Class XXX.]

SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT ON DESIGN.

723

it is at the same time of a highly ornamental character,without any of its decoration being overdone or thrown !away. It corresponds in its constructive form with theRenaissance of the 15th century—in the style of itscarvings rather with the works of the 13th; the gates ofGhiberti having evidently supplied the idea of the groupsof fruit and implements which fill the panels; and it maybe remarked as a fault, that it has been overlooked thatthe relief in Ghiberti ’s work was suited to metal, theornament standing beyond the face of the framing of the !panel; but in adapting it to wood this should have beenmodified so as to bring the impost of the carving withinthe surface ; such faults, however, are trifling in a workotherwise of great ability. The care which has beentaken to keep all the ornamental details in the same scalethroughout is an additional merit, and the wood has beenjudiciously chosen as to colour and grain.

When we turn from such works as the above to furni-ture designed strictly in accordance with the rules of atraditional style, we feel that there is often a cold pro-priety about it which requires consideration before we canadmire it; yet among such are some of the best works ofthe Exhibition. The wardrobe of T. F. Wikth, of Stutt-gard (Wurtemburg, 70, p. 1118); the console-table andglass of A. Barbetti, of Siena (Tuscany , 91, p. 1298),are excellent specimens in their kind, well designed con-structively, and ornamented in exact conformity with theRenaissance style; the cabinet of Ringukt-Lkprince(France , 1437, p. 1245) has high merit; the ornamentaltreatment of a picture-frame by M. J. Liexard (p. 1239);the cradle in the Fine Art Court (353, p. 842), so skil-fully carved in boxwood, by W. G. Rogers, from a well-composed design by his sou, W. Harry Rogers, also;and a sideboard by a student of the School of Designat Sheffield (p. 758). With these exceptions, the bestworks are in the French Furniture Court, although inthem the style is often mixed, and the constructive faultsof the Renaissance have been adopted as well as the orna-mentation. In other styles, perhaps, the best example ofa careful adherence to tradition is observable in the fur-niture of the Mediaeval Court, as in a Gothic sideboard,really fitted to display a sendee of plate; a can ed oakcabinet bookcase, by J. G. Crace (Class XXVI., 530,p. 761); and other works. These are particularly to hecommended for their sound constructive treatment, andfor the very judicious manner in which ornament is madesubservient to it. The metal work is also excellent, andthe brass fitting of the panels of the bookcase desen-es tobe studied, both for the manner in which it has been puttogether, and for its graceful lines. The candelabra ofthe sideboard also are sensible forms, without any unne-cessary ornament. Such furniture in old times was oftenornamented with mottoes or texts, a practice which mightwell be revived, as having far more significance than thecommonplace conceits of much of the ornament of thepresent day. It may perhaps be objected that the generalforms of furniture in this style want variety, and this isrendered more apparent by the florid lines of many of theworks around them; but the principal reason will befound to arise from a due consideration of the true con-structive treatment of wood, which is ill adapted to curved iforms on account of its grain, and requires horizontal andperpendicular lines as the basis of framing. The eccle-siastical character of the works in this Court has beenalready alluded to. It must be remembered that thespirit of the age from which they have been adopted wasto bring a sense of the pervading authority of the Church ,and the outward forms of religion, at least, into all theoffices of daily life. This was altogether changed whenthe revival of ancient learning and of ancient art de-stroyed the Christian symbolism of ornament and delugedthe Roman Church with decoration derived from Paganism ,and consequently entirely opposed to the true spirit inwhich all ecclesiastical ornament should be conceived, iThe change in ecclesiastical decoration soon pervadeddomestic furniture also, and ornament lost all significanceand symbolic life. Some credit, therefore, is due to therevival of a better and purer state of things, and a return jto the old paths and avoidance of the present mere sen- Jsualism of ornament. Yet it is not on this account, but j

as examples of careful and strict adhesion to true prin-ciples of construction and ornamentation, that the worksin this Court are so often alluded to ; they deserve com-mendation for their illustration of truth, and as showingwhat one man, by earnest and well-directed attention, canachieve in the reformation of taste, and in the trainingand forming of other minds to assist in his truthfullabours. Their unity of character, moreover, is not theleast among their many excellences.

The cases of musical instruments have been barelyalluded to in this section of our Report, although theymust be classed under the head of furniture. Suchworks, exhibited in various parts of the Exhibition, dis-play a vast amount of labour entirely thrown away, andtending only to vulgarize that to which it is applied.Some pianofortes are entirely covered with inlays; somej with gilding; some have pillars that support nothing,

! and caned brackets applied to no purpose. There is: little harmony to the eye, however much may be pro-duced for the ear: common sense, nevertheless, wouldseem to require simplicity in the exterior decoration,

, that one organ may have rest while the other is occu-pied. The thought indicated by the ornament is fre-; quently most commonplace, being often that of a whole; concert of musical instruments around the one orna-; mented, or their substitution for brackets, columns, orlegs. There seems to be as little invention as fitness inadapting lyres as legs to pianofortes, yet this has been! resorted to, whilst any consideration of a better mode of| a PPtyi n 9 the support, especially in the case of grand. pianofortes, appears to have been overlooked. Some ofthe best makers, both native and foreign, have contentedthemselves with carefully selected woods of choice grains,enriched by carved or gilt mouldings only, and havei justly relied rather on the merits of their instrumentsthan on the gaudiness of the eases. This is, at least,sensible, since the ornament of such works is quite sup-plementary, and will less bear overdoing than on manyother articles of cabinet furniture.

Inlays of metal, mother-of-pearl, or tortoiseshell, maybe introduced with excellent effect in furniture ; but they: must be used sparingly. Such a marvel of labour as thetable exhibited by Perez (271a, p. 1346), in the Spanish ; Court , of course does not come within the scope of thisremark; the subdued colour of the wood used, and theforms chosen, are nevertheless so judicious, that as apiece of ornamental inlay it is excellent for its art, aswell as from its curiosity as a feat of labour. Some of! the buhl cabinet furniture in the French Court may beinstanced as showing that an excess of really beautifuli ornament tires us, and causes meretriciousness. There' are some excellent specimens of geometrical wood inlaysi for furniture exhibited by Marcelin (France, 606,

! p. 1207\ and the inlaid top of a table among the furni-! ture by Leistler (pp. 1039, 1040), in the Austrian rooms,

> has much merit; such inlays come under the same' general laws as mosaics, which have already been treated; of, requiring great simplicity and perfect flatness. Thetable (112) in pietra dura, by Boschetti (Rome, 17,p. 1286), consisting of a wreath ©f orange-flowers, bor-dered by a simple line, is in the purest taste; the morecostly one near it is marred by the introduction of a bandof architectural ornament, contrasting far too stronglywith its ground,—a fault worthy of notice, as it prevailslargely in similar works.

The furniture in papier mache is almost wholly ofEnglish manufacture; it is derived from the old impor-tations from Japan , but has gone for beyond such goodsin its excess of decoration: it is the most gaudily deco-rated of all manufactures, and seems quite beyond thepale of any just principles of ornament. There is noapparent reason why this material should not be used forchairs, couches, tables, or cradles; but the art of design-ing for it is not yet attained: as the material possessespeculiar properties of strength and lightness, withoutneeding any framing, it should be considered purely foritself, and the designer must forget all other constructiveforms. As to its ornamentation, the sooner it has a tho-rough revision the better, since at present it is a mass ofbarbarous splendour that offends the eye and quarrels

3 A 2