Cotswold Arts and Crafts Architecture E-Book

Catherine Gordon

• Herausgeber: Phillimore & Co Ltd
• Kategorie: Sachliteratur, Reportagen, Biografien
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 386

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2020

Beschreibung

Between 1890 and 1930, Arts and Crafts architecture proliferated within the Cotswolds. The range and quality of the buildings was exceptional, as the region provided the perfect environment for the Movement's ideals and principles to flourish. Arts and Crafts architects relished the robust vernacular precedent that served to focus their ideas and stimulate their creativity. Its rational basis and dependence on craft skills had lasting relevance, and it was no coincidence that the most infl uential aspect of their work was its emphasis on conservation. This new and updated paperback edition provides a guide to the general characteristics of Cotswold Arts and Crafts structures, with chapters on the various types of new commissions to be found, as well as repair and remodeling projects. The final chapter discusses the late flowering of Arts and Crafts work that occurred during the interwar period and beyond, and the legacy of this important body of work at a local and national level.

Leseprobe

Church of St John, Elkstone. East window by Henry Payne.

First published in 2009

Reprinted in 2015

This paperback edition published 2020

The History Press

97 St George’s Place, Cheltenham,

Gloucestershire, GL50 3QB

www.thehistorypress.co.uk

© Catherine Gordon, 2009, 2015, 2020

The right of Catherine Gordon to be identified as the Author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without the permission in writing from the Publishers.

ISBN 978 0 7509 9442 2

Printed and bound in Great Britain by TJ International Ltd

eBook converted by Geethik Technologies

Contents

List of Illustrations

Acknowledgements

Introduction

I The Arts and Crafts Movement: Its Character, Development and Principles

II Arts and Crafts Architectural Ideals

III The Cotswold Context

IV Cotswold Arts and Crafts Architecture

V Architects’ Homes

VI Large and Small Country Houses

VII Cottage Design

VIII Church and Community

IX The Repair and Re-use of Old Buildings

X The Late Flowering and Legacy

Endnotes

Select Bibliography

To Hamish

List of Illustrations

Frontispiece: Church of St John, Elkstone, east window

1. Map of Gloucestershire showing main places referred to in the text

2. Cover design, Hobby Horse, January 1886

3. Essex House, Mile End Road

4. Frontispiece of The Arts Connected with Building

5. Courtyard, Standen, Sussex

6. Horley, Oxon

7. Stoneywell Cottage, Charnwood Forest, Leicestershire

8. Design for a butterfly-plan house by Ernest Gimson

9. A typical Cotswold stone slate roof

10. Painswick, where timber-framing makes an effective contrast to the prevalent stone buildings

11. Kelmscott Manor, Oxon

12. Court Farm, Broadway

13. Sketches in Gloucestershire by J. Herbert Jones

14. The Guild workshops in the old silk mill, Chipping Campden

15. Pinbury Park, Duntisbourne Rouse

16. Daneway House, Sapperton

17. Gimson, the Barnsley brothers and their families outside Gimson’s cottage at Pinbury c.1895

18. Cotswold garden gateway designed by E. Guy Dawber

19. Detail of a typical cottage design by Sidney Barnsley

20. Detail of vertical timber cladding and thatched roof at Sherwood Hill, Tunley

21. Door handle, Beechanger, Sapperton

22. Detail of plasterwork, Studio Cottage, Tarlton

23. Ernest Gimson’s living room at Pinbury

24. Beechanger, Sapperton

25. Beechanger, Sapperton, after alterations

26. The interior of Sidney Barnsley’s home in Sapperton

27. Sidney Barnsley’s thatched workshop in the garden at Beechanger

28. The dovecote at Beechanger

29. The garden and west entrance elevations of The Leasowes, Sapperton

30. Plans of many of Gimson’s houses

31. Lea Cottage, Charnwood Forest, Leicestershire

32. Upper Dorvel House, Sapperton

33. The interior of Ernest Barnsley’s Sapperton home

34. Sherwood Hill, Tunley

35. Sketch plan of ground floor prior to alterations, Sherwood Hill, Tunley

36. Staircase at Sherwood Hill

37. Studio Cottage, Tarlton

38. Exterior detail showing cladding and rainwater goods, Studio Cottage, Tarlton

39. Hilles House, Harescombe

40. West end elevation of Hilles House

41. Bay window, north elevation, Hilles House

42. The White House, Moreton-in-Marsh, ground floor plan

43. Bibsworth House, Broadway, entrance elevation and plan

44. Wells Folly, near Moreton-in-Marsh, entrance elevation

45. Nether Swell Manor, near Stow-on-the-Wold

46. Burdocks, Fairford, south elevation and plan

47. Eyford Park, Upper Slaughter, south elevation

48. Eyford Park, plan of ground floor

49. Fox Hill Manor, Willersey

50. Bowman’s Green, Minchinhampton

51. Bowman’s Green, Minchinhampton, sketch plan of ground floor

52. Drakestone House, Stinchcombe, south elevation just after completion

52a. Drakestone House, Stinchcombe, entrance elevation

53. Drakestone House, site plan

54. Outbuilding, Drakestone House, Stinchcombe

55. Cotteswolde House, Minchinhampton, c.1928

56. Chimney at Cotteswolde House

57. Rodmarton Manor, Rodmarton

58. Kitchen Court, Rodmarton Manor

59. Leadwork detail, Rodmarton Manor

60. Maryvale and Catbrook Furlong, Catbrook, Chipping Campden, front elevation and plans

61. Early 20th-century photograph of Overbury

62. Millbank Cottage, Overbury

63. Drakestone Cottages, Stinchcombe

64. Manor Cottages, Kelmscott, plans, elevations and sections

65. Cottages in Miserden

66. Overbury village centre

67. Roadside fountain, Overbury

68. Farm buildings, Overbury

69. Broadway Post Office

70. The Painswick Centre by William Curtis Green

71. Function Hall, The Painswick Centre

72. The Gyde Almshouses, Painswick

73. Cottage, baths and lavatories, Painswick, plans, elevations and sections

74. Sapperton Village Hall interior

75. Kelmscott Memorial Hall

76. Number 19, Castle Street, Cirencester

77. Woodroffe House, Chipping Campden

78. The Norman Chapel, Broad Campden

79. The Court, Broadway

80. Waterlane House, near Bisley

81. Holcombe House, Holcombe, near Painswick

82. New studio for Henry Payne at Seynckley House, Amberley, plan and elevations

83. Cotswold Farm, Duntisbourne Abbots, east entrance elevation

84. Cotswold Farm, Duntisbourne Abbots, south and front elevations and section

85. Cotswold Farm, Duntisbourne Abbots, west elevation and garden c.1930

86. Norman Jewson

87. Kingcombe, Chipping Campden

88. Cottage at Foxcote, Withington

89. Grey Walls, Preston

90. Little Greendown, Minchinhampton

91. The Russell Workshops Housing Scheme, Broadway

92. Blockley war memorial

93. Rodmarton Village Hall

94. Iles Farm, Far Oakridge

95. Bachelor’s Court, Sapperton

96. Owlpen Manor, Uley

97. The Bear Hotel, Rodborough

98. Stanway war memorial

Illustration Acknowledgements

Cheltenham Art Gallery & Museum (now The Wilson Art Gallery & Museum), 8, 16, 17, 24, 26, 27, 29, 31, 33, 64, 73, 82, 84, 85, 86, 88; The Builder, 12, 43; Building News, 13, 44, 48, 69; Bathurst Estate, 15, 21, 22, 25, 28, 32, 37, 38, 74; Mrs Sandra Walker, 34, 36; Detmar Blow, 39, 40, 41; M. Macartney (ed.), Recent English Domestic Architecture, special issue of Architectural Review, 5 vols, London (1908-13), 42, 53; Architectural Review, 45, 46; Mrs Charlotte Heber-Percy, 47; Jorgen Philip-Sorenson, 49; Mrs Joan Berkeley, 50; Hugh and Crystal Mildmay, 52, 54, 63 and rear cover illustration; Mr and Mrs Meek, 55; Simon Biddulph, 57, 58, 59; C.R. Ashbee, A Book of Cottages and Little Houses: For Landlords, Architects, Builders and Others, London (1906), 60; Overbury Estate, 61, 62, 67, 68; W.G. Newton, The Work of Ernest Newton R.A., London (1925), 62 (plan); The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, 76; Mr and Mrs Voaden, 78; Crown copyright, NMR, 80; Mrs Iona Birchall, 83; Gordon Russell Trust, 87, 91; Nicholas Mander, 96.

Illustrations 35 and 51 are adapted by the author from original sketch plans by Andrea Burton. These are intended for general reference only and their accuracy cannot be guaranteed.

Acknowledgements

This book is based on research I undertook some years ago for a thesis, the initial findings of which were published as a small gazetteer by Cheltenham Art Gallery & Museum. When I moved back to the region recently, I decided to reassess and revise this earlier work as much valuable research had been undertaken since. I would like to thank John Archer for giving me the benefit of his knowledge and support during the initial phase of research, and also the following individuals who have been most generous with their advice and information during various stages of this project: Derek Barkes, John Beer, Alan Brooks, Trevor Chinn, Michael Drury, the late Peter Falconer, Mary Greensted, the late Nancy Jewson, Tim Mowl, Alan Powers, Andrew Saint, the Trustees of The Painswick Centre, and Davina Wynne-Jones. I would also thank the owners of the many lovely houses I have visited, in particular Mrs Joan Berkeley, Simon Biddulph, Mrs Iona Birchall, Detmar and Amaury Blow, Mrs Charlotte Heber-Percy, Nicholas Mander, James Charteris, Lord Neidpath, 13th Earl of Wemyss and 9th Earl of March, Hugh and Crystal Mildmay and Mrs Sandra Walker, who have shared their considerable knowledge on the history of their homes. I am also grateful to the Bathurst Estate and the Overbury Estate for their help and co-operation, and to Andrea Burton for help with the sketch plans, and to the following organisations: Birmingham Central Reference Library, Cheltenham Art Gallery & Museum, the Edward Barnsley Educational Trust, the Guild of Handicraft Trust, Leicester Museums, the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings, the RIBA Library and the National Monuments Record, Swindon. Finally, I would like to thank Alan Crawford, an invaluable source of information and the inspiration behind this book.

Catherine Gordon, 2009

Introduction

… I speak to you, standing by the roadside on one of the western slopes of the Cotswolds; … just below on either side the Broadway lie the grey houses of the village street ending with a lovely house of the fourteenth century; above, the road winds serpentine up the steep hillside, whose crest looking westward sees the glorious map I have been telling spread out before it, but eastward strains to Oxfordshire, and thence all waters run towards Thames: all about lie the sunny slopes, lovely of outline, flowery and sweetly grassed, dotted with the best growth and the most graceful of trees; ’tis a beautiful countryside indeed, not undignified not unromantic but most familiar.1

This was how William Morris recalled one of his favourite places in the Cotswolds, high on the wooded escarpment at Fish Hill looking towards Broadway village. His description conveys his deep affection for the unspoilt beauty of the landscape and its traditional way of life. It also identifies an important reason for the region’s widespread appeal in the late 19th century. For the Cotswold landscape is unchallenging. It is romantic but not remote. It is a landscape in which the built and natural features enjoy a sympathetic and homogenous relationship that is quite exceptional, and it is also a very human landscape, crafted by mankind since prehistoric times so that it has an outstanding sense of continuity, of tradition and history. The Cotswold masons evolved a pattern of building of admirable character and variety that gave form and feature to the broad, sweeping uplands. The wealth of the medieval wool trade provided ample opportunity to develop and refine these skills, and during the early 17th century they reached their zenith. The subsequent years of economic decline enabled this architectural legacy to survive virtually unaltered into the late Victorian period, a legacy with special appeal to an industrial society eager to rediscover its rural past. Among the educated middle classes, in particular, there was a rekindling of romanticism, but the quest was now for the beautiful rather than the sublime, for a gentle, nurturing vision of nature that offered a soothing sense of reassurance and stability at a time of rapid social and economic change. So the countryside, albeit a tamed and groomed version, was brought into the growing towns and cities in the form of municipal parks, leafy suburbs and the cottage-style cosiness of the garden city movement. Visiting the countryside by bicycle or train was a popular pastime, but relocating to the lush Southern counties or the Lake District was an attractive option. The lure of the Cotswolds, in particular, was difficult to resist, with its lingering craft and folk traditions, its accessibility yet apparent isolation from industrial society, and its mellow, cultivated charm. Its appeal was further enhanced by its associations with William Morris and his circle, and by Broadway’s fashionable reputation.

Many leading figures of the Arts and Crafts Movement came to the region to live and work, including the architects C.R. Ashbee, Ernest Gimson, Ernest and Sidney Barnsley, Alfred Powell and Detmar Blow. The buildings that they designed in the region reveal an admirable appreciation of the strong vernacular precedent, which served to channel their creativity. Their work encouraged the revival of the local building crafts and the quarrying industry, and instilled a new sense of pride among the local communities in their built and natural assets. This achievement forms the subject of this book.

1 Map of Gloucestershire showing the main places referred to in the text.

I

The Arts and Crafts Movement: Its Character, Development and Principles

The Arts and Crafts Movement had emerged towards the end of the 19th century in response to the dilemma that faced Victorian Britain in the aftermath of industrialisation. Lacking any formal structure or official charter, it attracted the support of many whose aims and ideas were diverse and often contradictory.1 The Movement combined a keen intellectualism with an important practical and creative element that provided an effective means of communicating its ideas to a receptive and affluent middle-class audience.

This was a period of conflict, uncertainty and reassessment, when Britain was struggling to keep pace with the accelerating forces of change, and the new democracy began to view critically the industrial system and the society around which it was structured. Their concern was more than justified. Despite an overall rise in living standards, overcrowding, bad housing, poor drainage, low wages and disease were commonplace. Two financial crises and consequent industrial and commercial depressions between 1870 and 1886 had exacerbated the situation, agricultural employment fell drastically, and the voice of socialism was resounding in the larger manufacturing cities.2

Against this background of social and economic change, the cultural life of Britain was under debate. The views expressed by influential figures, such as A.W.N. Pugin (1815-52) and, especially, John Ruskin (1819-1900), had underlined the close alliance between urban deprivation and the general deterioration of social, moral and aesthetic values compared with the craftsmanship and creative freedom of the later Middle Ages. William Morris (1834-96), a leading source of Arts and Crafts ideals, was more emphatic than Ruskin in his desire for the reinstatement of beauty.3 He regarded high aesthetic standards not simply as the outward expression of a healthy society but actually responsible for its well-being.4

The Arts and Crafts theorists and designers were united by a similar concern. Few adopted the more radical solutions put forward by Morris, but their determination to reinstate the importance of human values in contemporary society still gave considerable emotive force to their appeal for reform. Each interpreted and developed the craft element within their work in a highly individual and often unorthodox way that helped extend the common preconceptions about its social purpose and its function within the field of architecture and design.5

Gillian Naylor’s account of the Movement’s sources remains the most incisive analysis of the complex issues involved. She makes particular reference to the slow and painful process of self-realisation among many of the Movement’s leading designers that if the craft ideal was to have any significance at either a social or aesthetic level it would have to be ‘reinterpreted to serve the needs of industrial rather than individual endeavour’.6

British designers and manufacturers had been well aware of the potential of an industrial art, at least since the 1880s. In 1887 the National Association for the Advancement of Art and its Application to Industry had been founded with this objective as well as to promote the rehabilitation of the crafts. Nevertheless, Britain had been slow to take the initiative. It was not until 1915 that the Design and Industries Association was founded, inspired by the example of the Deutscher Werkbund established in 1907. By this time, W.R. Lethaby (1857-1931), a leading architect and theorist of the Movement, was prepared to define design as ‘just the appropriate shaping and finish for the thing required’.7

Despite their disparate talents and aspirations, another important common theme among most 19th-century design theorists and practitioners was their almost instinctive love and respect for nature. This formed part of their cultural inheritance, and almost all designers of this period sought inspiration from natural forms. Morris shared Ruskin’s deeply emotional view of nature in his belief that design should reflect the flawed but infinite creativity of the natural world in its sense of vigour, vitality and colour. This underlined the Arts and Crafts designers appeal for creative individualism and fuelled their concern for the quality of life, and it was explicit in every aspect of their work. In the preface to a collection of essays on the crafts by several Arts and Crafts designers published as Plain Handicraft (1892), G.F. Watts urged the craftsman:

... to open closed eyes to a world of loveliness and grace where every flower that blows and every tendril that twines enlist themselves in his service and become his friends in the function of the Plain Handicraft.

Although very Ruskinian in feel, this is also suggestive of the writhing and contorted plant forms that are associated with Victorian aestheticism and anticipate the elegant stylisation of Art Nouveau.

Certainly late Victorian aestheticism accompanied and helped foster the Arts and Crafts ideals of the turn of the century. By the 1870s the prefix ‘art’ had become added to a whole range of products to give them an aura of quality and a stamp of individuality. This trend was reflected among the many art schools founded at this time, such as the School of Art Needlework (est. 1872) and the School of Art Woodcarving (est. 1879). Although many Arts and Crafts supporters chose to remain detached from the more hedonistic tendencies of the Aesthetic Movement, there were certain similarities of approach, not just in their response to natural form but to the simplicity of Japanese art as well. There was also a shared belief in the integration of the fine and decorative arts and the desire to unite the roles of artists, architects and craftsman in a practical working association. This was evident in the work of the architect E.W. Godwin (1833-66), who influenced Arts and Crafts designers such as C.F.A. Voysey (1857-1941), Edgar Wood (1860-1935), M.H. Baillie Scott (1865-1945) and C.R. Mackintosh (1868-1928).

Gathering enthusiasm for creative endeavour soon seethed through many Victorian towns and cities, feeding the desire for self-expression and self-improvement. Although the Arts and Crafts Movement lacked any formal structure, its ideas and beliefs were disseminated most effectively by the numerous newly formed guilds and societies founded to promote the crafts and also through the work of its supporters within the new art schools in the larger cities. Among the first and most influential of these organisations was the Century Guild, founded in 1882 by Arthur H. Mackmurdo (1851-1942). This aimed ‘to render all branches of Art the sphere, no longer of the tradesman, but of the artist’ and promote high standards of design in a wide range of crafts, including furniture, textiles, metalware and stained glass.8 Its magazine Hobby Horse preceded a wave of new art, architecture and design periodicals that promoted British talent to a receptive audience in mainland Europe and North America, among them the influential Studio and Country Life magazines. The Century Guild was followed by the Art Workers’ Guild, founded in 1884 by six assistants of the versatile and virtuoso architect Richard Norman Shaw (1831-1912).9 They were W.R. Lethaby (1857-1931), E.S. Prior (1852-1932), Ernest Newton (1856-1922), Mervyn Macartney (1853-1932), E.J. May (1853-1941) and Gerald Horsley (1862-1917). Their aim was to bring together ‘craftsmen in Architecture, Painting, Sculpture and the kindred Arts’ in a practical working association to encourage an exchange of opinions and skills.10 They also objected to the Royal Academy’s lack of interest in the crafts and the attempts of the Royal Institute of British Architects to make architecture a closed profession.

Possibly the most important society of all was the Arts and Crafts Exhibition Society, formed to provide a public platform for the Movement. Such was its influence that the term ‘Arts and Crafts’ soon became widespread.11 The Society expressed much of the character of the Arts and Crafts Movement and, in particular, the desire to reunite design and handicraft, redefine the role of architecture within that cause, and improve design standards by promoting rational design principles with regard to function, use of materials and method of manufacture.

In the provincial cities, notably Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow, many of the craft guilds and societies worked closely with the recently-established art schools. For example, in Birmingham activity was focused around the Municipal School of Art, including the Birmingham Guild of Handicraft, founded in 1890, the Bromsgrove Guild of Applied Arts, set up around 1899, and the Ruskin Pottery of 1898-1933. This helped maintain their regional character and identity and it served to stimulate the revival of the amateur crafts in urban and rural areas, often led by high-minded upper and middle-class reformers as an aid to moral improvement and a source of employment as well as an educational tool. In 1884 this craft revival was formally acknowledged when the Home Arts and Industries Association was founded to promote the revival of the rural crafts and act as a co-ordinating body. Among the rural craft communities established at this time were those in Haslemere in Surrey, in Ditchling, Sussex, and in the Lake District. The local craft traditions of the Cotswolds also acquired fresh stimulus with the arrival of Ernest Gimson, Ernest and Sidney Barnsley in 1893, Ashbee and his Guild of Handicraft in 1902, and also several skilled artists and craftsmen from Birmingham.

This was all very admirable. However Arts and Crafts attitudes towards aesthetic reform and the revival and reappraisal of craftsmanship became steadily undermined by changing attitudes to art in industry, the improvement in the quality of manufactured goods, and the realisation that it was simply not possible to make handmade goods affordable by all. Consequently many Arts and Crafts designers began to focus their reformist zeal on the quality of the living and working environment rather than the product itself.

Morris had been convinced that there had to be a fundamental improvement in living and working conditions in order to raise design standards, as he wrote in 1885: ‘Man living amongst such ugliness cannot conceive of beauty, and, therefore, cannot express it.’12 Industrial reform had been discussed by Morris in his paper ‘A Factory as it might be’ of 1884.13 Four years later, the architect J.D. Sedding brought the matter before the National Association for the Advancement of Art and its Application to Industry in his lecture ‘Things Amiss with our Arts and Industries’, when he proposed that the ‘designer should be part of the working staff of the factory’ and that ‘the best school for art-industry is a wholesome factory’.14 In 1896, the quality of urban life was chosen as the subject of a group of lectures entitled ‘Art and Life and the Building and Decoration of Cities’. The lecturers included such prominent figures as Lethaby and Walter Crane, and a variety of topics were discussed, including the need for public open space, smoke abatement and bill-posting. Lethaby published several lectures on a similar theme in his Form in Civilization (1922) and Ernest Newton played a valuable role in initiating the campaign for smoke abatement.15 They were among several Arts and Crafts architects who took an active interest in urban planning and redevelopment at this time, and several became closely involved with the garden city movement.

The quality of urban life was a cause closely linked to the protection of old buildings in both the city and the countryside and to the work of the emerging conservation movement. Inspired by the example of Morris and Philip Webb, many Arts and Crafts architects played a leading role in this respect and, in the Cotswold region in particular, this cause became closest to their hearts and arguably the most deserving of their talents.

2 Cover design, HobbyHorse, January, 1886 by Selwyn Image.

3 Essex House, Mile End Road. Frontispiece of C.R. Ashbee’s An Endeavour towards the Teaching of John Ruskin and William Morris (1901).

II

Arts and Crafts Architectural Ideals

The social, aesthetic and humanitarian concerns of the Arts and Crafts Movement found their richest and most complete form of expression within its architecture.1 For architecture could demonstrate the importance of the crafts and their contemporary relevance, the need to establish a rational attitude to design, and it was central to the emerging interest in the protection of the built and natural environment. Architecture also clearly illustrated the valuable role nature could play in the design process; for example, in the choice of site, the layout and aspect of a building, in the use of local materials, and in the close relationship between a house, its garden and the surrounding landscape. Finally, it could bring about a literal union of the arts, combining mural painting, stained glass, decorative plasterwork, tapestries, furniture, metalwork and woodcarving within an architectural setting.

The association between architecture and craftsmanship had been reinforced during the Gothic Revival by Pugin, whose views influenced other leading architects and designers, in particular G.E. Street (1824-81) and William Burges (1827-81). Most important of all was Philip Webb (1831-1915), the architectural mentor of the Arts and Crafts Movement, who gave this association new strength of purpose. His integrity and practical attitude to the design of buildings were crucial in the development of Arts and Crafts architectural theory. According to Lethaby, Webb claimed that ‘the best he knew of building’ had been ‘gained in discussions with workmen’ from whom he had acquired his extensive technical knowledge that ranged from laying roof tiles and mixing mortar to ventilation, drainage and heating systems.2 As Webb’s friend and former pupil George Jack (1855-1932) remarked: ‘[His] influence had always one tendency, it removed “architecture” from the architect’s office to the builder’s yard and the craftsman’s workshop.’3 His close friendship with architect-craftsmen such as Detmar Blow, Alfred Powell, Ernest Gimson and the Barnsley brothers was of key importance to their careers. Due to Webb’s influence, they were among several Arts and Crafts architects who studied the building crafts at first hand, and they were also inclined to employ direct labour to ensure close contact with the craftsmen and the construction process without the intervention of a contractor.4 Lethaby built Brockhampton Church, Herefordshire (1901-2) in this way, with another important architect-craftsman, A. Randall Wells (1877-1942), as his clerk of works. Margaret Richardson has also observed that the drawings of E.S. Prior (1852-1932) were created simply to communicate facts rather than to impress the architectural establishment, a principle shared by Lethaby and Gimson among others. Occasionally Prior would present his designs in model form at the Royal Academy to underline the craft element in his work.5

In 1909, a number of papers by several leading Arts and Crafts architects were published under the title The Arts Connected with Building, edited by T. Raffles Davison (1853-1937). The emphasis was on building rather than architecture and, in his paper ‘Ideals in Building, False or True’, Baillie Scott appealed for ‘an art of building’ and for builders and craftsmen to be ‘artists like they used to be’.6 Some years later, Lethaby offered a more realistic interpretation when he wrote:

Whenever, if ever, the art of building becomes real again it will be re-founded on delight in structure, knowledge of materials, practice of craftsmanship, and the impulse towards experiment and invention’.7

This highlighted many of the most important attributes of Arts and Crafts architecture and reasserted the practical attitude to architectural design upheld by Philip Webb.

The belief that the architect should have the freedom of expression of the artist was not confined to the Arts and Crafts Movement but formed part of the current popular debate as to whether architecture should be ranked among the professions, as the RIBA assumed, or remain an art to be taught by pupilage and example. In 1892 several members of the Art Workers’ Guild contributed to a book of essays, edited by Norman Shaw and Thomas Graham Jackson, entitled Architecture, a Profession or an Art? This question derived partly from Ruskin, in particular his idea of ‘savageness’ and of art as man’s expression of pleasure in his work.8 Another important precedent was Pugin’s condemnation of applied style in contemporary architecture articulated in his book An Apology for the Revival of Christian Architecture of 1843. This spirit of creative individualism encouraged great architectural diversity. Some Arts and Crafts architects, such as Blow, Prior, Gimson and Powell, made innovative use of regional building methods and materials. Others made free and inventive use of historical detail, as seen in Henry Wilson’s church designs, Ernest Newton’s neo-Georgian houses, or the contemporary enthusiasm for Byzantine art. Lethaby and C. Harrison Townsend shared an interest in symbolism, and C.F.A. Voysey rejected any form of historicism or stylistic reference and his work is outstanding for its simplicity and moral integrity. In addition, the Movement included a stream of aesthetic individualists, such as Edgar Wood and C.R. Mackintosh. Yet it is misleading to categorise the work of these architects too rigidly. Most sought inspiration from a wide range of sources, and their free eclecticism was usually a very personal response to a specific design problem.

Pugin’s condemnation of the use of applied style was particularly significant to the Movement’s aesthetic ideals.9 In 1843 he wrote: ‘Styles are now adopted rather than generated, and ornament and design adapted to, instead of originated by, the edifices themselves.’10 He proposed that traditional building could show the way forward, writing in his Apology that: ‘The peasant’s hut, the yeoman’s cottage, the farmer’s house, the baronial hall may be each perfect in its kind …’, for they epitomised his belief that form should follow function, and for this reason he incorporated features like asymmetric fenestration and external chimneybreasts in his work.11

Although the Gothic style remained supreme in the latter half of the 19th century, High Victorian architects like Street and Butterfield shared Pugin’s interest in traditional details. The eclecticism of the ‘Queen Anne’ style, proposed initially by the Rev. J.L. Petit in a lecture of 1861, also found popularity with architects like Shaw, W.E. Nesfield and J.J. Stevenson, on the grounds that it was an indigenous building form, adaptable to all building types and free of any restrictive architectural dogma or pedantry.12 Petit had also emphasised the need for architectural forms to be selected solely on the basis of their appropriateness, and argued that vernacular building should provide the model for such a living architecture, much as Pugin had proposed in his Apology.13 The ‘Old English’ style was also pioneered by George Devey for rural domestic architecture in the 1850s, and it was adopted by Shaw and Nesfield in the late 1860s for its picturesque effects and free massing. 14 This gave direction to the more general revival of interest in English traditional buildings and the emerging ‘Vernacular Revival’ style.

It was Morris and Webb who grasped the structural sense of Pugin’s message and injected it with a new sense of purpose. In his lecture ‘The Influence of Building Materials upon Architecture’, Morris had commented:

4 Frontispiece of The Arts Connected with Building (1901).

Now if by any possibility the architects could get back the masons and workmen, and what I distinctly call the old scientific method of building walls and surfaces, the really reasonable and scientific method, architecture would to a great extent be on its legs again, and we need not trouble ourselves much about the battle of styles, if buildings were built in that living manner from beginning to end: out of that the style would arise.15

Passionate appeals of this type had a special resonance for Webb. As Lethaby had observed: ‘Architecture to Webb was first of all a common tradition of honest building.’16 Webb’s practice was small, and all of his buildings were put together with immense care. Each was deliberately eclectic and non-specific in inspiration, and each form selected for practical rather than stylistic purposes, as at Rounton Grange, Northallerton, Yorkshire (1872) and Standen, East Grinstead, Sussex (1891). Following Webb’s lead, the Arts and Crafts architects were eager to learn from traditional methods and techniques that appealed to so many of their interests and concerns, not least their allegiance to the traditional values of a pre-industrial society.

Their fascination with vernacular buildings was part of the idealised vision of rural life that was rife in contemporary culture, from the novels of Thomas Hardy to the paintings of Helen Allingham, Wilfrid Ball, and Alfred Parsons, and the revival of English folk music and dances. It was evident too in the somewhat affected tendency among middle-class intellectuals to dress in Norfolk jackets, breeches, smocks and sandals, as exemplified by the Ashbees and their circle in Chipping Campden. It was fostered by a wealth of lavishly-illustrated books on rural life and buildings published around this time, not least the series by the Studio magazine that included titles such as P.H. Ditchfield’s The Charm of the English Village (1908) and Sydney R. Jones’s The Village Homes of England (1912). Although the vernacular vocabulary associated with much Arts and Crafts architecture responded to this spirit of nostalgia, beneath the froth of romantic sentiment there lurked a gritty social and moral conscience that rallied to the appeals of Ruskin and Morris.

The ‘common tradition of honest building’, the feel for context, for propriety, for the form and texture of a building, for individuality and the contribution of the craftsmen, all came back to the informed use of local materials. Nowhere was this better expressed than in Morris’s lecture ‘The Influence of Building Materials upon Architecture’, in which he remarked: ‘Now the subject of material is clearly the foundation of architecture, and perhaps one would not go very far wrong if one defined architecture as the art of building suitably with suitable materials.’17 In his biography of Webb, Lethaby reiterated Morris’s words when he wrote: ‘We owe it to England to build in a reverent way with suitable materials. Materials must be used so as to express their essential qualities; these essential qualities are what rhythm is to poetry.’18 Most Arts and Crafts architects shared this deep respect for the nature of materials, from Norfolk flint, to Devon cob, Scottish granite or Cotswold limestone, and they always handled their materials with great care to emphasise their special characteristics. Roofing materials were no less important, and the popularity of thatch among several Arts and Crafts architects typifies their enthusiasm for the building crafts. They delighted in its organic and textural qualities and its picturesque effects. In 1906 Ashbee wrote:

5 Courtyard, Standen, Sussex, designed by Philip Webb and drawn by Halsey Ricardo. From W.R. Lethaby, Philip Webb and his Work (1979) (First published 1935).

A close observation of the work of a first-rate thatcher is very instructive: he works instinctively in line and mass together. Every little break or stepping in of the wall face is an opportunity, and the diminishing curve of a projection is to him a chance of producing forms peculiar to his material, & [sic] forms often very beautiful indeed …19

Such admiration for traditional building did not result in slavish imitation, nor did it blind them to the shortcomings of damp dark cottages with smoky chimneys. The trick was to absorb, adapt and reinterpret the underlying characteristics to conform to contemporary requirements and replace the dinginess and clutter with wholesome sunlit interiors that enjoyed good views and effective sanitation.

The choice of site remained crucial. Traditionally this was necessary for reasons of comfort, economy and convenience, access to a roadway or nearby water source being primary considerations. The Arts and Crafts architects had different priorities. They were concerned with aspect, prospect and visual effect. The extraordinary affinity many rural Arts and Crafts buildings have with their site was no gift of nature but very cleverly contrived, for, in Webb’s opinion, it was essential for an architect to master the possibility of a site.20

6 Horley, Oxon, by Sydney R. Jones, 1912. Pen and watercolour from his book The Village Homes of England (1912).

7 Stoneywell Cottage, Charnwood Forest, Leicestershire. Illustration from the memorial volume, Ernest Gimson: His Life andWork (1924).

The choice of site was closely associated with layout. Arts and Crafts interest in rational planning was founded on ideas of structural honesty, and the views of theorists like Petit, who believed that architectural form should be dictated by practical criteria and contemporary standards of propriety, particularly with regard to domestic buildings.21 Numerous articles and books were published on the subject, among them T. Raffles Davison’s Modern Homes (1909) and B.F and F.P. Fletcher’s The English House (1910). Little wonder that English domestic design became the envy of Europe, praised by Hermann Muthesius, a leading figure in German design reform, in Das Englische Haus (Berlin, 1904-5) for their logical layouts determined by matters of circulation, convenience, orientation and prospect.22 Such concerns resulted in some of the most original Arts and Crafts designs. The contemporary desire to flood a house with sunlight led to the development of the north corridor plan, enabling all the principal rooms to face south. Changes in levels could be incorporated in the design to help mould the building to its site, seen so effectively at Gimson’s Stoneywell Cottage of 1898-9, one of five cottages he designed in the Charnwood Forest in Leicestershire. This was one of several important Arts and Crafts buildings with a cranked plan, and at Stoneywell the plan followed the contours of the granite outcrop upon which it was built. A development of the cranked plan was the X-shaped or butterfly plan, which could take advantage of a fine aspect or prospect.23 Prior’s first design for a house of this type was exhibited at the Royal Academy in 1895 and was developed at The Barn, Exmouth, in 1896. In 1899 he exhibited another wax model of a butterfly house at the RIBA, and the following year Detmar Blow built Happisburgh Manor in Norfolk on a similar theme. According to the architectural critic Lawrence Weaver (1876-1930), Blow claimed the idea ‘originated with my friend Mr. Ernest Gimson’, who had sent him ‘the little device’ on a postcard.24 Several drawings of butterfly houses by Gimson survive in the Cheltenham collection, but most likely the form simply evolved during this period of close collaboration between Gimson, Prior, Blow, Powell and A. Randall Wells.25 As Michael Drury has pointed out, this collective design process reflected their shared aspirations and lack of concern for personal recognition, and proved a highly effective means of developing new forms and layouts inspired by traditional precedent.26

The relationship between a building and its site also meant that the garden layout became an integral part of the overall scheme and reflected the plan of the house. Despite the romantic appreciation of nature associated with the Movement, Arts and Crafts gardens tend to be quite architectural, not in the formal, European sense, but in the way they are divided into a series of outdoor rooms by hedging, walls and terraces. Sedding’s Garden Craft, Old and New (1891) and Reginald Blomfield’s The Formal Garden in England (1892) were important influences. Their views on design were combined with the practical plant knowledge of gardeners such as William Robinson (1838-1935) and Gertrude Jekyll (1843-1932). Drifts of plants, usually of an indigenous species and in harmonising colours, were used to soften the outlines of walls and paving and give individual character to each separate area of the garden, and also blend into a unified whole to merge with the countryside beyond.

The Arts and Crafts admiration for traditional buildings and the building crafts also formed part of their wider concern about the social and environmental implications of the demise of traditional rural crafts. As early as 1849 in ‘The Lamp of Memory’, Ruskin had expressed his anxiety about the effects of industrialisation upon the nation’s historic buildings and natural resources.27 Following Ruskin’s lead, Morris had developed Ruskin’s argument in his lecture ‘The Prospects of Architecture in Civilization’ (1880) and again in ‘The Influence of Building Materials upon Architecture’ (1892). He drew particular attention to the rapid disappearance of traditional building materials and methods as the railways enabled cheaper substitutes, such as Welsh slates, mass-produced brick and corrugated iron, to be transported long distances. He recognised this as a threat to the nation’s sense of regional identity and its rural communities that were already suffering from the effects of rural depopulation and unemployment.28 Certainly the enthusiasm for thatching extended beyond its aesthetic value. Thatch had become an expensive option by this time and, as R.W. Schultz pointed out, ‘in many cases impossible owing to bye-laws and insurance company rules’.29

8 Design for a butterfly-plan house by Ernest Gimson.

In 1877, Morris had founded the Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings to help safeguard the nation’s historic buildings and lay down the principles for their conservation. The theory of conservative repair, of staving off decay, and resisting tampering with a building’s historic fabric or ornament was demonstrated and developed by Webb, and instilled within his Arts and Crafts disciples, many of whom worked on SPAB’s behalf, took on case work and served on its committee. Detmar Blow and Ernest Gimson joined the Society in 1890; W.R. Lethaby in 1892; C.R. Ashbee in 1894; Alfred Powell in 1896; and Ernest and Sidney Barnsley in 1902, although they had been closely involved with its activities for several years previously. Several gained practical experience of repair under Webb, notably Powell and Blow, who often joined forces on SPAB work. Powell also contributed to a number of the Society’s pamphlets, including the Report on the Treatment of Old Cottages of 1919. This emphasised the importance of regional variety in architecture and the value of rural buildings as a national resource. Powell remarked:

It is much to be regretted that there is no general survey of the architecture of England … that would show geological and other local conditions and characteristics as the causes of form and structural variety in ancient buildings.

This anticipated the listing of buildings of architectural and historic interest that began more than 20 years later but it was not till over 50 years later that they became sufficiently comprehensive to serve the purpose that Powell envisaged. Ashbee was a pioneer in this respect. In 1894 he had set up a Watch Committee in response to the redevelopment programme in London’s East End where large areas of housing and many fine historic buildings had been ruthlessly demolished to make way for new estates. The Watch Committee was remarkably effective and it developed survey methods that informed the work of organisations such as the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments.30 Ashbee also served on the Council of the National Trust, founded in 1896, and other Arts and Crafts architects became involved with the work of more specialised conservation bodies that were established after the First World War. Prominent among them was Sir E. Guy Dawber (1861-1938), the first president of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England in 1926.31

Another important aspect of Arts and Crafts interest in urban planning and the quality of the living and working environment was its involvement in the garden city movement. Ebenezer Howard’s proposals, published in his book Tomorrow: A Peaceful Path to Reform (London 1898; republished as Garden Cities of Tomorrow in 1902), had won the support of many Arts and Crafts architects. Ernest Newton, for example, had designed cottages for Port Sunlight and described Howard’s ideas in the Architectural Review as ‘of the greatest interest and of far-reaching importance’.32 The first garden city at Letchworth, planned by Barry Parker (1867-1947) and Raymond Unwin (1863-1940), included houses with a distinct Arts and Crafts flavour, vernacular in appearance with roughcast walls and leaded casements, and with innovative plans that encouraged an informal lifestyle, and their design influenced innumerable similar schemes.

This combination of homely cottage charm and radical planning typified the combination of conservative and progressive ideals prevalent within the Movement that could result in creative fusion as well as conflict. The interest in innovative planning was accompanied by a keen interest in modern building techniques. For example, many Arts and Crafts commercial and educational buildings had grid-like façades that reflected contemporary developments in steel-frame construction, among them Lethaby’s Eagle Insurance building, Colmore Row, Birmingham (1899-1900), the Southampton Telephone Exchange by Leonard Stokes, and Mackintosh’s Glasgow School of Art (1896-9 and 1905-9). The rational organisation of their main elevations was combined with complex stylistic references to create a highly individual contribution to contemporary experiments in structural expression.33 Many Arts and Crafts architects also shared Webb’s outstanding technical expertise. One illustration of this is the decorative air vents that were introduced at first-floor level by Ernest Barnsley at Rodmarton Manor, Gloucestershire (1909-29), a building in most other respects the epitome of traditional craft practices. Many also experimented with new structural techniques; for example, the richly textured and patterned wall surface at Blow’s Happisburgh Manor conceals the mass-concrete construction beneath, and at Lethaby’s Brockhampton Church, Herefordshire, concrete vaulting is used to create the impressive spatial effects within. Some architects used new materials in a less traditional context, as at Upmeads, Staffordshire (1908) by Edgar Wood, where the concrete flat roof provided great freedom in planning, ease of access for maintenance, simplified rainwater disposal and also created an outdoor living space.