Embroidery Design by Natalia Davydova

Illustration: Natalia Davydova. Embroidery design, c1899.

Across much of Europe the last twenty years of the nineteenth century and the first two decades of the twentieth saw major efforts to restructure and reenergise traditional crafts and those who worked with those traditions. The industrialisation of Europe had replaced many of the hand skills that had lasted centuries, with cheap and mass produced merchandise, that although satisfying a general public who were clamouring for ever more products at increasingly cheaper prices, it did little for any form of skills base.

Many attempts were made to both rival or even limit the industrial sector, but most had little if any effect. However, some initiatives were perhaps more pragmatic in their approach towards the craft market and therefore were more effective due to those practical concerns. One such was the Kustar movement in Russia which has been likened to the Arts & Crafts movements in other parts of Europe, but has to be tempered by a number of fundamentally ideological differences between Kustar and the traditional Arts & Crafts movements.

The Kustar movement in pre-Revolutionary Russia did have the traditional craft system at its centre. Individuals in the movement wanted to both save as many aspects of the craft system as possible before major areas of work disappeared altogether, while at the same time creating an environment whereby traditional crafts could be set on a course of commercial success. It was hoped that this financially based success would help to maintain traditional crafts in a contemporary world that was on a course of ever continued industrialisation of human skills.

This attitude of commercial success which often seemed to be placed before the traditional craft itself was an uncomfortable stand for many. Those interested in the ideology of the European based Arts & Crafts movements particularly that of Britain with its twin foundations of Morris and Ruskin were particularly alarmed at the nakedness of the commercial enterprise. To some, no amount of commercial fostering of traditional craft skills could replace the joy of the craft itself, even if that meant that hand craft was doomed to oblivion.

Illustration: Natalia Davydova. Embroidery design, c1899.

Among those involved in the Kustar scheme was Natalia Davydova. She was particularly interested in textile based craft skills, which by its definition also meant that she was concerned with the traditional skills base of women. Many women had lost creative ground due to mass production as their skills were replaced by machinery. Davydova specialised concern, though by no means the only one, was with Russian embroidery. She was involved with the embroidery workshop set up at Solomenko village in 1891. Solomenko was one of a number of Arts & Crafts inspired initiatives across Russia, the most famous of which are probably Talashkino and Ambratsevo.

Davydova produced a new range of design work to both add to and bolster the traditional design work of Russian embroidery. It was believed by many involved in the Kustar movement that only through commercially viable and contemporary work could traditional hand skills hope to compete in the modern world. With this in mind Davydova produced a range of design work that was aimed at attracting customers to Russian embroidery. The three illustrations shown in this article are Davydova embroidery pattern work from about 1899.

Kustar work sold well initially outside of Russia and was particularly well received in Europe where it was quickly identified with the romantic peasant world of a mythical Slavic Russia. However, inside Russia itself the commercialisation of traditional Russian hand skills was criticised as being too focused on the market and financial gain, than that of the integrity of the history of the decorative work. Some even questioned the output of individuals such as Davydova, likening her work to a patchwork of cultures, many of whom were well outside the traditions of Russia.

It is sometimes hard to reconcile the purity of traditional hand craft and that of commercial pressure. Many craft disciplines have had to bend and manipulate their own craft history in order to maintain a meaningful presence in the market place. It is difficult to say whether this is a truly positive or negative effect as, although the craft may well survive, in what state does it truly survive.

Illustration: Natalia Davydova. Embroidery design, c1899.

Eventually Kustar work became popular in Russia itself and although the export market to Europe was still important, the home market expanded rapidly in the years leading up to the Revolution of 1917. This general rediscovery of Slavic roots by the domestic population was not always as focused on the true aspects of the culture as perhaps it should have been. Therefore, many pseudo-styled Slavic interpretations were generated, including design work that had been specifically styled and produced for the Kustar market by such artists and designers as Davydova.

However, it should also be remembered that Europe leading up to the First World War was an extreme example of nationalistic rival states. Most nations had stylised and largely fictitious interpretations of both their history and culture, so the Russian interpretation of itself that sold so well in the market place, should be seen as only one European example among many.

Much of the commercial Kustar market was swept away after the Bolshevik Revolution, being seen as part of a reactionary process, particularly when considering the Soviet fascination with the progression of humanity and its unfailing belief in the promise of rich rewards from industrialisation, most of which never materialised.

The craft traditions of Russia are long, rich and diverse as are its peoples and regional cultures. In order for those hand crafts to maintain a presence many individuals took it upon themselves to reinvigorate and in some cases reinvent a style. That these reinventions were to eventually be incorporated into the craft was expected and in many cases was. To purists this was certainly a disaster, but to many a living and working craft was infinitely preferable to a dead but purist craft that could only be identified through museum collections.

Individuals such as Davydova wanted to both help sustain a domestic hand craft market that would employ and prolong the skills base of hand crafters, along with extending and indeed expanding the repertoire of those traditions. The Kustar movement might not have been as ideologically sound as some would have preferred. However, there was a general feeling of integrity and a level of far-sightedness behind the movement, which was perhaps a little more pragmatically based than those movements in other parts of Europe and in that respect somewhat more successful for that practical approach.

Reference links:
Russian Folk Arts and Crafts
The Art of the Russian Matryoshka
Russian Decorative Painting: Techniques & Projects Made Easy
Rostov Enamels (Maststerpieces of Russian Folk Art)
Russian Peasant Design Motifs for Needleworkers and Craftsmen (Dover Pictorial Archive Series)
Russian Punchneedle Embroidery
Russian and Other Slavic Embroidery Designs
Early Russian Embroidery in the Zagorsk Museum Collection
Russian Embroidery 17th-Early 20th Centuries
Early Russian Embroidery in the Zagorsk Museum Collection
Russian embroidery patterns
Russian Embroidery and Lace
Antique Russian Embroidery
RUSSIAN EMBROIDERY: TRADITIONAL MOTIFS

Tapestries by Max Wislicenus

Illustration: Max Wislicenus. Tapestry design, c1914.

The German artist and designer Max Wislicenus, was the son of the successful painter Hermann Wislicenus who produced work in the Germanic romantic vein. Max Wislicenus was both an artist and a designer, but also an educator who taught for a number of years at the State Academy of Arts and Crafts in Breslau (modern day Wroclaw) in Silesia which is now an integral part of Poland.

Although Wislicenus produced work in a range of disciplines including fine art, illustration, stained glass and furniture design, it was under textiles that his work should really be judged and more specifically that of tapestry. Two examples are given in this article of his tapestry work. They were produced just before the start of the First World War and are a good example of the artists style and personal approach to tapestry design.

These two examples of Wislicenus work cannot be classed as particularly close to any of the Modernist steps being taken in a number of disciplines across Germany. However, it would be a mistake to both overestimate the appeal and power of Modernism in immediate pre-war Germany, just as it would be to underestimate the work of Wislicenus himself.

Both examples are in a standard tapestry weaving type format. They are relatively clear of most of the historically inspired motifs and border elements of decorative pattern work that dogged much of the nineteenth century output of European tapestry. However, there is pattern work included although it is not overly intrusive and tends to reflect the clearly Classical theme portrayed in each composition.

These tapestries are in many respects reminiscent of some of the decorative panel and tapestry work that was to be produced after the First World War in the style and decorative era in what we now term, Art Deco. Although Wislicenus is particularly known for his Art Nouveau type styling through his work across a range of disciplines, it is interesting to note this similarity and to consider that many of the artists, decorators and designers who had worked through much of the Art Nouveau phase of European decorative arts, would still have been present when the styling moved on into Art Deco. It is this continuity that is sometimes either misunderstood, or even misrepresented.

Illustration: Max Wislicenus. Tapestry design, c1914.

Designers and decorators are by nature pragmatic and to some extent at least, aware of commercial changes and indications in the market. That some designers intuitively moved on to styles that were sympathetic to the Art Deco movement, while others saw opportunities or adapted quickly to change, is to be expected. Where Wislicenus stood in this scheme is unknown, although he was very active in the promotion and production of tapestry throughout the first few decades of the twentieth century which included both the Art Nouveau and Art Deco style movements.

Wislicenus was involved with the introduction of tapestry as a serious subject and set up a number of workshops at both the educational and commercial level over the period of his career. Two particular dates stand out, that of 1904 when Wislicenus created a tapestry workshop within the textiles department at the state Academy of Arts and Crafts in Breslau. The workshop within the textile department was run by Wanda Bibrowicz an ex-student and trusted artist and designer. Interestingly the textile department from 1911 was run by Wislicenus wife Else. The second date that of 1919, was when he set up another tapestry workshop at Pillnitz Castle in Dresden, again with Wanda Bibrowicz. This particular relationship between Wislicenus and Bibrowicz proved to be a particularly creative one, particularly during the period when both were working in Dresden after Wislicenus had retired from his position at Breslau and indeed from his career in teaching in general.

Unfortunately, much of the work produced by both Wislicenus and Bibrowicz during their time at the Pillnitz Castle workshops was destroyed during the Second World War when much of Dresden was obliterated. However, even some of the earlier work that he produced while in Silesia, was also destroyed in the war. It has been estimated that half of the work produced by Wislicenus over his lifetime was lost during the Second World War.

I am unclear as to the fate of the two tapestries shown in this article. However, I do know that they were both produced in Breslau and were designed by Wislicenus and produced by Bibrowicz. They were reproduced as black and white illustrations in a late 1914 edition of the influential German magazine Deutsche Kunst und Dekoration.

Reference links:
Bildwirker: Wanda Bibrowicz, Paul Thiersch, Wladimir Lindenberg, Jean Lurçat, Ida Kerkovius, Max Wislicenus, Pasquier Grenier, Woty Werner (German Edition)
Künstler Der Moderne: Pablo Picasso, Ernst Wilhelm Nay, Constantin Brâncusi, P. Walter Jacob, Drago Druskovic, Hernando León, Wanda Bibrowicz (German Edition)
Tapestry Weaving: A Comprehensive Study Guide
Embroidery and Tapestry Weaving
Line in Tapestry
The Guide to Successful Tapestry Weaving
The Complete Book of Tapestry Weaving 

Rug Designs by Paul Burck

Illustration: Paul Burck. Rug design, c1899.

The German artist, decorator and designer Paul Burck produced work in a number of areas including fine art, graphics, illustration, wallpaper, jewellery and textiles. He trained as a decorative artist and therefore was well placed to excel in so many different fields. As far as textiles are concerned he was particularly prolific in the weaving area of tapestry and rug design.

At the very end of the nineteenth century Burck produced design work for a variety of small rugs and carpets, five examples of which are shown in this article. The fact that these designs were produced at the height of the Art Nouveau, or in the German case the Jugendstil movement, should allow us to see lots of sinuous and consciously affected motifs that dominate the work. However, these designed pieces are very different to the standard Art Nouveau fair and in some respects are even personalised to the style of Burck or at least that of his immediate contemporary design circle.

Illustration: Paul Burck. Rug design, c1899.

Burck was by nature a graphically inspired artist and his work tended towards the contemporary illustrative style that was becoming an acceptable part of both art and illustration across Europe. This new form had begun to reject both strict realism and the dependency on perspective in order to arrive at what seemed at the time, a much more emotional level of understanding of art and through that, also decoration.

By taking a look at some other interpretations of Burck's work we can better understand the design and pattern work he created for these rug designs. The designer produced a whole range of tapestry designs during the same period as the production of these rug designs, an article concerning Burck's tapestry work can be found here.  The tapestry compositions take the form of a paired down semi-realism which also allowed an incredible amount of clarity and simplicity into the composition.

Illustration: Paul Burck. Rug design, c1899.

It is this simplicity that is especially striking about so much decorative work during this period particularly that produced in Germany. It is the ability of so many of the contemporary designers such as Burck, to be able to simplify, and perhaps more importantly to balance that simplicity with a structure and pattern that is neither monotonous or overly simplistic, that allows these pieces to be seen for the charming and effortless examples of period decoration that they are.

Most, if not all of the examples shown here, give the impression that they are both roughly and sketchily drawn with little in the way of draughtsman-like exactness. This is obviously purposeful and goes very much against the historical traditions of carpet and rug design particularly that found in major European producers like those seen in France and to a certain extent Britain, which had fairly long traditions in classically proportioned carpet and rug decoration and pattern work.

Illustration: Paul Burck. Rug design, c1899.

The simple, charming and effortless examples produced by Burck at the very end of the nineteenth century show us how far the perception of the decorative arts of that particular century had come. From the exacting parameters of the traditions of European Renaissance Classicism at its very beginning, through to the simplified, some would even say naive, interpretation of the natural world, through love of pattern and colour for its own sake, at its very end.

That Burck and others felt confident enough at the end of the nineteenth century to formulate a new path for traditional rug design work, shows much about the overall optimistic nature of decoration and pattern during this period and the belief that change could be a positive attribute. The amount of energy and dynamism that that optimism engendered in so many traditional areas of the decorative arts during this period, highlights it as one of the most energetic and spirited eras of European decorative arts.

Illustration: Paul Burck. Rug design, c1899.

Reference links:
Modern Style: Jugendstil/Art Nouveau 1899-1905
Art nouveau in Munich: Masters of Jugendstil from the Stadtmuseum, Munich, and other public and private collections
Jugendstil Art Nouveau
Jugendstil
Art Nouveau: Utopia: Reconciling the Irreconcilable (Taschen's 25th Anniversary Special Editions Series)
Art Nouveau
Art Nouveau Designs (Design Source Books)
Art Nouveau (Dover Pictura)
Art Nouveau Floral Patterns and Stencil Designs in Full Color (Dover Pictorial Archive Series)
Art Nouveau Flowers (Design Source Books)

Textile Desgns by Alois Bohla

Illustration: Alois Bohla. Tablecloth design, 1905.

Little information seems to be known or is available, concerning the German designer Alois Bohla. That he produced a number of textile designs that were put into production is known. He also produced a range of instructional drawings based on Art Nouveau floral motifs. These are now somewhat rare and not readily available online. However, a web link is given in the Reference links section below, where some of the colour work produced by Bohla can be both seen and purchased.

The four textile patterns shown in this article were meant to be produced as tablecloth designs. The first two were published in 1905, while the latter two are slightly later and were published in 1911. All four designs were purchased by the Austrian textile manufacturers Norbert Langer und Sohne for eventual release as tablecloth covers. Interestingly, the first two from 1905 were part of a competition organised by Norbert Langer und Sohne, the winners of which were published in the German magazine Deutsche Kunst und Dekoration.

Illustration: Alois Bohla. Tablecloth design, 1905.

What is interesting about the pattern work produced by Bohla in these examples from the beginning of the twentieth century is how exacting and minimal they appear, yet still manage to entail large amounts of diverse and interesting pattern work. He did this by introducing a large and rigid geometrical format that covered the fabric. Inside this he introduced a whole range of smaller details, admittedly still using the geometrical standard, but by cleverly using ranges of style, motif and most importantly scale, he was able to keep an observational interest going on what could easily have become a monotonous grid-like pattern.

Fabric tablecloths are an interesting format in their own right, if only for their design element. Usually most are made in a square, rectangular, circular or oval format, obviously depending on the table shape. Within this larger format is usually set another smaller shape, often taking the form of a defined pattern or blocked area. This is a practical necessity as tablecloths tend to cover both the table and drape over the sides. This gives ample room for a textile designer to be able to split up the style and format of the pattern work. This can be seen in particular in Bohla's last three examples where a large border area is set out and can easily be seen to be separate from the central panel. 

Illustration: Alois Bohla. Tablecloth design, 1911.

Although by no means a three-dimensional product, the table cloth is unusual in that it does have to be seen and interpreted from different angles and perspectives. This makes Bohla's design work all the more interesting as the pattern that would hang off of the table would appear to be of a different one than that on actual table top itself. Connecting the two together so that the textile piece appeared to be one product rather than two separate pattern designs fighting for dominance, can sometimes be problematic. This is partially why so many tablecloths were and still are produced as plain fronted with just a border around the sides.

However, Bohla's work is an excellent example of balance, good judgement and practical necessity. He has taken a good stance as far as the combination of strict geometric and detailed pattern work is concerned and was able to draw in elements from Art Nouveau, the traditions of pattern work in Central Europe, particularly that of embroidery and lace as can be seen in the third example, and to a certain extent the last, and also that of contemporary ideas concerning the rationalisation of pattern work. That Bohla's decorative work has certain similarities with those of other contemporary designers producing design and decoration across Central Europe does not imply that his work is derivative of others. What it does say is that ideas concerning decorative pattern work in Germany in particular, were changing rapidly and these design pieces give some indication of the format those changes were to take in the years ahead.

Illustration: Alois Bohla. Tablecloth design, 1911.

Reference links:
Art Nouveau design work of Alois Bohla
Decorative Arts 1900s & 1910s (Varia)
Modern Style: Jugendstil/Art Nouveau 1899-1905
Jugendstil & Werkkunst
Jugendstil in Dresden
Art Nouveau: Utopia: Reconciling the Irreconcilable (Taschen's 25th Anniversary Special Editions Series)
Art Nouveau
Art Nouveau (World of Art)
Art Nouveau 1890-1914
Art Nouveau (DK Collector's Guides)
The Essence of Art Nouveau
Floral Patterns: 120 Full Color Designs in the Art Nouveau Style (Dover Pictorial Archive Series)