Hello, I am new on this forum and have noticed that someone previous has been stuck on this same question. In approx 2000 words compare and contrast the principle elements of the arts and crafts style? My problem is that I dont really understand what the question is asking of me. I would like the question to be in plain english. As the person before I am studying Interior design and am so stuck. Help!!!

Hello <Kelly 1>,
First of all welcome to the Arts and Crafts Society Forums.
Now to answer your question as best I can; Arts and Crafts is in reality not a style but a movement started By John Ruskin in the late 1800s as well as William Morris, of whom a lot of furniture was named after as it was a plain styled or as some call it quaint.

Now to really enlighten you go to page 3 of this forum Defining the Movement and starting on Dec 22, 04 you will find that I started writing the history of the Arts and Crafts Movement from John Ruskin the end with Frank Lloyd Wright.

I think that once you have read the history you will have a better understanding of the movement
and what now has become a style.

Enjoy.

Respectfully,

Ralph Jones

Compare and contrast…I’ve been out of school too long…

at least this will give something for others to attack, disagree with and generally have some fun.

Although I am no scholar on the subject, (Hubbard defines a scholar as “Scholar: 1) An ornate fossil. 2) A deadly ptomaine that infests all forms of dynamic thought.”) I will still offer some thoughts about the movement. As most know, the Arts and Crafts movement developed as a quiet revolt against the de-humanizing aspects of the early industrial revolution. The rampant take over of manufacture by machines and industrialists left little for the common people to take pride in or to strive for. Morris, Pugin and others offered instead an idyllic approach to societal reform by reviving the concept of the medieval guilds, focusing on the craft and the creation of objects by individuals as a better way of life, thereby raising craftsmanship to an art. Others throughout the world echoed these sentiments with varying levels of enthusiasm, degrees of political vindictive and pure aesthetic ideals without the social aspects.

From the aesthetic point, simplicity and honesty of form and function was a diving force, focusing on nature for inspiration, local materials for form, and individual craftsmanship for realization. Adherence to these principles could improve and enhance life in the hectic modern world.

In contrast, although the products of the movement, furniture, architecture, metalwork, glass, etc were widely received by the public, the simplification of the lifestyle was not as prevalent. People on the whole wanted the conveniences provided by the machine age. People are also fickle in their devotion to any one style or social visionary. The great war obviously effected perceptions, not only on the large scale, but also at the individual level. A whole generation saw Europe for the first time. How do you keep ‘em down in the bungalow after they’ve seen Paris? Another conflicting aspect of the movement was than in its goals to create art for the common man, it produced objects that immediately were too expensive for the mass audience. Cheap knockoffs and imitations of the better items became the norm, and when these pieces didn’t last, the European reproductions were there waiting, and a person could recreate the grand scale of living seen in images brought home from the war.

In trying to move to simple furniture, it is ironic that stickley became such a big business, with everything dependent on continuation of the public interest in a lifestyle that stickley did not live. Above and beyond all, he was a business man. His inability to survive in the marketplace was his downfall.

As an aesthetic movement the Arts and Crafts in America produced some of the finest decorative arts ever produced in my opinion. As a social reform movement it was brief and not very successful. Many speculate what would have happened to the Roycrofters if hubbard hadn’t died on the lusitania. Roycroft never gained the commercial popularity of the stickleys but did development much farther as a society and community. I feel they may have lasted longer than they did, but I think they too, with or without Elbert would have been a victim of changing social tastes.

Thank you for your help.
What would you say are the principle elements that I need to compare and contrast?

P.s I did try looking up the history yesterday after reading your response to the last persons quiestion. I tried it again today and unfortunatly the page is unavailable. Sorry.

Hello Kelly,
I just came from the page I was telling you about it is page three on this same forum Defining the Movement dated 12 - 22 -04 at 07:52 PM entitled Arts and Crafts History. Then read forward to and through Frank Lloyd Wright.

Respectfully,

hi guys ive just joined this forum to find the same answers that kelly1 is looking for.
thanks for the tips
im sure i'll be on frequently to ask more