lntroduction

The History ofthe Theoryof DecorativeArt

What are the decorativearts?l For over two centurieshistorians,
artists,and philosophersalike havetried to answerthis seeminglyinnocent
and durableanswerhasturned out to be surquestion.Finding a satisfactory
prisinglyelusive,and the attemptwasmore or lessabandonedin the first part
of the twentieth century.2One superficial reasonfor the difhculty of defining
the natureand characterof the decorativeartsmust surelyariseftom the variety of activities and obiectsto which the terrn now appliesand has referred to
in the past.For instance,weaving,pottery metalworh glasswork, and woodworking were (and often still are) consideredto be decorativearts, though
someor all of thesecouldbe labeledmechanicalarts,minor arts,appliedarts'
industrialarts,or ctaft, dependingon the historicalperiod.Evenmore problematic,the term indicatesan artisticactivity(weaving)aswll asa productof
an activity (pottery).Confusionthereforesurroundsboth the labeldecorative
to designate.
it is supposed
artsandthe qpe ofartistic exPression
and ear\-trventiethcenturies'however'there
Betweenthe late-eighteenth
aboutthe natureof the decorativearts.This
wasa clear,if fragile,consensus
becomesapparentwhen one looksmore closelyat a grotp of writ'
consensus
ingsfocusedon examiningthe artisticmerits,status,and featuresof the decoberativearts,During this period,the decorativeartsweresituatedsomewhere
(to
the latter group Dost
tweenthe domain of the fine arts and the non-arts
writers would have consignedundecoeighteenth-and nineteenth-century
ratedutensils,tools, constructionblocks,and so on). In the eighteenthcentury. rrhen the decorativeartsfirst atbactedthe interestofwriters and philosophers,their artistic realm was alreadydiffrcult to circumscribe.But by the
mid-nineteenthcentury,industrialmaterialsand metlods gavethis issuenew
urgency.Facedwith new forms and gpes of objects,consumersand theorists
alike searchedfor a way to evaluatethe economicaswell asaestheticvalueof
suchproteanarts.
Philosophers,historians,artists,and designersattemptedto resolvethis
issue,producinga rich literaturethat hasbeenforgottenby all but a handfulof
Despitethevarietyofopinions,mostwritersagreedthat the decoraspecialists.3
(however
their own distinctive,artistic
theyreferredto them)possessed
tive arts
nature.Moreover,this artisticnaturecouldbe understoodand analyzedby focusingon the relationsamongthreeprincipalfeatures;function,materialand
j1J

production,andornamentation.
Theresultwasa stimulatingarrayoftheoriesof
decoratiyeart that attemptedto explaintheserelationsin termsofa singleprincipleor setof principles.Theseprinciplesvariedwide\ from author to author
and,in someinstances,
evenfrom text to te}1of any givenauthor,Somewere
linked1otheoriesofhistoricalevolution,somereflectedcertainbeliefsaboutsocial and economicdevelopment,and othersweredirectedat improvrngcontemporaryartisticpractice.But regardless
of differencesin approach,all the
contributorsto this debateendeavoredto fashioncomprehensive
theoriesto
explainthe particularnatureof decorativeart, theoriesthat respondedto other
relatedtheoriesaswell asto morewide-rangingideasaboutthenatureofart' design, history and visual perception.This debate,whoseparticipantsinclude
DenisDiderot,lohn Ruskin,GottfriedSemper,William Morris, Le Corbusier,
andAloisRiegl,beganin the mid-eiglrteenthcenturyand diedout in the eadytwentieth.Despitea few contributionsto the theoryofornamentin the second
half of the twentieth century, notably by E. H, Gombrich and Oleg Grabar,this
debatewasnevertruly revived,presumablybecauseno suchconsensusaboutthe
natureof decorativeart could existafter the Modernistcriticismof ornament
and decoration.a
This anthologyis the first attemptto reconstructthe historyofthis debate,
'which focuseson alts situatedbetweenthe fine arts and the non-arts and occurredwithin specificchronologicallimits. I hopeto dispelsomeofthe confusion surroundingthe notion ofthe decorativeartsby demonstratingthe existence,for a time,ofa shared,evolvingunderstanding
oftheir artisticnature.At
fust glancetheseearlierwritingson the decorativeartsmight seemtoo historical to many involved in the contemporary debateabout art and artistic practice.sAt best,contemporaryhistoriansmight concedethat theswritingscontain a few precociousthoughtson, for instance,ornament'sabstractforms,
artisticpleasure,or artisticprocess.6
Suchan impressionwould be misleading,
for thesewritings rpresentsomthingfar more ambitious.What one finds
throughout theseearlierwritings arebold attemptsto elaboratenew, overarching aesthetic
theoriescapableofencompassing
both the fine and the decorative
arts. Although these attempts are ftagmentary, many of them delve into the
natureof artisticcreatiyityand perceptionpreciselyir order to challengethe
aestheticcanondevelopedby witers from the Renaissance
to the eighteenth
century.tohn Ruskin,Owen )ones,Karl Philipp Moritz, and Alois Riegl,to
namebut a few,questionedthe validityofan aesthetic
hierarchydominatedby
the fine arts.But theydid so by arguingthat the decorativeartspossessed
both
perceptual
as
as
visual,sensual,or
significance well functional,historical,or
socialmeaning.The ultimatefailure of suchwritersto shakethe foundations
of eighteenth-century
aesthetics
shouldnot obscurethe fact that we haveto a
{ 2.1 'Introduction

certain degreeinherited their fi8ht. We too are now busily engagedin demolthan theyeverdid.
tradition,much more successfully
ishingthis sameaesthetic
But aswe look at the results,both at the shrinking,entrenchedrealmof "high
paintingand sculpture,"holdingits own againstthe encroachingclaimsof all
other human artifacts, we would perhapsdo well to study theseearlier writings. Their irnaginative and perceptive characterizationof human creativity
and artisticappreciationcould offer us theoreticalalternativesto the aut/aut
(either/or)confrontingthe notion of art and artisticcreativiq'today'
This anthologyis intendedfor readersinterestedin art theoryand decorative art, aswell asfor thoseconcernedwith the issuesof aestheticappreciation.
The followingintroductionis a brief accountofthe developmentof the theory
of decorativearts to help place the writings in context. Such a survey might
seemoverlyambitious,yet a s).ntheticoverviewofthe theoryofdecorativearts
must be attemptedfor the simplereasonthat none exists.This is all the more
surprisinggiventhe nunerous recentstudiesof the theoryof fine artsand of
the historyof art history.7Sucha surveycan only try to presentthe highlights
of this theoreticaldebate,and must leaveto othersthe narrationof the fascinating socialand economichistory of the decorativearts.Fortunately,this is
the aspectofthe decorativeartsattractingscholarlyattentiontoday,andthe interestedreadercan now consultseveralstudiesof the socialand political significanceofFrench,English,andAmericandecorativearts.8

FROM ARS TO DECORATIVE

ART

The idea of the decorative arts slowly developed out of classicaland medieval conceptsofart.e Greek and fatin writers did not distinguish betweenthe
fine and the decorativearts, using the word art in a generalfashion to refer to a
skilled craft or science rather than to an inspired creative activity. Poetry,
painting, and music were considered arts that had to be learned, like weaving
and geometry. However, by the medieval period two complementary groups of
arts were distinguished;the liberal versusthe mechanical.The conceptual labor
of the liberal arts was placed above the physical labor of the mechanical. The
liberal arts encompassedintellectual activities and skills, such as grammar,
rhetoric, astronomy, as well as the affiliated disciplines of music and poetry.
The mechanical arts, on the other hand, included nanual activities, ranging
fiom weaving, rvood carving, pottery and navigation to armarnent, in which
subgroup were also found painting, sculpture, and architecture.lD
The medieval classificationofthe arts is a distant ancestorofour contemporary one. During the intervening centuries there grew up yet another notion of
'Introduction
l3l

art that bound painting,sculpture,and architecturetogetherwith music and

poetry.Medievaltheoristshad originallyseparated
the threevisualarts(asthey
are commonly calledtoday) from poetry and nusic by assigningthe former
to the mechanicalarts and the latter to the more highly regardedliberal arts.
However,Italian Renaissance
artistsand humanistschallengedthis medieval
classification,
claimingfor the visualartsthe sameintellectualstatusasthat of
poetryand music,and leavingbehindamongthe mechanicalartswhat would
becomeknown asthe decoratiyearts.Renaissance
theoristsreinforcedthe invisual
arts
tellectualand artistic claimsof the
by establishingacademies
devoted exclusivelyto painting, sculpture,and architecture,the three "arts of
the visualartsacdesign"(arti deldisegno).Lt
With the helpoftheseacademies,
quiredan identity distinctftom that of the mechanicalarts,onethat pavedthe
wayfor the laternotion ofthe fine arts.
writers culminatedtlvo
The changesin art theory initiatedby Renaissance
an
ofthe fine alts as artisticgrouppossesscenturieslaterin the full acceptance
art theoristshad furtheredthe
ing its own theoreticalprinciples.Renaissance
claims
of
visual
artists,but had not linked
conceptual,and evenimaginative,
theseclaimsto a conceptofbeautyin art. A theoryoffine artsProper,onethat
tied the theoryofbeautyto the visualaswell asto the literaryand musicalappreciationof art, emergedclearlyonly in the eighteenthcentury,when such
thinkersas Shaftsbury,Burke, Baumgarten,and Kant developednew philoin
sophicalprinciplesfor judgingartisticbeauty.The new theoriesofaesthetics
turn provided the conceptualframework within which to establisha separate
notion of art applicableonly to painting,sculptur,architecture,poetry,and
rnusic.r2
As activitiesdevotedto the creationofbeauty,the fine artsweretheoreticallyabsolvedfrom the moral and practicaldemandsstill placedon the
otherartsandsciences.
This transformation in eighteenth-centurythouSht introduced a theoretical
border betweenthe fine arts and all other arts.Althoughthis distinctionmay
havehelpedto clari!' the natureofthoseactivitiesnow consideredthe fine arts,
it left behind an ill-assortedgroup of activitiesunder the medievalterm mechanicalarts.In the eighteenthcentury,art tleoristsbeganturning their attention to theseaswell, on the presuppositionthat they werearts,but of a lower
kind. The growing theoretical interest in the mechanicalarts was also stimulatedby the erpandingsocialand economicrole of manufacturedgoods.l3By
the end ofthe eighteenthcentury,practitioners and critics alike were suuggling
prodto understandthe artisticnatureof suchmanufactured,machine-made
for
artistic
actiYiofa suitabledefinition
ucts,and theyrecognizedthe absence
tiesoutsidethe realmoffine arts.
explorationsof the natureof decorativeart
Theseinitial eighteenth-century
14 |

'lfltroduction

The
were so perceptivethat they set the groundworkfor future discussions.
Germanhistorian FriedrichAugust Krubsacius,for instance,developedthe
on the Origitl,
first history of decoration,which despiteits ntle, Reflections
Growth,aruLDeclineof Decorationin the Fine Arts (Gedankenvon dem Ursprung,Wachstumund Verfall der Verzierungenin den schdnenKiinsten
[VSg)), wasin fact more pertinent to the decorativethan to ihe file arts.ra
Around the sametime Denis Diderot and JeanLe Rond d'Alembrtstressed
the beneficialandpracticalrole ofthe mechanicalarts,praisingthem at the expenseof the fine arts in theit Enqclopedia bzsr). A. few decadeslater, the German philosopherKarl Philipp Moritz attemptedto tie a theoryof ornamentto
a generalconceptof artisticbeauti'in his remarkablePreliminarykleason the
Theoryof Omamear(Vorbegriffezu einer Theorie der Ornamente [1793]).
Influencedby Moritz's theories,and reactingto the rapid growth of mechanizedproduction,evenGoethetook up the questionof the relativemerits of
decorativeart in hiswritings,arguingthat only
hand-madeand machine-made
the hunan touch could endow a work with true artistic worth. Thesefew
worksreflecta sharedconceptof decorativeart basedon threemain elements:
utiliry, materialsandproduction,and decoration.Whereaseighteenth-century
wdterswerecontentto explorethesefeaturesindividualln nineteenth-century
theoristsfocusedon the relation of theseconstituentelements,in order to
graspthe workingsof decorativeart'snatureasa whole,

THE NINETBENTH CENTURY

The London Great E-rhibition of r85r (popularly known as the Crvstal Palace
exhibition) was the first international display of decorative art and as such became the focus ofmuch European and American writing on decorativeart.15Of
course, interest in the production of contemporary decorative art and, to a
lesser degree, curiosity about its theoretical nature existed well before this
event.r6But the Crystal Palaceexhibition helped transform decorativeart ftom
a domain ofrelatively limited interest into one ofpublic consequence,exposing
for all to seethe relative merits and weaknessesof national products. The exhibition sharpened competition among European nations rying to dominate
a rapidly expanding rnarket of goods ranging fiom household furnishings
to practical appliancesand machines. In the wake of the r85r exhibition, the
British, followed most notably by the Austrians, Germans, and French, implemented a national policy ofarts education intended to improve the application
ofart to manufacture.tTThis policy, in turn, led to the founfing ofthe first decorative art museums,schools,and publications throughout Europe, and later in
'l ntroduction
{51

the United States.rs

The new iournals and institutesdevotedto decorativeart acandhistoriansin discussions
tivelyengaged
designers
ofits pastdevelopment,
as
well a.sin debatesaboutits industrial,economic,and artisticfuture,
Practitioners-includingarchitects,artists,and designers-weremost concernedwith what decorativeart would and shouldbecome.From an examination of its fundamentalelements,they extractedprinciplesto guide both its
presentand futurecourse.Historiansand art theorists,on the otherhand,were
intent on reconstructingthe originsofdecorativeart and discoveringthe principles enabling it to mix utility and beauty so effordesslyin past artifacts.This
divisionin approachalsoseemsto fall alongnationallines.The British dominated the theoreticalwriting about contemporarypracticethroughout the
nineteenthcentury suchwritersasA. W. N. Pugin,JohnRuskin,OwenJones,
andlaterWilliam Morris initiatedreformmovementsinfluencingothersin tle
writers
rest of Europeand the United States.By contrast,German-speaking
producedthe more scholarlytheoriesand werethe first to develophistorically
groundedinterpretationsofthe natureof decorativeart,

THE BRITISII REFORM OF THE DECORATIVE ARTS

In the r84os and 5os,the writings of Pugin and Ruskin set the terms of debate for both scholarly and practical examinations ofthe decorative arts. Both
authors were initially inspired to write on the theory of decorativeart by what
they regarded as the confused state of contemPorary building style. Promoting
an eclectic style in treatisesand actual designs,architects throughout EuroPe
championed the revivalsofspecific historical forms ofdecoration, from Gothic
and Romanesqueto Egyptian and Moorish. Even Pugin and Ruskin intervened
in these debates in favor of a particular sq'le (Gothic and Italian Romanesque,
respectively),but they supported their arguments with influential explanations
of what constituted beauty in the decorativearts.
Pugin's writings offered rules about the relation of ornament to function
and material that were almost immediately incorporated into new theories for
contemporary practice. An architect himsell Pugin saw ornament as the primary expression of beauty in architecture and the decorative arts becauseit
carried a specific style. Though Pugin was partial to the Gothic style, identifring it as the style of Catholicism, he was also well aware of the dangers of reviving a historical style only through ornament, which, he explained, could result
in the promiscuous application ofornament to surfacesand forms in all materials, He instead encouragedarchitectsand craftsmen, first, to choosethe form
most suited to the obiect's function, and then to decorate it in a way that reI6\ 'lnto.hlction

vealedthe form itsell For Pugin,the greatestthreatto the or8aniccreationof

form and decorationlay in mechanizedProduction, the use of which he
sharplycondemnedon both artisticand moral grounds.Castiron, he argued
only simulatedstoneor wood carvingsin a deceitfuland
in a famouspassage,
mechanicalmanner,losing all visualbeautyin the process.Pugin'sprecepts
his conceptofthe function of
but this is only because
todayseemself-evident,
decorationlay at the heartof more radicaltheoriesdwelopedby Ruskinand
Morris.
reRuskin,often seenasthe intellectualsourceof late nineteenth-cntury
of ornament'srelation
form movements,offeredperhapsthe subtlestanalyses
to function and materialproduction.reFor Ruskin,an object'sfunction includednot only its intendedusebut a host ofother unexpectedfactors.These
featureswere both external aswell as intrinsic to the decoration itself, such as
the characterof the wall surfaceor ob.iect(secularor religious),its degreeof
utility (a flescoversusa scarfl,the ftequencyof its physicaluse(a scarfversus
the handleof a cup),and evenits relativevisibility (the lower edgeofa surface
asopposedto its center).The statusof an objectand of its decorationwasestablishedby meansof this p1'ramidof functions,in which the pinnaclewasoccupied by the Dost visible and protectedsurfacesin religiousor dignified
edifices.Ruskinexpectedthe designer-craftsman
to adjustthe levelof artistic
forms,the richnessof materials,the ti?e of decoration,and eventhe amount
of labor involved,to the obiect'srelativestatus.The principlesgoverningthe
relationbetweenan obiect'sartisticandmaterialfeaturesandi* firnctionalstaLampsof Architecture
tus were moral ones,presentedmost clearly in the Se1,,en
(r8+q).ThereRuskinappliedhis own notion ofChristianvirtuesto the making
of art. In his view, art had to be truthfirl, a belief that led Ruskin to condemnall
falsificationsof materialsas well as all machine-madedecoration.Similarly,
rules of decorumand suitabilitydeterminedRuskin'snotion of beauty.Accordingto suchrules,an artist-designer
shouldexpendthe greatestskill andinvention on representational
subjectsplacedonly on the most yisiblesurfaces
(the onesat the top ofhis pyramidof functions),and in surrourdingsfavoring
artisticcontemplation.In contrast,wheredecorationcannotbe admiredin a
stateof repose,suchasin railroadstationsor on objectsof daily use(the ones
al the baseofthe pylamid), the artistshouldusernorestylizeddecoration,less
skill, and lesscostlymaterials.Hencefor Ruskin,eachlevelof function possesses
its own levelof beauty,enjoyableon its own terms.The success
of this
beautydependson the ability ofthe designer-craftsman
to adapthis invention,
materialsand execution)and representational
contentto Ruskin'stheoretical
hierarchyof functions.
Ruskin'swritingsyieldedprinciplesby which to analyzeandevenjudgesuclntroduoion l7 |

cessful decorative art. Although he intended these principles to encourage

designers-craftsmento follow the right moral and artistic path, he never desired these principles to be mistaken for academic rules of design.2oRuskin always firmly maintained that true beauty, in both the fine and the decorative
arts, could emerge only from the creative imagination of a maker inspired by
nature; beauty could not be learned, only helped to fruition.2r In contrast, the
generation ofBritish writers active during Ruskin's lifetime, particularly Owen
Jonesand Christopher Dresser,were dedicated to establishingli'red principles
ofinstruction to govern the production of contemporary decorativeart.
According to the principles Jonespresentedin the introduction to his famous
Grammar of Omament (a856),"True beauty results from that reposewhich the
mind feelswhen the eye, the intellect, and the affections, are satisfied fiom the absenceofany want."22Unlike Ruskin, for whom reposewasthe preanditionfor the
appreciation of fine art alone, Jonesidentfied repose as the res&ltof contemplating successfirlart. Moreover, the notion that beauty residesin the absenceof
want (nothingto be rernovedor added) was itselfa well-establisheddefinition of
beauty, first formulated by the Renaissancearchitect Leon Battista Alberti in reAn important featureofJones'stext is that he appliesthis
lation to architecture.z3
definition to ornament itself, claiming for decoration the sameability to achieve
perfect beauty on its own as that ofthe fine arts-a statement perhaps intended
to shock those who saw ornament preciselyas that which could be added or removed at will. To support this claim, Jonesusesthe rest ofthe introduction to
offer his theorv ofbeautv, now reduced to a set of self-sufficient,teachable,and
potentially uniyersal rules for the decorative arts. What is striking about these
rules (asideflom their rigidity) is their treatment ofornament designasan independent creative act, detached Iiom the intended function of the surface and
object to be decorated.This senseofabstractnessis heiShtenedby Jones'sapparent lack of interest in problems of material and execution, ones that had so preoccupied Pugin and Ru-ekin.In efect, by giving decoration specific rules for the
stFlizationofnatural forms, for the useofcetain geometric Proportions, and for
the combination of certain colors-rules that prepared decoration for application
to a vadety of surfaces-Jones was liberating ornament from the fluctuating
pressures of functional and material requirements.
William Morris, the founder of the Arts and Crafts movement, redirected
late-nineteenth-century theoretical debates about the decorative arts back to
the issue of artistic production.2aUnlike his predecessors,Morris focused his
polemical writings exclusivelyon how decorativeart should be made and used,
rather tian on its principles of ornamentation. Morris's artistic ideas are difficult to extract flom his writings, on the one hand, becausehis public lectures
often presented impassioned exhortations rather than cognt arguments and,
{ 8l 'lntrodlictiotl

on the other, becauseso many of his convictionswere embodiedin his own

of decorativeart theory,it
fiom the persPective
artisticactivities.Nonetheless,
is possibleto distill threemain ideasthat wereimportant for his followers:his
conceptof decorativeart as a democraticart, responsiveto the needsof the
people;his vehementdefenseof handiworkand craft;and the relatedconcept
artisticproduction.
of collaborative
To a certainextentMorris radicalizedRuskin'sviews,analyzingdecorative
art not only in termsof a functionaland artistichierarchybut alsoas a social
hierarchyaswell. In his public lecturesMorris spokeof future decorativeart by
and for the people,insistingthat it retain contactwith traditionalhand-made
craft.Drawingon Ruskin,he arguedthat only obiectsmadewith pleasureand
imprintedwith the humanspirit couldin turn bring pleasureto thoseusingthe
objectsin their daily,andoftendreary,lives.25
The politicalmessage
of Morris's
great
writings had a
influencenot only on many British followers,including
WalterCraneandWilliam RichardLethaby,but alsoon a generationof desig:rers and theoristson the Continentand in the Unitd States.26
This influence
often stemmedlessfrom the distinctly socialistideasinfusing Morris's wzitings
than from his sharpcriticismof new modesofproduction and his condemnation ofthe artistichierarchytlat thesernodesseemedto reinforce.
By Morris'slifetime,industrialproducersofdecorativeart had little usefor
skilledhandicraft,many requiring a designeronly at the top end of the production line and mechanicallaborersat the bottom. The new academies
and
schoolsof design,foundedthroughout Europefrom the mid-r85oson, also
contributedto the growingmarginalizationofskilled craftsmen.27
lust asin the
seventeenthand eighteenthcenturis,when the new academiesoffine art establishedthe distinctionbetweenartistand craftsman,so too did theseacademies
and schoolsofdecorativeart now help to elirninatethe craftsmanby creatingthe
professional
designer.zs
By theendofthe nineteenthcentury,the designerhadin
many waysbecomean independentartisticprofessional,
situatedsomewhere
betweenartistand craftsman.2e
Graduatesofthesenew schoolsof designwere
supposedlytaught to work in all mediaand techniques,but more often their
training focusedexclusivelyon producingdrawingsand modelsfor industrial
manufacturing.The designerwasin chargeof creatingthe new forms, and the industrialworker and his machineexecutedthem in variousrnedia.Between
thesetwo, the skilledcraftsmanwasmadeobsolete.
Morris objectedto the emergence
both ofthe industrialworker and ofthe
designerin the art world, lamenting their dire influence on handicraft. However,he focusedhis criticismson the sorryplight of the worker,which Morris
describedfiom the politicalvantageof socialisrn.
He recognizedthat the working conditionsofthoseemployedin the productionof furnishingsand decora'lntrod ction

|9|

tion wereno worsethan thosein other typesofindustries.But the useof such

workersin art manufacturingbroughtout his distastefor machineproduction
in general.If industrialworkersderivedno pleasurefrom their laboron the assembly line, how could decontive art objects in turn be expectedto evoke
pleasurable,
humanqualitiesin others?
Morris built his reform movementin part around this very issue.In his
"The RevivalofHandicraft" (1888),and "The
lectures"The LesserArts"(1878),
(r88g),
Arts and Craftsof To-day"
he declaredthat industrywasincapableof
producingart obiects.He believedthat only by destroyingthe traditionalsystem of industrial production and replacingit with collaborativeenterprises
could individualsparticipatewillingly and happily in the creationof art that
would irnpart pleasureto others.Rejectinga rnode of production that separateddesignerfrom artist,craftsmanflom designer,and worker ftom object,
Morris proposedinsteadthat art-makersband togetherin artists'associations,
modeledon the medievalguild system.Only by reviving suchcollaborativeenfrorn the perterprises,Morris argued,could all art-makersProtectthemselves
nicious pressuresof commerce,mechanicalproduction, and enforceddivisi.on
anddenigrationof labor.
Morris's rvritingsstruck a responsivechord among sweral generationsof
AlthoughMorris'svisionof an idealmedievalpastleft litartistsanddesigners.
tle room for industrialproduction,his dreamsofa utopianfuture includedthe
machineas a liberatingtool, capableof fieeingsocietyfiom the drudgeryof
physicallabor. It was preciselyMorris's blend of Socialistutopianism and
Ruskinianartisticidealismthat provedto be irresistible.Not only did it capture
his contemporaries'disillusionment with a capitalist economy,it also sPoketo
their growingdistastefor modem technology.Morris'stheories(and his practice) fueledart reform movementsin Europeaswell as in the United States.
And in a strangetwist of fate,someofthesereform groupswere,a few decades
later, to promot undecoratedindustrialproduction in the nameof Morris's
own principles.so

TIIE EMBRGBNCE OF THE HISTORY OF DBCORATIVE

ART

The writings of such reformersas Pugin and Morris encouragednot only

historical
within artisticproductionbut alsomore researched,
transformations
to
development
of a
the
anallnesof decorativear1.The greatestcontribution
proper "history of decorativeart" camefrom scholarsallied to the emerging
academicdisciplineof art history. Naturally the writings of reformersand
scholalsoverlapped-Ruskin,for instance,wasalsothe first SladeProfessorof
'lntroduction
Io |

Art History at Oxford University.srHowever, historical studiesof decorative

art written by reformers remained fundamentally different both in character
architectsand
and approachfrom the slightlylater onesby German-language
historians.Whereasthe British writersusedhistory asammunition to defend
the useofa specifichistoricalstyle,the morehistoricallymindedGermansexon the Present.
aminedthe pastin orderto gainperspective
The most influentialhistoryofthe decorativeartsofthis periodwaswritten
Tellingly,Semper's
by the Germanarchitectand historianGottfriedSemper.3'z
was
stimulatedby the Great Exhiown intrest in decorativeart and ornament
hewitnessed
both in Britainand
repercussions
bition ofr85r,whosewidespread
countdes.Sempercontdbutednot only to the planning
in German-speaking
of the 185rexhibition,designingthe Swedish,Canadian,Danish,and EgJptian
later,to the foundingofthe AustrianMuseum
displays,but also,a fewdecades
of Art and Industry,rnodeledafterthe SouthKensingtonmuseum-the first
interest
Britishmuseumofdecorativearts,33
Sempersharedhis contemporaries'
in improvingthe decorativearts,believingthat their decaystemmedessentially
fiorn the increasingalienationbtweentechniqueand rnaterial,fueledby the developingindustrialization ofart manufacturing.However,rather than focusing
insteadfor fundaon problemsofcontemporaryproduction,Sempersearched
ofall decoramentalprinciplesof evolutionthat couldexplainthe development
tive arts.Accordingto his unfinishedmagnumopusStylein the Terhnicalanrl
TectonicArts(Der Stil in den technischenund tektonischenKr.insten[1860]),
theseprinciplesdependednot only on an interpretationofthe obiect'sfunction
but alsoon an analysisofthe materialsandtechniqueusedin production.! For
Semper,the historicalemergence
of an ornamentalrnotif, such as the crrsscrosspattern,wasoften determinedby the chancemeetingof a certaintechnique, like weaving,with a certain material,like straw, at a givenhistorical moment. The resulting,fortuitous pattem wasthen appreciatedfor its own sakeand
adaptedto ornamentalpurposesin othermedia.Semper's
aim wasto exposethe
greaterroleplayedby theseexternalfactorsin the historyof ornament,tracing
their influenceon the creationof certainpatternsand shapes.ThoughSemper
did admit the additionalinfluenceofartisticimaginationinto hishistoryofformal patterns,his followerstendedto focusexclusively
on function,technique,
andmaterial,overlookingthe role ofhuman creativity.
Semper's"materialist"theoryofornamentwasso successfill
that it inspired
technicaland functionalanalysesof decorativeart until the end of the nineteenth century, especiallyin German-speakingcountries.rsIt rtas thesetechnical interpretationsthat so arousedthe fury of the Vienneseart historianAlois
Rieglin the ra9os,provokinghim to championthe artisticand conceptualodgins of ornamentinstead.Within the fieldsof art and designhistory,Riegl's
'lntroducion

l1;rl

early writings representthe most ambitious attempts to ioin the fledgling studies ofdecorative arl with the slightly older discipline ofart history.36In his early
Problemsof Style (Stilfragen h8q:l), Riegl freed decorative art fiom the Semperian straitiacket of function, material, and technique. To achievethis, he endowed ornament with a continuous stylistic history that was now almost exclusively generated by human anistic intent, or Kunstwoller, to use his famous
term.37In these early studies of ornament, Riegl even argued that ornament
was a more direct expression of artistic creativity than narrative painting and
sculpture, becauseit offered a pure visual play of form and color in space (a
worrisome claim for later abstractartists).38
But Riegl's ambitions were different from those of his contemporary Viennese Secessionist colleagues. Rather than elevating decorative art to the level of
fine art, he tried first to redefine the two notions ofart themselves.Riegl recognized the influence of external factors on the artist's fashioning of ornament
and included them in his explanation of stylistic development. But he also believed that these, or similar pressuresrwere at work in the fine arts. Thus for
him the political, religious, or secular functions of the fine arts paralleled the
technical and practical ones ofthe decorative arts.3eTo a certain degree,therefore, Riegl did recognizethe impact of external factors on artistic Production,
but he did so for all the arts. In so doing, he was equating what until then had
been considered completely different t)?es of artistic constraints: religious,
spiritual, or political with mechanical or technical ones. Yet, in the final analysis, all of these external factors remained subordinate to the maker's artistic will
fKunstwollenf.aD
From the Secessionist'sand reformers' PersPective,therefore, Riegl can be
seenas championing the equality ofthe arts.arHowever, Riegl's defenseof decorative art was a corollary to a larger endeavor rather than an end in itself' This
larger endeavor, simply put, was to discover the principles guiding the synchronic development of style in all the arts ofa given culture' Inhis Late Roman
Art Industry (.spdtttimischeKunstindustrie l19o1l),Riegl thought he had found
such principles.That he was mistaken can be gatheredfrom the conspicuousabsenceof most decorativearts in Iafe R otnafl Art lndustry and in his subsequent
writings.a2
Independent ofone's assessmentofRiegl's successor failure, his early studies mark the clirnax of nineteenth-century enthusiasm for ornament and the
decorative arts, Interestingly, they also point to telltale llssuresin nineteenthcentury writers' concept ofth nature ofdecorative art. Although many practitioners still argued for a way of establishinga new harmony between function,
material and technique, and ornamentation, Riegl privileged ornament oYer
the othr two. In turn, Riegl's faith in the aestheticsignificanceof decoration
'Introduction
In |

by the next Senerationof reformers,who

and ornamentwasto be challenged
ofornament and
promotedfunction,materials,and techniquesat the expense
final
dismemberment
of
the
story
ofthe
of
Modernism
is
The
story
decoration.
the conceptof decorativeart.

MODERNISM

William Morris'srnitings raiseda questionthat continuedto plagueartists,

decades:
Could a capitalistsociety
in subsequent
designers,
and manufacturers
machine
production,
division
oflabor,
and
cheapimitationsprothat favored
ducedecorativeart worthy ofthe narne?ThoughMorris himselfansweredthe
question in the negative,dreaming of the rebirth of hand-madeart in a
utopian,socialistfuture,his youngeradmirerscould no longerpostponetheir
final assessment
of industrializationand art. This next generationof writers
thushadto takeseriouslythe possibilityofadaptingindustrialmeansto artistic
ends.And naturally,thosewho embracedthis fusion,includingtheoristslike
the GermanSamuelBing,the FrenchRioux de Maillou and Le Corbusier,and
the AmericanFrank Lloyd Wright, werein turn counteredby others,like the
BritishWalter Crane,the BelgianHenry van de Velde,and the AmericanAugustStickley,who wereskepticalofa machineaesthetic.a3
At the core of theseincreasinglypolemical debatesabout machine production lay the unresolvedproblemofdecorationitself.By the nineteenthcentury,
the extentto which the designercould treat ornamentasan independentfeature, divorcedfrom the object itself,was underminingits artisticvalue.The
problemofornamentwasofcoursenot a new one.Rococoornamenthadbeen
bitterly attackedin the r75os,andby the nineteenthcenturythe questionofornament'sstyle and production had becomea familiar leitmotif in European
debatesaboutdesign.aa
The success
ofmechanizedproduction(andreproduction) of ornament,however,transformeddiscussions
about ornament'ssfle
andplacementinto debatesaboutits veryexistence.
EarlytheoristsofFunctionalism,includingLouisSullivanand the youngle
Corbusier,at first only subordinatedornamentto the stringentdernandsof
function and materialswithout rejectingit completely.a5
Slighdylater, more
radicaldesigners,
like Adolf Loos,W' R. Lethaby,and L. Mies van der Rohe,
were preparedto discardornamentaltogetherfrorn the processof design.a6
Though ornamentsurvivedin practice,it was shorn of aestheticsignificance
and of its independentartistic principls.a7
Giving themslves
up to the enchantmentof industrial materialsand technologicalstructures,Modernist
theoristsproclaimedthatonly purifiedformsshouldbe usedto express
function
'Introd ctiofi

{B\

in themostlimpid andluminousway.By excludingornamentftom the idealsof

a new, modern design,the proponents of the Modern movementeffectivelydestroyedthe notion ofdecorativeart that had emergedover the pasttwo centuries.
The successof the Modern movement and its architectural tenetsnaturally
and art historiansin the significance
dampenedthe interestofartists-designers
of decorativeart, Curiosity about ornament and decorationsurvivedonly
amongsociologists
andsocialhistorians,who weremore removedfrom the direct influenceof contemporaryartistic practiceand study. In the first few
decadesof the twentieth century, such Germanscholarsas GeorgSimmel,
ErnstBloch,and Norbert Eliasexploredthe differingwaysin which decorative
art's function, material make-up, and even ornarnent could rnake any object
designersand theointo a canier of socialmeaning.Like nineteenth-century
werefascinatedby decorativeart's seerninglyeffortless
rists,tlese sociologists
aestheticand utilitarian demands.Moreover,their studies
ability to synthesize
revealedthat the utilitarian aspectof decorativeart wasan assetratherthan a
liability,enablingtheseobjectsto reflectmorel/ilridlythan the fine artsthe history of religiousand socialpractices,and evenof psychologicalattitudes'48
youngscholHoweverthesestudiesdid not inspireimitation,perhapsbecause
than in the
rneanings
of
ornament
the
possible
were
less
interested
in
ars
significanceof objectsasa whole, especiallythoseshorn of decorativeappeal.
By World War II, the theoreticaldebateabout decorativeart had in fact
comto an end amongModemist designersand artists.Decorativeart (or its
equivalent denomination) had vanished from their vocabulary, replaced by
suchterms asindustrialart, industrialdesign,or simply design,which clearly
referredto a differentt'?e of artisticcreationfiee of ornamentalaccretions.ae
Art historianssoonfollowedsuit, abandoningthe studyof styleand rneaning
in ihe decorativearts. In large part, historians and even sociologistswere simply respondingto the mood of currentartisticPraticeThe questionsthat had
artistsin fin-de-siecleViennano longerseemed
movedRiegland Secessionist
centraloncethe Modernistshad revealedornamentto be a ftivolous,shallow,
beganstudyand deceptivefeatureof design.Moreover,historiansthemselves
style,
sometimes
ing the Modern movementasa historical
Promotingits antiThus, as in the world of artistic practice,scholarsreornamentaltenets.5o
the
term decorativeart mainly to obiectsof the past, and
stdcted their use of
insteadspokein the new vocabularyof "design"and "materialculture."5rThe
ofthe term decorativeart ftom art theoryand its almostsimuldisappearance
taneousbanishmentto the marginsof academicstudysignaledthe end of the
livelydebateaboutthe natureofdecorativeart. Only in the r99oshavewe seen
of theoreticalrriting about ornament,mainly due to the
a small renascence
demiseof Modernistarchitecturaltheory.And, perhapsnot coincidentally,a
14\

'lfltoducion

fw art historiansand socialhistorians are onceagaintaking seriouslythe artisofornamentaswell,52

tic andsocialsignificance
Thesefaint stirringsareencouraging
but sofar fail to matchthe breadthand
depth of eighteenth-and nineteenth-centurytheoreticalwritings about the
decorativearts.Having Iost sight of our ancestors'intellectualachievements,
we are lesspreparedthan theF to tackle the thorny question of decorativeart's
relationto the fine arts,on the onehand,and to non-art,on the other.In fact
wewould havetroubleacknowledging
the existence
ofsuch a tdpartitedivision
Yet,
if we believethat artisticcreationscanbe classified
ofthe artisticrealm.
at
all, we must alsobe preparednot only to applybut alsoto defendprinciplesof
evaluation-be they artistic,practical,social,ethnic,or political.Thereis no
betterplaceto learnaboutthe flawsandstrengthsofsuch principlesthan in the
writingsof authorswho, like us,puzzledoverthe proteannatureof artisticcreation andaestheticresponse.
NOTES

r. Seemy definition of decorativeart in the Note on the Selection;the anthology ends at

a point in time when I believe the idea of such an artistic category was exhausted and re,
placed by a variety of new labels, such as folk art and material culture.
2. lt is diflicult to find a contemporary definition ofdecorative art. The most recent I
have seen is in The Oxford Companion Guide to the Decoratil,e /rlc

"those arts which are

made to serve a practical purpose but are nevertheless prized for the quality of their work,
manship and the beautyof their appearance."
3. Historians who dopayattention to it have done so onlyaccording to their specializations. Thus architectural historians have collected wdtings on architectural theory that include pieces by designers rvlo have influenced the Modem movem ett; seeBenton, Forytl
and Function,and,Hermann's ln Wat StyleShould We Build? The GermanDebateon Architectunl Style.
4. See Gombrich, The Senseof Otdel and Grabar, The Mediation of Ornafient. Both
offer an explanationofornament's overarchingappealto different cultures in different petiods. ln Das Ornafieflt in .ler Kunsttheoie, Kroll points out as well that wr:itiflg on ornament endedi!'ith Modernism.
5. looking at rritings ofArthur I)anto, HaDs Beltun& RoraliDd Kraus; and Norman
Bryson, to name but a few, one is struck by how the current artistic debate restricts itself to
the traditional high arts, especially painting, aithough artists tlremselves seem to have
abandonedthe notion ofthe division ofthe arts and ofaesthetic worth. In turn historians
of decorativeart are concernedwith social,economic, and political meaning, even as designersand craltsmen are heighteningthe formal, sensualappealof their work.
6. K. P. Moritz, Semper,and Riegl are being rediscoveredin German-speakirrgcoun
tries as well as ia Anglo-Saxoa ones, though orly sorDeoftheir ]raitirgs appeal to cortemporary art historians-usually thoseapplicableto painting or modern art.
7. It is impressiveto seethe number ofanthologie5 en d1qdl.at

offine arts that con'lrrtroduction

l$l

tinue to emerge: Halrison, ed., ,4rf in Theory tgoo-tggo and Preziosi, ed., The Att of Art
History: A Citical Aafrolosl, (seehis note r, which lists many others). In contrast there is
one on the decorative ars: Greenhalgh's compendium of Qrorafiors aftd So reesofi Design
afld the Decordtive Atts, As I argue here, the term design or cnft, has come to replace decorative art, as seen in the titles of anthologies like Design Discourse, History, Theory, Criticrsrr, Margolio, ed.; Design History: An Anthologl, Doordan, ed.; and, The Culture of Ctaft,
Dormer, ed. But the decorative arts fall by the wayside in these work.
8. Studies by art historians arc'hoy,

Modetnkm and the Decorative Arts ie Frsncq

Snodin arrd Howard, Omament: A Social History;Kirkham, Ray and Charles Eames; Scott,
The RococoInteriDr; and by historians: Auslandet Taste and Powet Furnishing Modern
Frcnce; Fnmerton Cultural Aesthetics;Stfverm^n, Art Nouveau in Fin-cie-Silcle France.
9. SeeKristeller, "The Nlodern Systemofthe Arts," for information on the emetgence
of the fine arts.
ro. The two groups were still fluid categoriesin the Middle Ages,but the liberal arts
usually consisted of the trivium

(grammar, rhetoric, and dialect) aod the quadrivium

(afithmetic, astronomy, geometry,and music). The sevenmechanicalarts, fashionedas a

manual counterpart to liberal arts, usua\

incfided lanificium, armatura, natigatio, agri-

cubura, venatio, medicina. and theatica. The visual arts were included in the art of ,2/matutu (Ktistelle\ "Modern System of the Arts, " p. r75).
rr. The first acaderny of art was founded by Giorgio Vasari; on the history of academies,
seePetster, Aailemies Pastaflil Presefit and Goldsrern, TeachingAft
12. Baumgarten coined the term aesthetics and Kristelle( claifies Baumgarten's influence on French philosophers, especiallyDiderot and d'Alembert; see theil selections
from the Encyclopediain this anthology, where they apPly aesthetics exclusively to the fine
arts.
13.Hume, in "On the fuse and Progressof the Arts and Sciences,"and Diderot ald
d'Alembert, in the selections here, all stress the importance of manufactured goods and
their economic and socialbene6ts.
4. Sein this anthology Krubsacius, R4lectiotts on the Otigin, Gtowtlu atld Dalitue of
Decoraion in the Fite Arts (Gedanken von dem Ursprung, Wachsturn und Verfall der
Verzierulgen in den schbnen Kunst). This pamphlet attacked the then prevalent style of
the Rococo; it is still relatively unklown,

mentioned briefly by Gombrich, The Seaseof

orAer, p. a5.
15.The exhibition was plarned for what was called industrial art, but was understood to
be decorativeart, including hand-made producs as well Seeffiench, The Crystal Palace
Erhibitiotl: A/1 lllustr1ted Camlogue, and for an extremely critical account of Victorian
taste, seePevsner, Stadies in the Att, Atchitecture, and Desigtl.
16. In Bdtain there .'vasalready Sovemment interest in funding art for maDufactule in
order to improve the national economy. This interest came to the fore arould 18Jo,when
the British noticed the relative infedority of their products cotnpared to those of the
French; seeBell, Tle .$cftools of Design.
rz. Documentation about this intense economic competition surrounding decorative
art in France is in the first chapter of Trol, ModernGm, ar.d tn Silverll].an' Art NoureauI 6 | 'Introductiorl

18.on the history of academiesof designin generalseePevsnerand Goldstein, and see

Bell for tiose in Britain; for their development in Germany see Mundt, Die de tschen
Ktnstgewerbefiuseefl.
19. Ruskin's influence on Morris and his circle are eralicitly acknowledged by the latter
in his various writings.
20. Seeselection fiom The Two Paths tn this anthology, where Ruskin makes clear his
antipathy for principles of art in general
2r. The importarce ofnatureis clearin Ruskin's rritings in this anthology.
22.Io^es, Gramfiar of Ornament, p. 5.
2:'. Leon Battista Alberti ofl the Afi of Building" Rykwert et al., p. rj6.
24. Seetwo publicatio ns P arry, Wilham Moms and MacCarthy, William Mofiis.lot

his

entire corpus seethe Collected Works an.dLerll'te's Unpublished Lecturesof William Monis
25. Seehis two lectures in this anthology, as well as "The LesserArts," h William Morris, Newsfrom Nowherq W.84-70526. Moris's influnce is visible in the selectionsby Crane,Bing, Wright, Vaa de Velde,
to name a few. Seealso Maccarthy, William Morris, andNaylo\ Bauhaus Reisited.
22.On the academiesofdesign seenote u above.
28. Ofcourse artists had alwaysproduced designs,and in the eighteenthcentury there
were designers for the various Royal manufacturers in France. The difference is that it then
becamean acknowledgedprofession,with its own training schools.
29. Pevsnerin Stulies in,4rr briefly discussesthe cross-overbetweenartists and designers in rlation to the 185rexhibition. Seealso Stansky's introduction to f'is Redesignihgthe
Worlri, where he discussesthe rise of the new desigfler. Architects and artists, such as Pugin
and Morris, remained at the top of this new artistic profession,while the graduatesof
sclools ofdesign remained at tbe lower end.
3o. The connection betwenMorris and Modernism has been overstessed,by Pevsner
in particular. This, in turn, should not blind us to the influence that did exist,seeWright's
"The Art and Craft of the Machine" in dris anthology, where he arguesthat Motris misunderstoodhis own priDciples.
31.Seethe chaptei "The Professor,"Kemp, The Desireof My Eyes,pp.335191.
32. SeeBdrsch-Supal et al-,GottfrieclSempo aswell asMallgrave, Goffied SempeL
:i:i. Pevsner, Sndies in Art, p. 9l), and Mallgrave, Gottfied Semper.
34. SeeSemper,Sryieifi the Techflicalafld Te.toric Arfr (Der Stil in den technischenund
tektonischenKiinstefl), only parts ofwhich have been translatedby Herrmann and Mallgta'te 6 Gonfried Semper:The Four Elementsof Architecture35. For a concise summary ofthe historiaas influenced by Sempet, seeBaziry Histoire
de I'histoie de I'an, pp. 134-37,who points out the contemporary materialist or "determinist" theofl'es of Viollet-le-Duc (excetpt in this anthology), and also Mallgrave, Gottfried Semper.
36. For a brief overviewof his work, seePacht,"A)ois fuegJ,"and for two in-depth studies seelversen, A/ors Riegl, ar'd Olin, Forms of Represefltatiofl.
37. Kanstwollen is notoriously difncult to translate; see Pecht, "Afi Historians," and
Panofsky,"The Concept ofArtistic Volition."
qntoductio/r 1t7
|

38. For such claims see Riegl's introduction to his Late RonldnArt hl.luJttl (SpatrdmischeKunstirdustrie), in the Bnglish translation by R. Wintes (Rome,1985).
39. This is most dearly visible ir the excerpt fiom tuegl's Historical Grammar of the Vi
sualArrs (HistorischeGrammatik) in this arthology.
4o. For Rieglthe notion of "artistic drive" could be that ofan individual, a region, or of
an entire society,statedin its most radical fotm in Late Roflalt Art Industry.
4r. See Hoftnann, "L'Emancipation des dissonances,"and Sauerlander,"Alois Riegl
und die Eotstehung der autonomefl Kunstgeschiclte," in Iifl de-siecle:Zur Literatur urtd
who both make theseconnections,though it wasFranz WickK hst der Jahrhufidert eLnde
art. Iversen,in her Alois Riegl,
hoff, fuegl's colleague,who publidy defendedSecessionist
rights the balance,arguing that he was not necessarilya chamPion of current ornameDt
and decorative arts,
42. For a lengthier interpretation, seeFtank, "Alois Riegl." After this publication fuegl
turned to painting, with The Grcup Portraiture of Holland, tran' E. Kain, int. W KemP
(Santa Monica, rooo), and to architecture with the posthumously published Die Entstehung der Barockkutstin Rom,ed.by A. Butda and M. Dvorka (Vienna, 19oB).
4j. Seeselections in this anthology as well as Berton, Architecture afld Design 1890-1939.
44. For its early beginnings seeHarries, The Bavaian RococoChrr.h, as i{ell as Kroll,
Das ()fttafient in der Kufisttheoie. Fol nineteenth_centurydebatesseeHermanl's introStyleShould We Build? ar'd Part III in this anthology.
+5. See the relevant selectionsin the anthology Sullivan is famous for coining the
phrase "form follows function," in "The Tall Offce Building Artistically Considered"

d\ction to In Wat

(fi96J,now in Kinderganm Chats.

46. SeeMordaunt Cro ok, The Dilemma of Sqie, pp. 225..50,for aA overview ofthe role
of decoration and omament in early twentietl centurt' debatesabout architecture; he
points out that many writers and architectswaffled on the issueofornament.
47. The Eamesesoffer a good exampleofthe problem facing architectsv.ho usedorrament but did not want to call it that; insteadthey dubbed it functiondl decoration, as described in Kirkham, Ra1 and Charles Eamu, pp. t6449.
48. This is especiallyevidentin Elias'swritings, seehis excerpt in this anthology.
49. Design alld even crdft are the terms whose boundariesare debated'seefor instan'e
a colloquium about the defrnition ofdesign and designhistory, published in vol. rl' no. r of
Design Issuu, 1995,as well as the books cited in note 7
50. A good example of this is Pevsner's Pioa eersof Modem Des;gn
5r. The term suwiyes in the United States,though with pejorative connotations. ln
Britain the term designis alsobeing usedfor objectsof the Past.
jz. Criticism of the Modernist movement starts as early as Robert Venturi, and becomes mainstream by the r98os, as argued by Jencks in Wut -lsPost-Moderxism, atd Mor'
daunt Crook in The Ditemma of Style.Seeas well Harries, 7he Ethical Funciotl of Architecrrre, part of which offers a vigorous deferNe of ornament, See note 8 for examples of a
revival ofinterest in omament and decolation.

IrBl lntuoduction