Like most transitional periods in art, the Aesthetic Movement was frenetic and short-lived — but important
The Aesthetic Movement “was mainly a reaction against the high Victorian period.” In architecture and the decorative arts, this sub-style formed a transition between historical revivalism of the late Victorian era — Renaissance Revival, Greco-Roman Revival, Elizabethan Revival, etc. — and Arts & Crafts. The latter, taking shape from the writings of William Morris and John Ruskin, became a more pervasive and lasting opposition movement that championed a return to the simple, honest pleasures of traditional hand-crafting.
Transitional periods in the arts are usually complex, largely because their spirit is usually one of rebellion against what came before. So it was with the Aesthetic Movement. For Aesthetic artists, such as the writers Algernon Swinburne and Oscar Wilde, or the painter James Whistler, the motto “art for art’s sake” was their animating spirit. These men rejected the ingrained Victorian notion that art should serve a moral purpose by representing and reinforcing social values. They sought instead to create and celebrate art solely for the pleasure to be derived from its beauty — often doing so with a pronounced elitist air.
Unsurprisingly, these ideals did not manifest themselves in quite the same way when the movement reached American decorative arts. Utility is always important in furniture, no matter how much style figures in to the design. After all, if an exceptionally beautiful chair cannot accommodate a sitter, arguably it is not a chair.
By the late 19th century, Wendell says, the increasing use of machines in furniture making by Victorian craftsmen had resulted in more and more elaborate ornamentation. The goal of the rebellious Aesthetics was to strip all that away. In its place, Wendell explains, they wanted to impart to their furniture “a very dry, almost acerbic style. While there was surface decoration, there was not rich carving; while there were formalized patterns, they didn’t have the heavy, rich, florid aspect of the Victorian period.” These designers favored authenticity, rather than artifice and pretense, in materials and decoration.
Amid the endless experimentation with styles and methods, as well as the burgeoning of formal artistic theory, it may seem ironic that one of the enduring visions to emerge from the Aesthetic Movement in America was all but egalitarian. That is, the idea that everyone should be able to enjoy beautiful, well-made homes and furnishings — not just the very wealthy. “In many ways it was a very middle-class movement,” Wendell says.
Innovations in manufacturing were making stylish, well-made goods accessible to the general public. Other modern developments heightened the effect. “This period also saw the beginning of the sales catalogue,” Wendell says. “You could buy your furniture and your house mail-order.” He notes too that the Aesthetics had misgivings about how the machine seemed to be taking over so many aspects of life. But influential designers such as Clarence Cook and Charles Eastlake were also inspired by the idea that through skilled and artful use of machines, beautiful homes with tasteful furnishings could be available to practically everyone. Cook’s collection of essays, The House Beautiful, published in 1877, was an early comprehensive handbook on the principles of interior decorating — one of the truly lasting effects of the Aesthetic Movement.
Written by Luke Crafton, interviewing Wendell Garrett, Feb. 2, 2004
In our September 5th auction, we are pleased to be offering a fine collection of furniture from the Aesthetic Movement, including a carved ebonized Klismos chair, attributed to Herter Brothers, New York; a brass-mounted mahogany and ebonized desk, signed Gillow & Co., circa 1875; as well as a cast iron boot scrape, a metal fireback attributed to Christopher Dresser, a brass fire fender, and a pair of sconces and a chandelier by W.A.S. Benson.