If you are looking for a genuine Christopher Dresser
tile you will search long and hard which likely seems
seem a strange comment because virtually wherever one
looks these days they are offered for sale. Of course
when one sees a 'Dresser' tile for sale one has to reach
a judgment as to whether the tile on offer was really
designed by Dresser or is it salesmanship but it may well
be neither for the seller may well have consulted sources
that appear credible. Books abound in which the authors
attribute to Dresser but few go as far as to say
by Dresser for there are no tile patterns known to
have been designed by Christopher Dresser. Not a single
tile design signed by him has been found nor other
contemporary record such as receipt for payment for his
work, out of the myriad attributions to Dresser there is
just one from a credible source and that leaves scope for
discussion. The confusion no doubt arises because the
majority of books about ceramic design and designers who
designed for ceramics have been written by pottery and
porcelain experts who extrapolate to tiles without fully
understanding the differences.
There are many reasons why Dresser would have little
interest in designing tiles, points widely misunderstood
by writers are the relative roles of artists and
architects, what is known as artistic sensibilities and
the tension between tiles as bulding materials and tiles
as decorative art objects. A sure indicator of Dresser's
lack of interest in tiles is that in his own book
'Studies in Design' designs for many media and materials
are shown but none for tiles. Dresser had a known
association with Mintons from the 1860s to the 1880s and
this has been extrapolated to assume that he also
designed tiles for them.
The following two quotations are from an essay by
Wendy Walgate, Dresser: Influences & Impact of a
Victorian Visionary. In the manner of a serious work she
cites all her references apart from one which is
dutifully noted, the remark perhaps most relevant to this
essay!
Dresser himself asserted that ornament and not
architecture was his "sphere", however he believed that
the two disciplines were indivisible.[footnote needed
here] He stated, "The material at hand, the religion
of the people, the climate have . . . determined the
character of the architecture of all ages and nations . .
. and the nature of the ornamentation of the
edifices."[37] This statement is to some degree
similar to Semper's list of influences that determine
basic form: both materials and tools along with "place,
climate, time, customs, particular characteristics, rank,
position".[38]
From the Gothic or as Pugin would call it, Catholic
style, Dresser took the idea of "simple honesty and
boldness", a concept which he would use in his
manufacturing designs.[47] Dresser eventually
discontinued his use of Gothic decoration since, "having
passed from its purity towards undue elaboration, it
began to lose its hold on the people for whom it was
created, and the form of religion with which it had long
been associated had become old, when the great overthrow
of old traditions and usages occurred, commonly called
the Reformation."[48]
37, 47; 48 Dresser, C., 1881 Principles of Art ,
adopted by the Art Furnishers' Alliance with prefatory
notes by E. Lee. London. no publisher.
38 Semper, G., 1989. The Four Elements of Architecture
and Other Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.
In the preface to the 1885 [1] Mintons Ltd
tile catalogue A. W. N. Pugin, John Moyr Smith, H S Marks
and E E Houghton receive credit for their designs but not
Dresser, I am sure that he had by this time a
sufficiently illustrious reputation to warrant inclusion
had he designed tiles for Mintons Ltd or Minton & Co.
Pugin designed tiles for Minton & Co and passed away
long before the formation of Mintons Ltd, he is greatly
praised in the introduction, somewhat ironically many of
the tiles erroneously attributed to Dresser were in fact
designed by Pugin. Most of the 19thC tile designers
especially those from the middle of the century were
architects, Pugin of course, E W Godwin, John Bradburn
and many more, John Moyr Smith trained as an architect,
Halsey Ricardo noted for his work with Wm de Morgan &
Co was an architect, he also designed tiled fireplaces
for Wedgwood in the 1880s.[MB]
The catalogue's introduction is of course marketing
and should be construed as such but there is no reason to
doubt its veracity, three points are emphasised, the
history of the company, the designs of A. W. N. Pugin and
Reynolds' patented printing process. We read, "The
process for the decoration of Tiles was early favoured by
the late Mr. A. Welby Pugin, "the great restorer of the
Gothic Art," in the Houses of Parliament and in many
other places, and the patterns in that style of ornament
in this book are all from his hand" and so it is
taken that all gothic designs shown are by Pugin. It can
also be seen that at least two designs by A. W. N. Pugin,
and so one presumes others, were introduced many years
after his death being copied from his book Floriated
Ornament.
These three marketing points were all appropriated by
Campbell the owner of Mintons Ltd from the preceding
Minton, Hollins & Co. tile business which passed in
to the ownership of its manager for near three decades
Michael Hollins. Pugin designed for Minton & Co long
before Cambell joined the company, Reynolds was persuaded
to leave Hollins to join Campbell, even the history of
tile making owed most to Hollins who had managed the tile
business for the preceding twenty-eight years since 1840.
During this time he oversaw the manufacture of both Pugin
designs and Reynolds' printing and was the dominant
figure in the development of the business. Hollins can
take virtually all the credit for the development of
industrial wall tile manufacture and turned the loss
making business in to profit. Whilst the introduction
appears in the catalogue dating from 1883/4 it may have
been used in earlier catalogues and the date of its
writing is unknown.
Dresser as with all noted designers whose work was
widely distributed and illustrated and published in the
media was much imitated, there is no doubt that Mintons
Ltd amongst many others plagarised and copied Dresser
designs for other materials and applied them to tiles. As
discussed here Mintons Ltd
was as comfortable with borrowing designs as any other
company. Mintons Ltd is recorded as having commissioned
designs from Dresser for tablewares, from The Dictionary
of Minton: "His association with Minton began in the
late 1860s when he supplied them with numerous designs
for tablewares and ornamental pieces, including some very
revolutionary shaped vases with richly coloured
decoration." As ever there is no reference to
tiles.
A design by Dresser is illustrated in Lockett and
described as, "pen and wash design in blue on a white
ground of three cranes flying over stylised waves.
71/2ins . by 11ins. Signed 'Chr Dresser'. A Minton tile
was based on this design". Note Lockett's guarded
comment, he does not attribute the tile to Dresser but
notes the similarity. When examples come to market they
are almost universally stated as designed by Dresser yet
it is fairly clear that a designer, most likely inhouse,
adapted Dresser's original. The 7.5 x 11 design has three
cranes, a cloud and the sun nicely distributed in plenty
of free space. The tile keeps those elements, adds an
extra cloud and cuts off virtually all the free space
above the sun in the original. The design is now cramped,
incoherent and totally lacking the hallmark of simplicity
evident in the original. I think Lockett used exactly the
correct phrase, 'was based on', "after Chr Dresser" and
especially "in the manner of Chr Dresser" miss the point
completely.
After having commented that at 7 1/2ins by 11ins it a
design for a vase, platter, plaque etc and certainly not
for a tile and that the design and its dimensions are
well suited to a cylindrical vase it was found that The
Metropolitan Museum of Art has a tile and links it to a
piece of pottery. They observe, "The composition of
the tile relates directly to a Japanese blue and white
ceramic flowerpot, circa 1860, that was exhibited at the
1862 International Exhibition in London and later
acquired by the South Kensington Museum (now Victoria and
Albert Museum)."
There is a tile design in the National Archives
described thus, "This design is by Dr Christopher
Dresser. The design registration does not mention Dresser
however this is not unusual. This design, forming part of
a design for a border, is illustrated in Joan Jones
Minton, Two Hundred Years of Design &
Production". This somewhat ambiguous sentence
suggests that the tile design is an abstract from a
larger design which in itself makes it most unlikely that
Dresser designed it. It appears to describe precisely
what designers (esp. inhouse) do, take designs from a
variety of sources and adapt them to suit their needs.
This practice was especially prevalent in the potteries,
you have to ask why Mintons Ltd would abandon their usual
practice and pay for a design that they could easily
copy. The tile is in the aforementioned Mintons Ltd
catalogue pattern number 1143.
Another tile design in the National Archives
Registration no. 237644, Cat Ref no. BT 43/68 and dated
31 December 1869 is described thus: "This design is
similar to those of Dr Christopher Dresser but no firm
attribution to this designer has been established. It is
however rare for a designer to be mentioned in the design
registers held at The National Archives. Much work has
still to be done to distinguish between Dresser's
personal work and that of anonymous designers trained by
Dresser or inspired by his work." The design is in
the Mintons Ltd catalogue number 1068, it also appears in
Pugin's Floriated Ornament (no. 7 on page 30) albeit
without the narrow top and bottom bands which are common
on Pugin's designs. Floriated Ornament was published in
1849, it is surprising that the registration was accepted
by the Patent Office two decades later as the addition of
generic borders hardly seems sufficient to call it
unique.
Both Pugin and Dresser and indeed almost any other
publisher of designs show simple design forms in their
books. The simpler a design is the less likely that it is
to be unique. Many Pugin and Dresser designs and
especially design elements such as single flowerheads are
in isolation impossible to attribute, they could be by
either or any of the innumerable artists in the history
of mankind.
I would turn the National Archives comment on its
head, let us find a single tile design confirmed to be by
Dresser before speculating about any others. After years
of trying the noted Dresser expert Harry Lyons was unable
to find any designs for his book that he could confirm
designed by Dresser. Whilst he states, "much of Dresser's
work for the Mintons name was in tiles" he fails to
illustrate a single example instead in his descriptions
of illustrated tiles in all cases bar one he uses the
phrase "in the style of Dresser". In the other
single instance, the first tile design in the National
Archives mentioned above, the author uses the phrase
"typical Dresser motifs".
The author's confusion about the chronology of the
Minton companies is clearly stated, the need to
understand it is excused by the use of the phrase "the
Mintons name". The Minton name was used by five tile
making companies, the differences between the companies
are considerable and can not be so easily dismissed. The
showing of Mintons Ltd marks for china alongside tiles to
which they do not apply will add to the confusion which
already persists, it is not uncommon for the X found on
some late 19thC Mintons China Works tiles to be
misunderstood as the date mark for 1845. In stating,
"Minton Hollins ... for a time, even overtook Minton
in the production of tiles", the author completely
misrepresents the history, that time was the entirety of
the existence of the companies a century in Minton
Hollins case, Mintons Ltd never came close to equalling
the volume or variety of Minton Hollins tile production
and rarely equalled its quality.
Minton Hollins owned the rights to Minton & Co
name used on tiles, the problem experienced by many in
distinguishing between Mintons Ltd and Minton Hollins
& Co is that both had rights to the name Minton &
Co but only for specified products. This is clearly
written in the court judgment transcribed by Barnard and
can be seen from other records. For example advertising
material for Mintons Ltd tiles bear the title thus,
Mintons (China Works) Ltd.; Minton Hollins & Co's
literature always includes their London address and with
it the brand name Minton & Co. Here's a picture of
the base of an advertising paperweight dating from 1903,
these are uncommon but not rare we see one every year or
so, other Minton Hollins catalogues, letterheads and
suchlike have similar so it is no great mystery that
tiles branded Minton & Co and Minton Hollins & Co
are found in the same installation even though it may
baffle some pottery experts.
Most of the tile designs inadvisedly attributed
to Dresser are border tiles for example Lyons shows eight
unattributed 'Dresser style' designs seven of which are
for borders. This makes little sense, if a manufacturer
was to commission a design at great expense they would be
more likely to chose a design for areas rather than
friezes, they would rather sell by the square yard than
the running yard. Border designs are those most easily
copied from wallpaper, rugs and the like, they are also
readily sourced from pottery, book covers and innumerable
other places. A comparison can be made with the tile
designs by A. W. N. Pugin for Minton & Co whilst
there are a goodly number of borders there are
considerably more field tile designs. Another comparison
may be made with tiles by Pilkington including designs by
Lewis Day, many were wall tile designs for large areas
and clearly so as they align in a brick pattern
formation.
Another book cited as reference for Dresser tiles is
that by Stuart Durant simply entitled Christopher
Dresser. It is a lovely book with lots of pictures of
pretty glassware, pottery and ironwork and designs for
fabrics, furniture and many other materials, it has two
page of tiles, pages 109 and 125.
109 shows four tiles, the crane design noted by
Lockett and discussed above and three others
"attributed to Dresser on stylistic grounds" but
as there is no record of Dresser designing tiles the
attribution must be considered fiction. Two of the three
are a repeating pattern of a cluster of three leaves on
stems so simple a design that attribution is not viable,
the third is apparently derived from a palmette frieze in
the manner of A. W. N. Pugin. If records of Dresser
designing tiles were in existence I would not think it
likely that these are by him, as there are no records I
have no doubt they are not.
Page 125 shows ten tiles arranged in groups, eight
field patterns grouped in fours but also a two and a
three as friezes, oddly considering these are repeating
designs they are all shown with gaps separating them
rather than butted up as intended. There are just two
lines of text which are quite remarkable for the number
of errors contained in such a small space:
Transfer printed tiles [1] for
Minton & Company [2] Stoke-on-Trent
1870 - 83 [3]. The design for the three
tiles was registered in 1870 therefore these tiles are
known to be by Dresser [4]. The other
tiles are firmly attributed to him [5].
(Private Collection, London)
[1] Some appear to be encaustic, well known as
encaustic patterns but not to my knowledge seen as
prints.
[2] The printed tiles most likely by Mintons
Ltd trading as Mintons China Works, encaustics by Minton
Hollins & Co (although one is a popular design made
by several companies). Minton & Co in respect of
tiles was Minton Hollins & Co as it had been since
1840, for a few years around 1868 - 70 Campbell the owner
of Mintons Ltd misappropriated the name.
[3] The date range appears to be a guess yet
the lack of 'circa' creates an air of certainty, some
designs appear to be earlier and the tiles continued in
production until much later.
[4] Registered in 1870 but "known to be by
Dresser" is wrong and misrepresents what appear in the
design registration records. Design registrations give
the name of the registrant usually the company in this
case Mintons Ltd*, they very rarely indicate the
artist/designer.
[5} As there is no record of Dresser designing any
tiles any attributions are inappropriate, it is unknown
who made such attributions, the author appears to have
relied upon a third party. Eight of the ten designs are
in the gothic style in the manner of A. W. N. Pugin and
nothing like the other examples of Dresser's design shown
in the book including other sheet material decorations
such as fabrics and ceilings.
*The registration for the butterfly tile incorrectly
described as 'known to be by Dresser' in the national
archives has this note attached. "This design has
elements which are inspired by Dr Christopher Dresser.
Much work has still to be done to distinguish between
Dresser's personal work and that of anonymous designers
trained by Dresser or inspired by his work." It is
recorded as registered by Minton & Co although by
this time the company was Mintons Ltd. Designs continued
to be registered under the name Minton & Co until
1873 when it changed to Mintons.
