flat roof and cornice.

The problem arose when the buildings had to be built for more than two or three stories. Here the classical precedent was of no use directly. Most of the classical structures were only Ground Floor structures, though this is not directly apparent due to their great heights (St. Peters, for example, is 452’ high, though it has only one functional floor), and such a pattern was impossible to follow in a skyscraper. The main problem was the height to width ratio of the building, which would never match the historical examples.

While the proposal submitted by Adolf Loos in the Chicago Tribune competition, where the skyscraper takes the form one single classical column may seem like parody of the attempt to build a sky-scraper in the classical tradition, a practical solution to this problem was found – by using specific elements from the classical building, and selectively applying them to the building elevation, while the overall form of the building had no relation to the classical tradition.

This compromise of combining the classical elements with the modern forms had two advantages. It enabled the designing of the building for its function without bothering about the classical precedent, while the visual effect was classical as most of the elements in its elevation were borrowed from the classical traditions. It satisfied the seemingly contradictory requirements of a modern building with functional design but a classical appearance, but needed a good designer to compose all the varied classical elements in the elevation in a harmonious manner like the winning entry by Raymond Hood for the Chicago tribune building.

Called ‘eclecticism’, this style of design was followed by many others as a valid architectural design solution, and became immensely popular. The lower floors of a large skyscraper thus would have the Greek Temple Frontage, all with the large Doric/Ionic/Corinthian column arcades, creating a public entry with a large flight of steps leading directly to the first floor, while the upper levels of the building would have renaissance palace windows with repetition of the pediments. Multiple combinations of colonnades and windows appeared, including the topping of domes & so on.

It must be clarified here that the architects of all these buildings were equally concerned about the functional issues of design. Most of these buildings were designed with due consideration to the function and organization of the building, the structural system and services. The fact that the building should function well for its current function was not lost on the Owners and the architects alike. The classical model was followed only for its visual appeal.

The problem was that this solution came with a cost of duplicity. Concrete & steel was used to create an appearance of stone, and the size of columns & many other parts of the elevation (the column base, pediments & so on) was too huge and not really appropriate as both these materials had much larger structural capability which not used. Most of the structural organization, at least in the elevation of the building, was false. But by far the most relevant issue for the architects was – how can a feudal or religious building become a model for an office building or hospital which had no thematic connection with these feudal structures with a different societal structure, different materials and building technology and a much different lifestyle of the users?

A solution to this pertinent question was sought to be answered by many theoreticians of the era, whose theories we shall discuss in the next chapter.