Journalistic sensationalism aside, the sentiment of this modern day caption may very well have been a headline in 1860, when the Arts and Crafts Movement stepped up to offer a constructive antidote, a solution to the downside of the Industrial Revolution.

I am writing about the Arts and Crafts Movement, not so much as a history lesson, but to demonstrate how history often repeats itself, while stirring up understandable emotions in the people who are the most adversely affected by these changes, or paradigm shifts.

In this case, it is the artists, designers, architects, sculptors, illustrators, glass makers, silversmiths, and craftsmen of every description, who most severely felt the negative impact of a new industry and its machines.

Was it good change? Or was it bad change? It was neither and it was both. One thing it definitely was, is inevitable. Change is inevitable.

The Arts and Crafts Movement was both political and aesthetic.

Idealistic in nature, it represented a new model for honest craftsmanship and quality materials, while touting socialistic concepts.

William Morris, an ardent socialist, and the movement’s figurehead, believed that “industrialization alienated labor and created a dehumanizing distance between the designer and manufacturer. “

People were required to work in factories that were usually located in big cities, and they worked under conditions that were far from ideal. To the artists, it seemed anti-human and anti-art. Also, the collaborative working relationship between artist and craftsman ceased to exist, as well as the art of creating a beautiful object with human hands.

As the principal developer of the Arts and Crafts style, Morris’ objective was to unite the arts within the décor of the home, with an emphasis on nature and simple forms. It was dubbed the Decorative Arts.

Morris’ art is sophisticated, and features stylized birds and plant forms in bold, flat color and line. Morris designed and produced many objects for the home, including wallpaper, textiles, furniture, and stained glass. Curiously, he actually “mass-produced” his own work. I say curiously because it seemed to be a contradiction. Morris essentially opposed the commercialism of mass production. Perhaps he thought it was fine as long as the designer was reproducing his own art.

He established Kelmscott Press in 1890, which printed fine editions of classic English literature.

John Ruskin was the leading art critic of the Victorian era, and the inspiration and heart and soul of the Arts and Crafts Movement. Ruskin loved nature. He believed in preserving the environment. He was a champion of the integrity of the arts. Ruskin thought machinery was the cause of many social ills and that to have a healthy society, one must depend on skilled, creative workers. He greatly influenced the thinkers of the time, including William Morris.

The Movement happened as a reaction to the new inventions (machines) of the Industrial Revolution. These machines impacted the artists and designers of the day, by not only changing the way they made their art, but also the art itself.

Machines were introduced that replaced skilled craftsmen.

To the trained artistic eye, the mass produced objects were slick and dehumanized.

And the craftsman was in danger of becoming obsolete, or at least subservient to the machine that took over his work.

It was the end of an era, a time of change.

“Change” is always a shock. When it interferes with artistic expression, it’s more than a shock. It is transformational, and perceived as not always in the best interest of art.

Why did artists, craftsmen, and designers object to what was supposed to be progress? Isn't “mass produced” an honest, practical way for all people to own beautiful objects, previously accessible only to the few?

What’s wrong with making duplicates of one object at a price everyone can afford?

I’d be a hypocrite if I said that it isn’t okay to reproduce art, since I have been a designer, whose work has been reproduced for decades. I’m also a designer who understands exactly how the artists of the Arts and Crafts Movement felt. I see their point. Socialism aside, I may have been one of them.

Put yourself mentally into the early to mid nineteenth century. If you wanted a fine piece of furniture, you visited a craftsman and contracted him to make the furniture for you. His work represented a standard you were accustomed to and accepted. The decorative crafts were an art form that was highly valued..

All of a sudden, industry was grinding out cheaply made facsimilies of objects that heretofore required human artistry and time to produce.

Traditionally, these objects were made by hand, not machine. Craftsmen took great pride in their craftsmanship, and in working together with the designer to produce works of beauty and mastery. Oftentimes, the designer and craftsman was one and the same person.

Industrialization evoked massive discontent amongst the artists and thinkers of the day, who felt that the quality of life had been largely diminished by the use of machines to produce the decorative arts.

The Arts and Crafts Movement grew in sentiment and had a huge influence on the decorative arts for fifty year, through 1910. Its ideas and ideals spread throughout Europe and North America, and its visual impact was seen in the art world well into the 1930s.

England was the largest, most powerful industrialized nation of that time. Britain was the indisputable leader, the arbiter of good taste and quality, and set the standard for excellence.

The Industrial Revolution in England was a tremendous paradigm shift. The way people lived, even the objects they lived with in their homes was revolutionized, and it spread out to the entire world.

Mass produced objects were devoid of the slight imperfections that are characteristic of a handmade object. This made them appear impersonal.

Unique personal touches, and slight irregularities are most desirable in an original work. Oftentimes, an imperfection is the way we would recognize an original from a mass produced object..

We mass produce everything today. What would your sofa cost if it were not mass produced? Practicality and consumerism seem to rule our modern world.

Artists of 1860 would be horrified if they could see some of our modern decorative arts, especially some that are being produced with profit margins as the only criteria.

My twenty-first century mind thinks we can have it all, but not everything in one place. The decorative arts made by craftsmen have an important place in our world. Mass produced objects have their place. One should not preclude the other. However, they should both be produced with integrity.

Fortunately, we still have some extraordinary decorative art, mass produced objects that are made for the home at reasonable prices, though sadly, these objects are not found in as many retail stores, as they once were.

Followers of the Arts and Crafts Movement tended to make work that was slightly unfinished to emphasize the hand made aspect of the design.

Hand made continues to be desirable.

Followers of the movement felt it was more important to re- establish the integrity of the art, something they felt was destroyed by industry, rather than becoming overly concerned with the social issues that were also part of the movement.

We Americans had our own kind of virtue. We were more interested in creating well decorated middle-class homes.

Americans thought the simple aesthetic of the Arts and Crafts style would lend nobility to industrial consumerism.

A refreshing simplicity was a reaction to the “excessiveness” of the Victorian era. Less was more.

The “socialism” aspect of The Arts and Crafts Movement did not take hold in America in any significant way.

The Exhibition of 1897 was conducted in Boston and featured a large collection of decorative objects, numbering over 1000 items, that were made by men and women craftsmen. As a matter of fact, half of the exhibitors were women. The Arts and Crafts Movement was very friendly toward women. Women were well educated in the arts and the skills of a craftsman. They were encouraged to actively participate in the applied arts.

The Decorative Arts made no gender distinction.

The purpose of the Exhibition was to promote the decorative arts in all areas of hand crafted objects. It was important to encourage workmen to appreciate the value of good design and to see the dignity in producing a well made work. It also insisted upon restraint in regard to ornamentation. Ornamentation was to be secondary to form.

By the end of the nineteenth century, Arts and Crafts ideals influenced a broad spectrum of the arts, including architecture.

Now that we understand what led up to the Arts and Crafts Movement, can you see a parallel in our world today?

Technology has progressed so far that it too, has replaced the human factor to a large degree.

For the artist, technology has even made paint brushes, paint, pens and pencils outdated. What would Van Gogh have said about that?

Some of us "hands on" artists and designers are suddenly feeling dispensable. How can that be?

Is a machine more interesting or more practical than we are? Is it more reliable?

Is our next technological paradigm going to be Ray Kurzweil’s transhumanism? Scary thought.

We have software that can do in minutes what requires hours of labor when done by hand.

In the case of art, what does this abbreviation leave out? The words practicality and art used together, seem to be an oxymoron. At least, one has nothing to do with the other.

Just like the artist and craftsman of 1860, I like “made by hand” much better.

Does having a player piano make you a pianist? Well, I'm sure you get my point.

Many illustrators and graphic designers are using computers to make their drawings and designs. Commercially, it’s often required that art is transmitted online.

As an artist, I confess that I think it’s cheating to rely on a computer to do what you should be able to do on paper, by hand. No, I’m not totally opposed to using computers for art and design because remarkable things are being done on computers. Look at all the great animation.

Many of our “mass produced” decorative arts have seriously slipped in recent years. Have you noticed, the objects we find in stores are not as exciting, inventive, or as well executed as they once were?

Great decorative objects can still be found, if you know where to look.

What will give the mainstream decorative arts a boost?

Maybe a bolt of lightning, an Arts and Crafts Movement, a Renaissance, or possibly a miracle.