We have received from the chairman of the Furnishing Fabrics Advisory Committee of the Royal Academy Exhibition of British Art in Industry the following letter, which comments on part of the leading article in the February issue of “ Design for To-day ” :—
Sir,—I am writing this letter after having read the article appearing in the February number of Design for To-day, entitled “ A Challenge.”
For many years I have been a member of the Design and Industries Association, but this does not give me any particular right to question your contributors’ comments. My reason is, I think, established on much firmer ground. On page 46, sub-heading “ A Dangerous Failure,” the writer of your article, referring to textiles, asks the question—How many have been designed by British artists at all ?
In view of the publicity given to the Royal Academy Exhibition of British Art in Industry for some considerable time, I cannot believe your contributor was ignorant of the aims, objects and regulations of the Exhibition. One of the regulations or conditions required all intending exhibitors to sign a guarantee to the effect that, not only was every article to be made in Britain, but its designer must be British working, studying or producing in this country.
I had the honour to be appointed Chairman of the Furnishing Fabrics Advisory Committee, and take the strongest possible exception to the doubt you have thrown upon the authenticity of some of the designs shown in the Gallery devoted to products of the industry I am proud to represent. I will briefly answer your question, so far as it relates to my industry. A signed form, complying with the regulations, was obtained for the goods exhibited.
I have been informed by an official of the Design and Industries Association that the Association accepts responsibility for the articles appearing in the journal. This being so, it does appear to me that the Association is lacking in consistency of outlook. In disparaging the goods now exhibited, it apparently overlooks the fact that certain firms, whose products are well represented at the Royal Academy, were approached some little time ago for Loan Collections. This request was acceded to, and textiles, certainly not superior to those now condemned, were toured the country by the Design and Industries Association during 1934 for Educational purposes. Why this sudden revulsion of feeling against even better productions ? It is likely that included amongst the touring collection certain foreign designed goods may have been shown, but I am in a position to state that the majority were entirely of British origin.
In conclusion, one of the objects of the organisers of the Royal Academy Exhibition, was to attract Overseas buyers. I cannot help feeling that your contributor will be disappointed to learn that this objective is being attained in a quite satisfactory manner.
As I have plainly answered your challenge, I expect publication of this letter in your next issue.
Yours faithfully,
EDMUND J. ARCHER, Chairman,
Furnishing Fabrics Advisory Committee,
Royal Academy Exhibition of British Art in Industry.
Roxburghe House,
287, Regent Street, London, W.1.
We are glad to have this assurance from Mr. Archer as far as it applies to the section of the textiles exhibit represented by his committee— not because we feel that our challenge has been answered or our criticism of the unwisdom of reproducing in design and in art the curse of nationalism, which has intensified world economic depression, been met, but because it gives us an opportunity to afford a measure of praise to a group of firms already notable for good and original design.
When we raised the question, we did so deliberately and with full knowledge of the rules and regulations governing the exhibition—with knowledge also of the extent to which modification and even suspension of certain of these rules and regulations had been allowed. We believed and still believe that in matter of design the procedure adopted was not calculated to produce the best results and allow our real achievement to become visible, particularly in textiles, and we are not convinced by the reasoning that consumers purchasing relatively expensive fabrics are in the habit of asking whether the design is British before purchasing them. They rely on what they conceive to be adequate and suitable for their purpose and would be alienated rather than attracted by sentimentalities about patriotic preferences.
The intelligent and cultured public has moved beyond the provincialism of club-haunting colonels and dyed-in-the-wood “ fabricants d’Empire ” ; its taste, owing largely to the pioneering work of the very firms who now protest their adherence to nationalism in design, as far as the Academy Exhibition is concerned, is genuinely exalted by first-class work, no matter what its provenance.
If the progressive furnishing fabric designers and manufacturers held an exhibition in which their work was shown in its right setting, there could be no question about the reception it would have from the discriminating public and from the critics of Design for To-day.
