Posts Tagged ‘form and decoration’

TRANSITIONAL PERIOD
WE have already referred to the period beginning with the Restoration in 166o as being very remarkable so far as furniture was concerned. It certainly was. It was not merely that new ideas of form and decoration were evolved, but that a far more advanced technique of craftsmanship was built up, one which belonged essentially to furniture as distinct from joinery and carpentry. In other words, it was the period when the cabinet maker came into being, the man who specialised in furniture making.
The coincidence of many things brought about the change. The austere habits of people during the Commonwealth underwent something like a revolution when Charles II ascended the throne. It was the swing of the pendulum from simplicity to extravagance. Charles had lived for many years on the continent, where conditions (so far as the wealthy classes were concerned) were far more luxurious than here, and it was natural that foreign ideas should spread to this country when he came back as monarch. This influence, coming at the same time as the strong reaction already mentioned, set the stage, as it were, for a new standard of things.
Then again in a closely following reign another powerful foreign influence made itself felt. William III was a Dutchman, and, however good a king he was, he loved the surroundings to which he had been accustomed. Thus in a space of some thirty years two events occurred which laid their mark on the crafts of England.
Thirdly, there was the introduction of walnut as a furniture wood, a material of far finer grain and of a milder nature than oak. It lent itself far more readily to finer workmanship, yet was quite as reliable (though it had not the same durable nature). To make a rough analogy, it was like a mason, who had known no other medium than a coarsesandstone, being given a piece of fine marble to carve. All sorts of possibilities were opened.
Finally, and possibly most important, there was the introduction of the art of veneering. As the reader probably knows, this consists of laying a thin sheet of wood, usually finely marked, upon a groundwork of a less interesting but thoroughly reliable wood. It was something entirely new and presented all sorts of problems of which there was no previous experience. Whilst, on the one hand, it enabled all sorts of decorative effects to be obtained which could not be carried out in the solid, it necessitated methods of construction, the reliability (or otherwise) of which could only be proved by time. The craftsmen learnt much from foreign workmen who were already familiar with veneer, but they had a good deal to find out for themselves, and they undoubtedly did make many mistakes, as the large cracked or twisted panels of some of the work of the period show.
Taken all round, then, there were plenty of circumstances to encourage a new departure in style, and it is a thing that is obvious to anyone who makes a comparison between a cabinet made in the traditional oak style and one of walnut of the same period. Be it remembered that many craftsmen continued to work in oak, especially in country districts, right till the end of the seventeenth century and even later.
NEW METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION
As an example, take Figs. 61 and 62, which show two

cabinets made within forty years of each other, but of which one is in oak and the other in veneered walnut. The oak piece is made in precisely the same way that all woodwork had been made for the past century or two. The maker recognised the inevitability of shrinkage, and he accordingly framed up his parts, working grooves at the edges in which the panels were free to shrink. This is shown in both the doors and the sides, where the panels stand in from the level of the framework in line with the grooves.
The joints of the frames are pegged to hold them together (joints were invariably put together dry, without glue) and, to relieve the plainness, a channelling is worked along practically every rail and stile. The finish of the wood is uneven, many of the panels showing plane marks and the edges being anything but straight.
Now turn to the walnut cabinet and note how impossible it would be to apply these methods of construction. In the first place the doors are flat over their entire surface,
what panelled appearance there is being effected by the application of a crossbanding of veneer. The same thing applies to the sides which are flat. It is obvious that a panel fitting loosely in the grooves of a framework could not possibly be used.
Furthermore, a pegged joint put together dry would not be practical because the slightest movement would cause the veneer to split. Then in regard to the channelling, if this were worked it would necessarily cut right through the veneer and expose the groundwork beneath. As for the finish, it can be taken as essential that the groundwork must be prepared perfectly. The slightest blemish in it shows through to the surface of the veneer, and, even though the latter may be laid to look tolerably well at the time, it will eventually part company with the groundwork and cause all sorts of complications after a year or so. In any case, walnut was given a far more highly polished surface than oak, so that the effect of an uneven surface would be like that of a badly distorted mirror.
It is not possible in one short chapter to give all the reasons why a new technique in furniture construction became necessary, but these few points are sufficient to show the fundamental causes of the change. As we say, these early cabinet makers did make mistakes, the lesson of which their followers of the eighteenth century were to profit by, but when one considers the vastness of the change and the short time in which it was carried out, it was on the whole remarkably successful.
Changes in Design.—Turning to the walnut cabinet in Fig. 62 again, and comparing it with, say, the Court cupboard in Fig. 48, one is struck by the vastly different method by which the decorative appearance is obtained. The oak cupboard is carved and moulded everywhere. The wood is just a medium for the carving, so to speak, and there are no large unbroken surfaces. The doors, for instance, are subdivided into small panels, and, in fact, the whole effect is obtained by the constant change in the level of surfaces. It is probably in a large measure this that hides much of the crudity of old work.
On the other hand, the surfaces of the walnut cabinet are flat everywhere, and the grain of the wood is used to produce the decorative appearance. If the wood were plain slabs of timber the effect would be entirely gone. As it is, the cross-banded edges with the herring-bone strip inside and the centre ovals, although quite flat, produce a rich pattern quite as effective in its way as that of the oak piece. The examples of detailed parts in Fig. 63 help to make the point clearer.
As a further example of these changes the little table in Fig. 68 is given. This was probably made towards the end of the seventeenth century, and the interesting feature about it is that the maker has tried to emulate the new scheme of things but has carried on with the traditional construction. It was most likely the work of a country carpenter who had seen some furniture of the walnut kind but who had had no experience in making it, and had not the materials to use  It is in oak, and the legs, although neatly turned, have the baluster shaping reminiscent of an earlier period. The wide apron rail is shaped similarly to that of typical William and Mary walnut furniture, and has a cocked bead around the edge (another ” walnut ” feature), but the joints are all pegged, a thing never done in true walnut work. Then the top and the drawer have an inlaid banding of fruit wood around the edges in imitation of crossbanding (such as that
in Fig. 62), but the grain runs lengthwise and it is let into the solid oak.
A piece like this would never have been made by a cabinet maker of any standing in a town, and in that sense it is not typical of its period, but it is interesting not only in exemplifying the changes that were taking place, but also in showing the constant lag that maintained in the country districts compared with towns.
Figs. 64, 65, and 66 show the gradual evolution taking place in the chair. A note of special interest in that in Fig. 65 is that the back legs are splayed. This is the first example of this feature to be given, chairs up to this time having straight, upright back legs. The day bed in Fig. 67 is a development of the type mentioned by Shakespeare in Richard HI (see P. 54).

FIG. 68. SMALL SIDE TABLE WITH CURIOUSLY
MIXED FEATURES. PROBABLY OF COUNTRY
ORIGIN.
About 1700.
Although the whole thing is of oak and the legs are typically
Jacobean, there are features which belong to a later period,
for example, the shaped rail with cocked bead edging and
the Inlay around top and drawer front.

FIG. 61. CUPBOARD WITH TYPICAL JACOBEAN CONSTRUCTION.
About 165o.
Note that the whole thing is made up of a framework with recessed
panels fitting in grooves. The construction is obvious, no attempt being
made to conceal it. Compare with the veneered example in Fig. 62
opposite.

FIG. 62. WILLIAM AND MARY CABINET IN WALNUT.
Late 17th century.
Here the construction is concealed. The banding around the doors for
instance has no connection with any framing, but is simply a cross-
banding of veneer.

FIG. 64. CHARLES II CHAIR
WITH CROWN EMBLEM
CARVED IN BACK AND
STRETCHER.
About 166o-070.
There is a definite tendency
to a lighter form of construc-
tion in this chair as compared
with earlier examples in Fig.
40. Note too how much
finer is the section of the
scrolled arms than the square
form in Fig. 38.
The interesting point about these chairs is that, whereas in that above the construction dictates the general form (note the obvious arrangement of rails in the back), in the lower chair the design is considered first and the construction adapted to suit. In the back, for instance, it is difficult to tell where the rails join the uprights.
FIG. 65. WILLIAM AND MARY TALL
BACK CHAIR.
About 1690.
This is the first example in this book
of a chair with back legs splayed back-
wards.

FIG. 66. CHAIRS SHOWING EVIDENCE OF THE TRANSITION.
Late 17th century.
In the left-hand example the germ of the cabriole leg is seen. In the other
the coming of the splat back of walnut times is heralded.

FIG. 67. WALNUT DAY BED OF CHARLES II TIME.
About 167o.
The fact that day beds were in use in Elizabeth’s reign is shown by Shake-
speare’s allusionto them. Early specimens are extremely rare, however,
the majority belonging to the restoration period.

Settles and sofas before 1840
The box-settle was in existence in northern Europe by the 15th century. The earliest examples usually have planked seats and pierced trellis or linen-fold panelled backs, and are often richly carved. A plainer and sturdier form was the oak “monk’s table”, which had a bench-like seat, often set above an enclosed well used for storage, and a hinged back, which when brought forward served as a table. This basic form was adopted by furniture-makers in Britain (particularly in the provinces), and the Low Countries from the 16th century. Early box-settles were usually of oak, although elm, chestnut, and fruitwood were increasingly used during the 18th century; they continued to be made in the provincial tradition until well into the 19th century.

DOUBLE CHAIR-BACK SETTEES
The double chair-back settee dates from the mid-17th century, and its evolution reflects that of the chair back (splat). Invariably of walnut, this type of furniture is distinguished by caned seats, carved upright splats, and baluster-turned or strapwork legs joined by stretchers. By the late 17th and early 18th centuries the double chair-back settee was characterized by a drop-in, upholstered seat, slightly serpentine toprail with vase or baluster-shaped splats, and cabriole legs with pad feet. Usually made of walnut, it became increasingly bold and elaborate in form and decoration; by the reign of Queen Anne (1702-14) settees were frequently veneered with burr-walnut and enriched with seaweed marquetry on the splats and legs. George I examples (1714-27) were often inspired by the architect William Kent (c.16851748), and have carved shells, foliage, lion-masks and paws, and eagle’s-head arm terminals and claws. Mahogany settees were first made under George II (1727-60); those from the 1750s and 1760s frequently follow chair-patterns in the Chinese, Gothick, and French Rococo styles popularized by Thomas Chippendale (1718-79) in The Gentleman and Cabinet-Maker’s Director (1754-62). Continental examples were often gilded or painted with flowers and chinoiserie decoration, and are far more Rococo in form than their English counterparts, with exaggerated cabriole legs, serpentine toprails, and asymmetric splats. This latter feature is also characteristic of Dutch double-chair back settees, which parallel English Queen Anne and early Georgian examples, save for the enrichment of floral marquetry. However, Dutch chair-back settees with floral marquetry on a mahogany, as opposed to a walnut, ground are more usually 19th century. English settees of the late 18th and early 19th centuries are usually of carved mahogany or satinwood. Painted designs include peacock feathers and flowers in the manner of George Seddon & Sons (est. 1785), and Etruscan-black decoration, inspired by Classical vases. These painted examples are usually of beech and often display caned or rush seats with squab cushions.
CANAPES AND CHAISES-LONGUES
Canapes with padded backs and seats dating from the reign of Louis XIV (1643-1715) usually have walnut frames with simple channelled decoration to the legs and stretchers, scrolled arms, and cabriole legs. The most sophisticated canapes of the Regence period (1715-23) are masterpieces of the carver’s art; their giltwood or walnut frames were carved with foliage, shells, and chimerical dragons, and their backs strewn with flowers in the style of Juste-Aurele Meissonnier (1695-1750).
During the 1730s and 1740s, Rococo canapes became even more exaggerated in form and detail. They were usually gilded or of walnut, although Italian craftsmen also employed a mix of silver and gold leaf, a decoration known as mecca. Italian canapes are often less well constructed than French seat furniture.

The chaise-longue was characterized by its long seat, which enabled the sitter to recline horizontally, and was first recorded in France, Italy, and England in the late 17th century. Louis XIV chaises-longues were usually of carved walnut or beech, with caned seats and squab cushions. During the early 18th century the frames became richer and more florid, often being gilded or japanned in imitation of Oriental lacquer, while the caned seats were rejected in favour of fully stuffed and upholstered seats. Usually carved in lime or beech, and intended to be painted or gilded, inid-18th-century Continental chaises-longues were of a pegged construction. Although rarer, day-beds, usually without side-supports, were also made in England during the mid-Georgian period.
It was under the influence of the Prince of Wales (later George IV) and his circle that the chaise-longue reached its apogee in England. The form was the perfect vehicle for the reproduction of Greek, Roman, and Egyptian ornament. Simpler Regency chaises-longues were also widely manufactured, mainly in mahogany or rosewood, perhaps inlaid with brass in the “Buhl” manner. Painted examples with Etruscan-inspired ebonized and parcel-gilt decoration, or with a grained or stencilled finish, also abound. The earliest Regency chaises-longues are light and elegant, with simple, free-flowing lines, sabre legs, and brass caps and casters. Examples from the 1820s and 1830s are increasingly florid and heavy; they are supported on claw feet and arc often richly carved with exaggerated, stylized foliage.
DUNCAN PHYFE (1768-1854)
The best-known New York cabinet-maker of the early and mid-19th century, Duncan Phyfe also gave his name to the generic term for American furniture in the Neo-classical style, making use of the forms and ornament of Classical Greece and Rome. The work of Phyfe and his contemporaries incorporates “curule” (Grecian-cross design) legs or sabre legs, paw feet, harp and lyre backs, caned toprails, and decoration showing sheaves of wheat, thunderbolts, cornucopia, and swags. Unless documented by a bill or label, New York Federal and Classical furniture should be attributed to the Phyfe school. Phyfe-type furniture was made into the mid-19th century, with a revival in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

EARLY 19TH-CENTURY SOFAS
The development of the chaise-longue in the 19th century was mirrored by that of the sofa. From c. 805 to 1810 sofas became increasingly bold and luxurious. Frames of plain mahogany were initially fashionable, carved with Grecian ornament as promoted by George Smith (active c.1786-1828) in his book A Collection of Designs for Household Furniture and Interior Decoration (1808); these were superseded by more florid examples in rosewood and, later, walnut, upholstered with bolster cushions at each end. This extravagance was continued in the design and decoration of the frames, which often had tightly scrolled arm-terminals and were embellished with gilt-bronze mounts or inlaid in the “Buhl” manner with foliate arabesques, as on sofas by the firm of Gillow (est. c.1730). The sofas were supported by hairy-paw feet. As seen in the designs of Michel Angelo Nicolson (c.1796-1844) in The Practical Cabinet-Maker, Upholsterer, and Complete Decorator (1826), the basic Regency form persisted throughout the 19th century. However, sofa designs became heavier as the century progressed, with the introduction of shorter and fatter legs, often reeded, and tapering to brass caps and casters.

•    BOX-SETTLES the most lavishly decorated settles, particularly those with linen-fold panelled backs, are often examples of 19th-century antiquarianism, in which old panelling has been reused or plain types have been later carved or embellished
•    DOUBLE CHAIR-BACK SETTEES the majority of these are 19th-century copies, which may be identified by the quality of the timber and carving, and by the use of carved ornament borrowed from different periods
•    CHAISES-LONGUES mid-18th century Continental chaises-longues should be of pegged construction; 18th-century examples were widely copied in the 19th century – these later pieces are usually betrayed by the stiffness of the carving; chaises-longues have very often been regilded (this will not affect the value if the work is of a high quality); examples that were once brightly painted have often faded

Kakiemon
A type of Arita ware, Kakiemon is a delicate porcelain with a distinctive palette. The name is derived from a family of potters and enamellers working in Arita, who are traditionally believed to have introduced overglaze enamelling on porcelain to Japan in the 1640s. The extremely fine, milky-white body (nigoshide) was believed to have been exclusive to the Kakiemon kiln, although this is now disputed. Wares include small dishes, bottles, bowls, and vases, many of which are of geometric form.
DECORATION AND FORMS
Although the Kakiemon kilns produced blue-andwhite porcelain, they are generally associated with wares expertly painted in a palette of iron-red, cerulean-blue, turquoise-green, yellow, aubergine, and gold. These delicate porcelains form a counterpoint to the heavier Imari wares.
Often asymmetrical, the designs enhance
the milky-white body of the best Arita porcelain. Kakiemon wares are usually painted with natural themes: birds in branches, flying squirrels, the “quail and millet” design, the “Three
Friends of Winter” (pine, prunus, and bamboo), trailing flowers, and banded hedges. Human subjects are rare; some have been given titles such as the “Woman and the Nightingale” and the “Hob in the Well”, the latter a design based on the story of a Chinese sage who saved his friend who had fallen into a large fishbowl.
The chrysanthemum, the national flower of Japan, is a very common form for
Kakiemon wares, as is the pointed bracket-shape. Many Arita wares, especially the Kakiemon type, are hexagonal or octagonal in form. An iron-brown dressing (fuchi-beni) was applied to the edges of many Kakiemon porcelains to embellish them and to protect the rims from being chipped; this was probably introduced around the mid-17th century, following the example set by Chinese potters. Kakiemon porcelain was arguably the most influential Japanese porcelain in Europe; after it was exported to Europe at the end of the 17th century, the forms and decoration were copied by many major factories including Meissen, Saint Cloud,Chantilly, Chelsea, and Bow.
• BODY a pure milky-white (nigoshide)
• GLAZE almost colourless
• PALETTE iron red, cerulean blue, turquoise, brown, yellow, and gold; black is used for detailing; iron-
brown edges (fuchi-beni) are typical
• FORMS geometric; dishes are hexagonal, octagonal, or decagonal
• DECORATION mainly flower motifs and only rarely figures; asymmetrical and sparse; popular patterns include the “quail and millet”, the “Three Friends of Winter” (pine, bamboo, and prunus), banded hedges, flying squirrels, and the ho-ho bird (phoenix)
• COPIES made in many European factories from the end of the 18th century, including Meissen, Chantilly, Saint Cloud, Chelsea, and Bow

Qing after 1800
During the Qianlong reign period (1736-95) the directorship of the imperial kilns passed from imperial officials to regional supervisors, and from that time there followed a slow decline in the quality of wares from Jingdezhen in Jiangxi Province. While some fine pieces continued to be made, there was a general tendency to over-elaborate in both form and decoration.
BODY AND GLAZE
The changes in the quality of the material were gradual and, when wares are unmarked, it can be very difficult to distinguish between one reign period and another. The dragon and phoenix wucai bowls, which were first made during the Kangxi reign period (1622-1722), continued to be made right into the 19th century and are a good example of the problem; their smooth bluish-white glaze and neatly drawn enamelling are virtually the same whether they are from the Qianlong or the Jigging reign periods (1736-1820). Without reference to the seal marks, most specialists would be hard put to tell the difference.
There was, however, a perceptible decline in quality during the Daoguang reign period (1821-50), and the inferior quality persisted to the end of the dynasty. The cool and lustrous glaze gave way to a grainy off-white, while the enamels were duller or harsher than their
brilliant predecessors. The decoration of enamelled porcelains was arranged in a crowded or ineffective manner, with over-complicated colour combinations.
STYLES, SHAPES, AND DECORATIVE THEMES The porcelains that had been produced in the 18th century continued to be made in the 19th. They included Ming-style blue-and-white wares such as moon flasks and pear-shaped bottles, as well as large saucer dishes. Likewise, monochromes continued to be produced, notably sang-de-boeuf red, “peachbloom”, and yellow. There were also artistic innovations, among them the production of “medallion” bowls.
• GLAZE marked deterioration in quality from the Daoguang period; “European-green” turquoise wash appears on the inside of many vessels
• DECORATION tendency to over-elaborate, complicated colour schemes and overcrowding; greater use of gilding; introduction of “medallion” bowls and “rice-grain” pierced wares; use of show and other auspicious characters; heavy use of enamels
Reign marks
Reign marks were inscribed on most 19th-and 20th-century domestic, imperial, and export porcelain; the mark shown here is in conventional script for the Guangxu reign period (1875-1908)