• 2 Neal Shasore, Designs on Democracy: Architecture and the Public in Interwar London, Oxford, OUP, 20 (...)
• 3 Mary Anne Staniszewski, The Power of Display: A History of Exhibition Installations at the Museum o (...)

2Exhibitions and the “arts of display,” as coined by the civil servant and former editor of Country Life, Sir Lawrence Weaver (1876-1930), were seen as a key medium of communication that could be experimented with.2 Many innovative exhibition designs were first seen by the public during the twenties and the thirties. Designers like Frederick Kiesler, Herbert Bayer and László Moholy-Nagy devised new forms of display which, as Mary Anne Staniszewski has pointed out “revolutionized the rigid constraints of traditional exhibition conventions.”3 Indeed, not only did exhibitions act as a shop front for the latest architectural design and thinking, they also helped the organizers to influence their visitors and wider public opinion. One such exhibition, “The Exhibition of British Industrial Art in Relation to the Home,” organized by Oliver Hill and held at the Dorland Hall London in 1933 (Ill.1) will be used to explore how designers such as Hill sought to educate the public in matters of design.

• 4 “What the Public Wants,” The Listener, n°276, April 25, 1934, p. 692.
• 5 Cathy Ross, Twenties London: A City in the Jazz Age, London, Philip Wilson Publishers, 2003, p. 78.

3In the first decades of the twentieth century Britain saw a steady stream of protests against what was described as the horrors of popular and industrial art. “Public taste,” as one letter to the Editor of The Times noted, was “simply the lowest common factor of ourselves” and it was time to dispense with the doctrine of “what the public wants” so that the levels of popular and industrial art could be raised.4 Whilst opinions such as these were nothing new, the call for the involvement of publicity and marketing in elevating public opinion was. Publicists and civil servants, such as Sir Charles Highman and Sir Lawrence Weaver, saw it as the government’s role to mold public opinion as it had formed a “mysterious tyrannical obstruction” to progress. The idea of “good” British design was, therefore, becoming less abstract during the interwar period, and the focus was now being directed more to the public than to the manufacturers.5

• 7 Mervyn Romans, Histories of Art Design Education: Collected Essays, Bristol, Intellect, 2005, p. 51 (...)
• 8 Although the impact of the BIIA was limited, Suga highlighted that its history “marked a significan (...)
• 9 Ibid.
• 10 Ross, Twenties London, op. cit., p. 78.

5An important aspect that was insisted on by this Committee was that “national taste” was to be achieved through the closer involvement with the national schools of design, museums and exhibitions. Equally important was that this committee, as outlined by art historian Mervyn Romans, linked taste with consumerism, morality and manufacturing as “[t]aste was an all-embracing term that took in moral imperatives, civic behavior, good judgment in consumer choices, and the promotion of economic interests.”7
These conclusions certainly found sympathy with the government and among privately organized bodies that were set up in the early twentieth century to pursue such policies. One such example of a governmental organization was the British Institute of Industrial Arts (BIIA), established in 1919, which grew out of the perceived need to “draw attention of the public to the contemporary craft works.”8 This, according to Sir Hubert Llewellyn Smith, the Permanent Secretary at the Board of Trade, “should take the shape of (1) A permanent Central Exhibition of current works produced by living craftsmen, for sale, subject to the enforcement of a high standard of merit by the Selecting Committee; (2) Attached to the Exhibition a Sale Agency […].”9 This approach shows how the BIIA immediately sought to influence the purchasers of British products. Or, to put it differently, by focusing on the purchaser the BIIA would seek to “create an informed, design conscious public whose demands British manufacturers would find irresistible.”10

• 11 Shasore, Designs on Democracy, op. cit., 65.

6The influence of the BIIA was felt in the highly successful British Empire Exhibition of 1924 in Wembley. Indeed, commercial marketing mixed with national prestige and fine art had become an important aspect of international exhibition culture after the Great Exhibition of 1851 and proved to be hugely popular with the public. At the British Empire Exhibition, Lawrence Weaver, the director of the United Kingdom exhibits, employed Oliver Hill to design the pottery section in the Palace of Industry. This was Hill’s first venture into exhibition design at a time when having sections designed by architects was a new approach. As the architectural historian Neal Shasore astutely highlighted, employing an architect also served as “the additional function of architects’ services for marketing products to industrial clients.”11

• 12 Ibid., p. 58.
• 13 Lawrence Weaver, 1925, cited in Yasuko Suga, “Modernism, Commercialism and Display Design in Britai (...)

7The Palace of Industry was one of the two largest individual buildings on the site; the other being the Palace of Engineering. Both buildings (separated by a boulevard) were there to “stimulate voluntary preferential trade between Britain and constituent parts of the empire.”12 The fact that Weaver chose Hill for this section can be interpreted as a belief in Hill’s ability to make a difference in British exhibition design and the art of display. The purpose of the exhibition, Weaver stated was “to enlarge trade and increase prosperity.” In order to achieve this, artistic quality in display was essential, according to Weaver. He believed the gap between the arts and commerce was fatal to “good” design, and stressed that there was “no kind of art which is too good to be used in the service of industry and commerce.”13

• 14 Penny Sparke, An Introduction to Design and Culture, London, Routledge, 2004, p. 69.

8It is important to draw attention to the marketing strategy that is proposed here, which emphasized the relationship between the supplier and the consumer. Indeed, many of the proposed works would come to be displayed as signed art objects and the fact that they were signed went a long way in bringing back the individualism that had been lost in many consumers’ eyes in mass production. The ceramicist William Moorcroft, whose work was displayed in the pottery section, was known to personalize each piece of pottery with his own signature. The identification that consumers developed with a commodity associated with a named designer who possessed “good” taste and social standing—as design historian Penny Sparke asserted—would become increasingly important during the interwar period.14 This marketing strategy also explains why designers such as Hill were ultimately criticized for not providing objects for the masses and instead pitching goods at the rich upper middle classes and upper-class liberal consumers. These contradictory elements, I believe, are key ingredients of the artistic debates of the period. It is within this context that the work of exhibition designers such as Hill should be contextualized and interpreted.

• 15 Great Britain. Commercial Relations and Export Department. Reports on the Present Position and Tend (...)

9The following year, 1925, saw the BIIA involved in consultations with the Department for Overseas Trade for the British contribution to the “Exposition internationale des arts décoratifs et industriels modernes” in Paris. It is this contribution that seems to have highlighted a peak in dissatisfaction with post-World War I British design. The British contribution was deemed old fashioned, dull, aloof and lacking in any spirit of adventure. It was believed that Britain was out of touch with a general, modern post-war consumer’s lifestyle. Llewllyn Smith in his introductory survey of the 1925 exhibition pondered “how far again is the British reluctance to break with past practice a sign of vigorous persistence of living tradition, or how far is it the mere clinging of a parasitic plant which has lost the power of independent growth and life?”15 Action needed to be taken if design standards were to be improved in line with the demands for market fashions.

• 16 Noel Carrington, Industrial Design in Britain, London, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1976, p. 137.
• 17 Great Britain, Department of Trade: Arts and Industry (The Gorell Report), Harrow, H.M.S.O, 1932, p (...)
• 18 Herbert Read saw the report as “essentially flawed in its conception of the artist as external to i (...)
• 19 Tanya Harrod, The Crafts in Britain in the 20^th Century, London, Yale University Press, 1999, p. 12 (...)

10Action came in the form of another committee. As publisher Noel Carrington remembered, “even the government felt something should be done and therefore adopted the usual course of appointing a Committee.”16 It would be this committee and its report which would prove one of the key influential factors in setting up “The Exhibition of British Industrial Art in Relation to the Home.” The report envisioned exhibitions that would “serve a specially valuable purpose, in view of their appeal to the public and to their consequent influence upon the discriminating purchaser. A comprehensive exhibition scheme will stimulate both supply and demand, with resulting profit to the whole country.”17 Whilst not everybody agreed with the report’s findings,18 there were individuals such as Hill, who took it as their guide and inspiration in their battle to improve design through education.19

• 20 Alan Powers, Oliver Hill: Architect and Lover of Life 1887-1968, London, Mouton, 1989, p. 29.
• 21 Letter from Hill to C.H. Reilly (2/11/1927). London, RIBA ref. HiO 27/3 (1/2) Devonshire House – Pi (...)
• 22 Elizabeth Darling, “Institutionalizing English Modernism 1924–1933: From the Vers Group to MARS,” A (...)
• 23 Philippa Lucy Haughton, The Formation of Professional Identity in the British Advertising Industry, (...)
• 24 Ibid.

11The committee’s proposals regarding a permanent exhibition and the financing of this new design body were rejected by the government. Instead, temporary exhibitions were suggested.20 This setback didn’t waver Hill’s determination to “bring this country out of its apathy.”21 The proposed exhibition (with Hill as the exhibition architect and member of the executive committee) finally came to fruition after financial backing of £500 was promised by the magazine Country Life, to which Hill and his acquaintance, author and editor of Country Life, Christopher Hussey added £100 each. The influence of Country Life should not be underestimated. Research by architectural historians such as Elizabeth Darling has shown that in interwar Britain Country Life (especially with Hussey as its architectural editor) played a central part in bringing together key writers, thinkers and patrons around the role of design in a mass society.22 The remaining funds were provided by a variety of industrialists and philanthropists who supported the arts, such as Phillip Sassoon, C.H. St John Hornby, Samuel Courtald and Lord Aberconway. This list of businessmen shows that the desire for a connection between art and industry was sought after not only from a business perspective but also encouraged by the arts.
The choice of location can also be understood within this context. Indeed, the Dorland Hall on Regent Street was part of the London branch of the American Dorland Advertising Agency with the advertising agent George W. Kettle at its helm. Advertising practitioners like Kettle were key figures in the professionalization of the industry during the early twentieth century when they helped “advertising to grow into a central and ‘normal’ feature of British consumer society.”23 Kettle further understood that “the creation of marketing campaigns based on advertisements—was significant in shaping and supporting the economic growth of consumer culture in Britain following the First World War.”24 The Dorland Hall as exhibition venue seemed therefore apt as Hill would be assured that the exhibition would meet with the venues’ ethos on the importance of educating the public in matters of “good” design. A letter between Hill and Kettle offers a glimpse into Hill’s thinking on different ways in which matters of “good” design could be brought into certain spheres of the public. Writing about a recent “visit to New York Hill and the big stores,” Hill wrote that he became convinced on the importance of this matter, stating that:

• 26 Marilyn F. Friedman, Selling Good Design: Promoting the Early Modern Interior, New York, Rizzoli, 2 (...)
• 27 Exhibition of British Art in Relation to the Home, 1933. London, National Art Library, MSL/1975/378 (...)

12In New York, Macy’s was breaking ground as a tastemaker as early as 1927 by organizing exhibitions in co-operation with the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The objective was to join commerce and culture in order to educate the public in “good” design. This partnership proved to be hugely successful in that it reached large sections of the American public, which the museum would not have otherwise reached. For its part, the museum gave the department store enhanced artistic credibility.26 Pushing the educational factor beyond mere display, lectures were organized that attracted people and extended press coverage. A similar idea was discussed in the Dorland Hall minutes, as it was suggested that lectures relating to the exhibition should be arranged by the Design and Industries Association.27

• 28 Staniszewski, The Power of Display, op. cit., p. 25-27.

14The final section of the plan (Ill. 2) seems to have been influenced by the free flow interiors that were used in department stores. Free flow and curvilinear display promoted interaction between the viewer and the objects, as Staniszewski has pointed out, but it also made the flow of visitors through the exhibition or store much easier.28 The public entered the Dorland Hall from Regent Street where they were greeted by three niches on either side that went from floor to ceiling. The center niche on the right hand side contained the sculpture “Man and Woman” (1933) by Charles Wheeler and Eric Gill whilst flanking niches showed implements and tools by Nettlefolds Ltd. (Ill. 3).

• 29 Exhibition of British Industrial Art in Relation to the Home, Dorland Hall, London, June-July 1933. (...)

16The free flow plan was continued on the first floor. Here the visitor first saw kitchens and their equipment section. The exhibition catalogue explained that these kitchens showed “[…] equipment sensibly placed for normal usage and in the right relationship one piece to another. These layouts are therefore something of a compromise between an actual kitchen and a display stand […].”29

• 30 Dorland Hall – Lower Regent Street London W1 1932-1933. London, RIBA ref. HIO 28/2 (1/2).

17Past the electrical section one could find ensemble rooms largely designed by Hill. The stone exhibit incorporated a dining room complete with walls, floor, a table and chairs made of polished Perrycot Portland Stone (Ill. 7). Here Hill wanted to show the possibilities of the stone “hitherto unused because of its coarseness. Now, however, the stone was electrically carborundum polished for the first time in England.”30 The walls of this room were engraved by Eric Gill with a design symbolizing hospitality. Hill’s enthusiasm for this method went as far as including cups, plates and dishes made entirely out of stone. A similar approach could be seen in the glass display showing a boudoir made out of glass. The floor was made out of three-inch glass cubes (which in some parts were left clear and in others silvered on the underside). The walls consisted of curved sheets of plate glass from floor to ceiling with a stippled face, displayed an engraved figure cut with a carborundum wheel whilst the white opaque glass pilasters were sandblasted. Hill also used the latest techniques as this was the first time furniture had been produced entirely out of glass. The glass couch resting on solid glass balls was selected by H.G. Wells for his film Things to Come.

• 31 Exhibition of British Industrial Art in Relation to the Home, Dorland Hall, London, June-July 1933. (...)

18The remaining sections of the first floor were divided into galleries A, B and C. The catalogue announced that the contents of these galleries were selected by a committee of experts and that the objects they included had to be expressions of twentieth century spirit, and to conform to internationally accepted standards of good taste. It was explained to the visitor that, here, he or she would only find the best modern types available in England at the time. The exhibits in these galleries included textiles (furnishing and dress fabrics), leather, oil-silk and linoleum, carpets, rugs, wallpapers and ensembles or furnished rooms.31 These rooms demonstrated, and inadvertently educated visitors and consumers, about what the modern home should look like. Hill displayed a bedroom and a nursery ensemble, commercial decorator Arundell Clarke designed “the study for a ruling prince,” and a living room was by the Bath Cabinet Makers.

• 32 Dorland Hall – Lower Regent Street London W1 1932-33a. London, RIBA ref. HiO 28/2 (1/2).
• 33 Dorland Hall – Lower Regent Street London W1 1932-33b, letter from Marion Dorn to Hill (31/5/1933). (...)
• 34 Exhibition of British Industrial Art in Relation to the Home, Dorland Hall, London, June-July 1933. (...)

19The exhibition was a huge public hit. In three and a half weeks the attendance was 30,000, a number as Hussey claimed, “far exceeding the liveliest hopes of the committee.”32 This success was also echoed in the letters Hill received. Marion Dorn wrote that “[e]verybody is raving about the exhibition and I think it’s going to be a wonderful help to everyone.”33 Overall, Hill was mostly praised for making a visit to the Dorland Hall an experience that, as one journalist put it was “the clearest most generally attractive that we have ever seen.”34

• 35 Osbert Lancaster, Pillar to Post. Or Pocket Lamp of Architecture, London, John Murray, 1938. Osbert (...)
• 36 Exhibition of British Industrial Art in Relation to the Home, Dorland Hall, London, June-July 1933. (...)
• 37 Exhibition of British Industrial Art in Relation to the Home, Dorland Hall, London, June-July 1933. (...)

20However, not all comments were positive. A recurring opinion among critics was the fact that many of the exhibits showcased a “Bond Street Flavour.” The English cartoonist, author, art critic and stage designer Osbert Lancaster would come to use vocabulary such as this to discuss twentieth century period styles. His line-drawings and accompanying titles such as “Vogue regency” published in Pillar to Post (1938) and Homes Sweet Homes (1939) had entered architectural criticism and were regularly used to poke fun at popular design styles.35 W.G. Thorpe, who worked on the pottery and glass section, also went to considerable lengths in making comments on the organization of the exhibition. In his twenty-five-page letter he mentions in dismay that “the glassroom and the stone room were of no practical utility to any sane man; sitting on stone benches is not only uncomfortable, but may have disastrous consequences.”36 He goes on to mention that there was “[…] nothing for the clerk or the artisan who makes £4 a week. There might be in a future exhibition two rooms for the man at £4 a week to show how good colour and design may be available in quite inexpensive materials.”37

• 38 Dorland Hall – Lower Regent Street London W1 1932-33c, letter from Hill to Constance Spry (1/2/1933 (...)

21Both of Hill’s ensembles seemed to have suffered from misunderstandings, as the stone and glass room were never meant to be taken at face value. Hill particularly objected to comments regarding his stone exhibit mentioning that he merely had no other purpose than to demonstrate the beauty of English Portland stone.”38 However, comments regarding the exclusivity of certain exhibits indicated a more deeply rooted problem with how the masses were to be “educated.” Hill’s imaginative and enjoyable displays and their use of luxurious materials were viewed with suspicion by fellow exhibitors such as Serge Chermayeff and Wells Coates who in their eyes were working tirelessly to “civilize” the working-class taste. Voicing his concern Coates wrote to Hill in 1932:

• 40 Serge Chermayeff, 1935, cited in Alan Powers, Serge Chermayeff: Designer Architect Teacher, London, (...)

22Chermayeff was to say later that “[u]nfortunately, decorative mountains have been made out of Oliver Hill, which loom large in the public eye but do not represent the industrial machine age at all.”40

• 41 James Maude Richards, “Modern Architecture and The Public: The M.A.R.S Exhibition,” The Architectur (...)
• 42 Elizabeth Darling, Wells Coates, London, RIBA Publishing, 2012, p. 21.
• 43 Exhibition of British Industrial Art in Relation to the Home, Dorland Hall, London, June-July 1933. (...)

23These and Hill’s visions of the exhibits highlight seemingly competing attitudes towards modern architecture and its public. According to architects like Coates and Chermayeff, there was a bogus modernism (more than likely a reference to the work of people such as Hill) which “assumes the transitory or accidental characteristics of the real thing and exploits its fashion value, without possessing either its rational justification or its artistic integrity.”41 The “real thing” that was referred to was design that insisted on simplicity and viewed decoration as desecration.42 Bogus modernism on the other hand embraced and responded to various changes in architecture and society and was therefore deemed as superficial hence unable to educate the public in matters of “good” design as this kind of modernism demonstrated luxury and glamor instead of the sober functionalism of the “real thing.” Such ideas were to be exemplified by the “Minimum Flat” by Coates (Ill. 4) and the “Weekend House” by Chermayeff (Ill. 5). Although these exhibits are usually described as examples that promote the social role of architecture, I want to argue that all of the exhibits can be interpreted in this way. The exhibitors had one goal in mind namely “elevating the consumer’s taste.” Both viewpoints were incorporated within the exhibition manifesto as the section on the exhibits states: “The principles that the committee will have before them are: (1) Sound and economical design (i.e. suitability for industrial production), (2) Fitness for purpose, (3) The imaginative use of materials.”43

• 45 Christine Atha, “Dirt and Disorder: Taste and Anxiety in the Homes of the British Working Class,” i (...)
• 46 Pevsner, An Enquiry, op. cit., p. 201.

25As Christine Atha has rightfully pointed out, such comments point towards established social mores.45 The moral duty that Pevsner was referring to was specifically aimed at reforming the British working classes, as it was deemed by him that their homes and tastes were deplorable. He believed that design reform would ameliorate this situation. Such an idea would increasingly become part of the political agenda after the Second World War. Showy and pompous design (which referred to design by architects such as Hill) would not help in elevating the taste of the masses but would just add to the distance between the wealthy and the poor which, according to Pevsner, was larger in England than in central Europe. It was therefore “one of the reasons why England has been late in adopting this international style.” Pevsner suggested that “[…] a style of our age must be an unexclusive style, and its merits must be collective merits not distinguishing one individual or one class.”46 The “Bond Street Flavour” of Hill’s designs were therefore deemed by some as socially unaware.

• 47 It is important to note, as Robin Schuldenfrei has pointed out, that modernism was never truly able (...)

26Nevertheless, Hill’s designs for the Dorland Hall proved to be huge hits, which showed that they provided pleasure and joy. They held value for visitors, as the visual imagery was helpful in educating the consumer by showing the public what was possible and acceptable. The financial success of the exhibition showed that Hill was fully aware of what commercial forces drove the mass market. In my opinion it was this understanding of the mass market which made the exhibition such a success. As the Dorland Hall exhibition was organized on a shoestring budget, it was imperative that the exhibitors didn’t go home with any financial burden. Instead, it was paramount to focus on the consumer of moderate means as well as attracting the higher end of the market; the people that would be able to buy the goods on display.47 The consumer was therefore seen as an active participant in the exhibition’s overall success instead of merely being passive.

• 48 Exhibition of British Industrial Art in Relation to the Home, Dorland Hall, London, June-July 1933. (...)
• 49 Friedman, Selling Good Design, op. cit., p. 19.
• 50 Exhibition of British Industrial Art in Relation to the Home, Dorland Hall, London, June-July 1933. (...)
• 51 Exhibition of British Industrial Art in Relation to the Home, Dorland Hall, London, June-July 1933. (...)

27The role of the press also needs to be acknowledged as another important factor in the success of the Dorland Hall exhibition. Extensive press coverage played a big part in the success, or lack of it. The exhibition committee decided to pay for advertising in newspapers such as The Times, the Observer, The Morning Post, the Daily Telegraph as well as weeklies such as The Listener and the New Statesman. It was further suggested that sandwich men might be useful and if funds became available later on, it was decided to approach more specialist magazines such as the Architectural Review, the Architects’ Journal and Design for Today. The committee prioritized the publicity committee as first in line to receive the “gate money for re-investment in advertising propaganda.”48 The wide range of magazines and newspapers evidences that the organizers were keen to communicate their ideas to a broad public, thereby giving the impression that not attending would be the equivalent to missing out an event of great importance.49 To further ensure success the organizing committee decided on a “behind the scenes” party called “cocktails and confusion” (a title more telling of its organizer than the exhibition itself) (Ill. 8) held at the Dorland Hall on June 15^th 1933. Hosted by Lady Mount Temple, it was agreed that “various gossip writers attached to the daily press should be invited” and it was deemed beneficial that this party should be held on a Thursday or Friday “in order to enable the Sunday papers to benefit.”50 Exhibitors were involved as they were also seen as in the habit of advertising and “should be persuaded to tie-up their advertising with the exhibition.”51