See also William Morris's work Hopes and Fears for Art, in which he discusses the 'lesser arts', that is, the decorative arts. Morris makes a very interesting argument that the decorative arts, despite being 'lesser', are central to civilization, and that when they get separated from the 'greater arts',
it is ill for the Arts altogether: the lesser ones become trivial, mechanical, unintelligent, incapable of resisting the changes pressed upon them by fashion or dishonesty; while the greater, however they may be practised for a while by men of great minds and wonder-working hands, unhelped by the lesser, unhelped by each other, are sure to lose their dignity of popular arts, and become nothing but dull adjuncts to unmeaning pomp, or ingenious toys for a few rich and idle men.
As Morris points out, the whole point of decoration is to give people pleasure in the things they use and make, and the importance of this for life at large can hardly be overestimated. One of the effects is that our attitude toward decoration tends to have a major influence on our attitude toward labor in general (because decoration contributes a great deal to the beauty of labor), so much so that Morris suggests that a healthy attitude toward the decorative sciences is one of the great aids of progress. Thus we need a healthy philosophy of the decorative arts, for the sake of progress and our own humanity; without one (and Morris didn't think we had one, and certainly wouldn't think we have one now) we get "Unhappiness and Brutality." That's perhaps a bit exaggerated, but it's less exaggerated than it looks. In any case, the book is well worth reading; I recommend it highly. It's a much-neglected classic of aesthetics. One of the many memorable lines:
I do not want art for a few, any more than education for a few, or freedom for a few.
Which, in a single sentence, encapsulates an argument of its own for the importance of the 'lesser arts'. Another:
Believe me, if we want art to begin at home, as it must, we must clear our houses of troublesome superfluities that are for ever in our way: conventional comforts that are no real comforts, and do but make work for servants and doctors: if you want a golden rule that will fit everybody, this is it:
'HAVE NOTHING IN YOUR HOUSES THAT YOU DO NOT KNOW TO BE USEFUL OR BELIEVE TO BE BEAUTIFUL.
That's a much sterner asceticism than it sounds, but there's no doubt we would all be benefitted by it.
More links. Charles Robert Ashbee, an overview at "The Victorian Web" (some great pictures).
Fairy Tale Illustrations of Walter Crane.
John Ruskin's The Two Paths, subtitled "Lectures on Art, and Its Application to Decoration and Manufacture Delivered in 1858-1859." Ruskin argues that "all noble design" derives from the sculpting or painting of organic form. He also makes more controversial arguments, like his argument that the fine arts lead to the deterioration of society and that fashion is bad for morals; this is an argument like Morris's, but more controversially stated.
I had previously mentioned a thing or two about Eric Gill.
