The Decorative Arts Society 1850 to the Present

Ceramics at the Festival of Britain 1951: Selection and ObjectionAuthor(s): Andrew CaseySource: The Journal of the Decorative Arts Society 1850 - the Present, No. 25, Decorative Art:Exhibitions and Celebrations (2001), pp. 74-86Published by: The Decorative Arts Society 1850 to the PresentStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41809315 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 19:24

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The Decorative Arts Society 1850 to the Present is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Journal of the Decorative Arts Society 1850 - the Present.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.96 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:24:01 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Ceramics at the Festival of

Britain 1951: Selection and

Objection

Andrew Casey

In 1951 the mid-century landmark event of the Festival of Britain presented the British public with renewed hope and optimism after so many years of austerity, rationing and poverty. It gave everyone a new vision of a better world - not least a firm break from the past. Most importantly it provided British industry with a platform to present the new developments in the arts, sciences, technology and industrial design. It also provided a glimpse of the future, displaying the 'contemporary style' that set the tone for the subsequent decade.

This paper focuses on the industrial ceramics shown at the Festival, examining the important issues and debates on the selection, the displays of British pottery and the reactions and objections stated clearly by the pottery trade press. I do not intend here to list the many pottery manufacturers and their exhibits. The various archives such as the Design Council, have not yet been fully catalogued. Information, particularly on those pottery manufacturers that may have submitted details of current lines but were rejected, has not materialised. For instance, there is no mention in the official lists of exhibits of any examples of pottery from Royal Staffordshire Ltd., A. G. Richardson's Ltd., (Crown Ducal) and W.R. Midwinter Ltd. These manufacturers are known to have been active prior to the event and during the post war years. Therefore, the author will focus on four contrasting manufacturers both in terms of size of production and their position within the industry. These are Susie Cooper Ltd, a small independent manufacturer, the Shelley Potteries Ltd, and the larger established companies including Josiah Wedgwood and Sons Ltd and W.T. Copeland (Spode).

Concern over the poor industrial performance of British industry was already an important issue prior to the Second World War. Despite several aborted attempts to promote the importance of good design during the twenties and thirties with bodies such as the British Institute of Industrial Arts, not much progress was made. In 1934, following the Gorrell Report, the British Government founded the Council for Art and Industry, aiming to educate consumers, raise standards and train designers. Unfortunately this Council was brought to a stop with the start of the Second World War. However a successor, the Council of Industrial Design (COID) was established in 1944. This organisation would take the leading role in the exhibition of 1851.

Why the Festival of Britain? As early as 1943 suggestions were made by the Royal Society of Arts

that some kind of festival should be organised to commemorate the Great Exhibition of 1851. In September 1945 Gerald Barry, the editor of the News Chronicle, sent an open letter to Sir Stafford Cripps, President of the Board ofTrade, to push the idea of an event. Subsequently the Government set up the Ramsden Committee to consider the possibility. The committee then decided that what should be organised was a, 'Universal international exhibition, to demonstrate to the world the recovery of the United Kingdom from the effects of the war in the moral, spiritual and material fields.' 1

The Labour Government of Clement Atlee with Home Secretary Herbert Morrison decided to wholly finance the event. Throughout the development of the project, the committee encountered several major problems. Firstly a decision was needed as to where it should take place.Various suggestions such as Hyde Park, Earls Court and Olympia, were rejected. After three years of indecision a home for the Festival was found on the South Bank of the River Thames. However, following years of poverty, shortage of materials and a decade of war and deprivation, by 1947 the event was reduced from an international exposition to a national event - a reassessment, a moral booster, a time for fun and fantasy - 'a tonic to the nation' (fig. 1). 2

Fig. l.The cover of the Official Festival of Britain 1951 Programme

74

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.96 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:24:01 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Unlike the Great Exhibition of 1851 the Festival would display only products made in this country. In order to tell the story of British achievements in science, technology and design the exhibition was conceived as a narrative and was arranged in three parts-The Land, The People and The Dome of Discovery (fig. 2). To complement the London event exhibitions were staged across the country. The HMS Campania (fig. 3), an old aircraft carrier, was refitted as a floating exhibition that toured the ports of Britain, including Southampton and Glasgow. The Land Exhibition, consisting of a fleet of one hundred lorries, visited four cities-Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester and Nottingham.

The 1951 Exhibition drew on the lessons from the first major exhibition of new products and industrial design after the war, entitled, Britain Can Make It. It was put together at the Victoria and Albert Museum in London in 1946, The wide selection of goods on display included a range of industrial ceramics from Poole Pottery and A. E. Gray & Co. Ltd., as well as those manufacturers discussed in this paper.3 The exhibited ceramics were selected in Stoke-on-Trent by amongst others Susie Cooper and Eric Slater. Although part of the aim of the exhibition was to show the public what would be available once restrictions were lifted, in the event the show was heavily criticised by the public and press of the period as most of the goods were prototypes or not yet in production. So bad was the feeling that the show was dubbed, 'Britain Can Make It, but Britain Can't Have It.' The public would have to wait for six years until restrictions were lifted on the sale of goods

on the home market.4 Perhaps, as a result of this experience the COID

decided to introduce a selection procedure that would both avoid such problems and perhaps more importantly, keep all the artistic decisions on selection in their full control. They informed, or perhaps, warned industry that the exhibition would not be a trade fair but tell the story of British life. A well-designed object, according to the COID, had to be pleasing to the eye, efficient in use and soundly made whether by machine or hand. All contemporary exhibits had to be approved by the Council of Industrial Design.

In order to secure the widest possible representation of British goods of the highest quality, several public announcements were made and in November 1949 an informative booklet entitled Notes for Industry on the Í95Í Exhibition was published. This was widely distributed around the industry.

Manufacturers were invited to submit what they thought were good examples of their best design in current production. This selection seems to have created the first of many problems in that some manufacturers were not in the business of producing 'contemporary' pottery but specialised in the traditional lines that had been in production for many years. In total five thousand firms submitted details of over twenty thousand products. This information formed the basis of the Stock List (fig. 4). From the extensive collection of goods in the list the individual designers responsible for creating the various pavilions and room settings made their own selection. This important reference was later developed

Fig. 2. An artists impression of the Festival of Britain 1951. Collection of John Barter

75

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.96 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:24:01 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Fig. 3. (above) The Festival ship Campania. Collection of John Barter

Fig. 4. A period photograph showing the Stock List. Note the examples of Poole Pottery in the photograph. Reproduced by kind permission of the Design Council

76

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.96 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:24:01 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Fig. 5. The Design Index Room as it was presented at the Festival of Britain 1951. Reproduced by kind permission of the Design Council

into the Design Index, a pictorial reference library of over twenty thousand photographs of items in commercial production. Each entry included a detailed description of the item, date, commercial production design features and price (fig. 5).

Although all industrial products had to be accepted by the COID and entered on to the Stock List, there were a number of important exceptions, such as outstanding examples of fine porcelain, that demonstrated the country's long standing heritage of good design. Many of these were exhibited in the Lion and Unicorn Pavilion. On the other hand some of the exhibits were shown without being selected by the committee. A famous instance is Lucienne Day s 'Calyx' textile design, which was not intended to be submitted, but was chosen by her husband Robin Day, who was responsible for a room setting in the Homes and Gardens pavilion, as he had found the Stock List fabrics to be too staid. It went on to become one of the great successes of the Festival (fig. 6). 5

The devastation of war had taken its toll on the pottery industry. Whilst some manufacturers were involved with the production of Utility wares, under

Fig. 6. An example of the 'Calyx' pattern designed by Lucienne Day for Heals

77

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.96 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:24:01 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

the strict control of the British Government, during the war many of the smaller family run businesses had been forced to close. Yet despite the shortages of materials and restrictions on the sales of goods, the industry had been able to start up again. By the time that the COID had begun the publicity campaign to promote the forthcoming Festival many of the manufacturers were producing a wide range of transfer printed patterns depicting stylised flowers or countryside scenes, chiefly targeted at the North American market. For example, Josiah Wedgwood and Sons Ltd., renowned for their innovative approach to design, launched a number of these patterns to meet this important market. The smaller, more flexible manufacturers such as the Susie Cooper Pottery and Shelley Potteries Ltd were able to experiment with contemporary hand painted patterns. Over several months the trade press featured a range of wares that were, as they declared, 'Designed for Export.'6

The Festival of Britain provided an important opportunity for the pottery industry to show the recent developments in pottery production and decoration and at the same time demonstrate to the public how pottery was made and decorated. Moreover, due to the national restrictions of sales of new goods, this would be the first opportunity for the British public to see new designs. The pottery trade must have seen the forthcoming event as a unique occasion to promote the industry and gain further international sales of goods. During the early part of 1949 the industry staged a special Design Week that included a lecture by Gordon Russell outlining the forthcoming Festival. This visit provided an opportunity for the various associations and individual manufacturers to ask questions about what forms the exhibition would take and how the pottery would be displayed. The trade press reported that Gordon Russell, 'assured them that it would be done fairly to give the highest possible standard. ' 7

However, A.E. Hewitt the President of the North Staffordshire Chamber of Commerce pointed out that, 'we feel that in the past we have never had the opportunity of showing what we think is good design, not since the Wedgwood Bicentenary in 1930. We feel that we have always been in the hands of adjudicators in London who do not quite choose the things we think should be shown, the pottery trade were not content'.8 They were not pleased that they did not have any significant input other than the individual manufacturers sending in details of the examples for consideration for the Stock List. Historically, the pottery industry resented the outside design groups, organisations and official bodies that attempted to dictate to them how to improve design, production and other aspects of running a successful business especially when, as they saw it, they had no real understanding of how the industry was run.

Bearing in mind this resentment it is little wonder that the pottery trade press became defensive and spoke

out against the strict demands made by the COID and the Festival Committee. The COID, as evidenced in the various published sources, wanted to stay clear of the traditional period forms and patterns. The pottery trade strongly believed that this would severely disadvantage the industry and undermine them on the international market, that had become extremely profitable from sales of the sort ofthing that the COID wanted to avoid. The first signs of hostility from the trade became evident in April 1949 when the COID indicated that the Stock List would be made up from wares of contemporary design and that designs classed as 'retrospective' and 'reproduction' would be excluded whatever their merit. The pottery trade press responded immediately by stating, 'it means that a large part of the best ware currently produced and sold overseas will be disqualified.' and added that if, 'the aim and object of the Festival is to glorify British achievement. Can it be to our benefit to hide away products which have proved themselves unbeatable over the years?' 9

Whilst it was commendable that the COID wanted to present a contemporary style and demonstrate the latest advances in design, it did seem unlikely that the many pottery manufacturers would be able to develop and introduce a new range of contemporary patterns. Development of new shapes was also ruled out as this process took, in the best circumstances, some considerable amount of time but under austerity measures this was completely out of the question. Moreover, if the pottery manufacturers were to produce only contemporary patterns and shapes the trade press pointed out that,

the next eighteen months are going to be the busiest the designers have ever known. But does the Council really believe that there are enough competent designers for this immense project? No, the Council has already recognised that the regeneration of British industry is gravely handicapped by an acute shortage of good designers. So we are left to deduce that, in the Council's view, a plethora of new and hurried designs (one or two good and many bad) will prove a blessing to the industries concerned and a powerful stimulus to the export trade. We beg to differ.10 With such strong responses and firm rejection of

the official selection strategy by the pottery trade it is possible that the COID reconsidered and relaxed the rules slightly, although there is no evidence to prove this. However, several existing photographs and reviews of the Festival show many of the 'period styles' that were not desired by the COID. A few months after the Festival the Architectural Review made a number of critical comments suggesting that the Festival should not have shown the aesthetically undisciplined skill that was a characteristic of British pottery. They continued by stating that the COID, instead of challenging the trade, should have concentrated on the work of those

78

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.96 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:24:01 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

firms that reached a high design standard. As an example they illustrated a Susie Cooper pattern decorated on a 'Kestrel' tureen.

The pottery trade felt strongly that, beyond the imposed selection strategy, they also had no say in the planning, layout or presentation of the selected pottery and that there was a general lack of advance information and more importantly, inadequate trade press liaison. With regard to how the pottery was displayed they commented, ' whoever had been responsible for display had not only refrained from naming the manufacturer, but had so arranged exhibits that backstamps and catalogue numbers could be read only by contortionists/1 1 They went much further to say that,

in many instances plates, cups, and saucers were literally glued to the surfaces, thus effectively sealing off all identification. As not more than one person in every thousand visiting the exhibition is likely to be able to recognise the manufacturer from the style and quality of the decoration, the display arrangements call for severe criticism.12 Despite the many arguments and heated debates in

the trade press the selected and exhibited examples of pottery were on the whole outstanding. The majority demonstrated the criteria as laid down by the COID a few years earlier. The pottery manufacturers with work on display included Booths & Colcloughs Ltd., Wood and Sons Ltd., Worcester Royal Porcelain Co., Ltd., J. and G. Meakin Ltd., E. Brain and Co. Ltd., Doulton and Co Ltd, Johnson Brothers Ltd, Mintons Ltd, R.H. & S.L. Plant Ltd, and T.C. Wild and Sons Ltd. Alongside these were a number of studio potters including David Leach, Lucie Rie and Dora Billington.

One of the most outstanding exhibitors was the Susie Cooper Pottery Ltd., established in 1929. Susie Cooper (1902-1995) became an independent pottery designer and manufacturer during the thirties. She was unique in that she owned and managed her own company. During the twenties she worked as designer at A.E.Gray and Co. Ltd (Gray's) but left in 1929 to set up her company in Burslem. During the thirties she produced a wide range of sets and compositions, in cheaper earthenwares, raised standards of lithography and received international acclaim. Her slogan was 'Elegance with Utility.' In 1940 she was awarded the honour of becoming a Royal Designer for Industry. Moreover, she was highly regarded by the members of the COID.

One of Susie Cooper's greatest skills was to anticipate the mood of the day and to respond to both the limitations and the possibilities of pottery production, which enabled her to develop new ideas during the immediate post-war period. As a result of a devastating fire at her factory in 1947 and subsequent loss of her lithographic sheets she had returned to hand painted decoration. Cooper used themes of nature such as stylised leaves and ferns in natural greens and browns, for a range of hand painted patterns such as 'Chinese

Fig. 7. An earthenware dinner plate decorated with the 'Tree of Life' pattern, designed by Susie Cooper in about 1945-47. Whilst this pattern was not exhibited at the Festival it is stylistically related to a number of her patterns shown including 'Chinese Fern'. Kind permission of the Antique Collectors' Club

Fern' and 'Tree of Life' (plate 7). For the Festival several examples of her current production were selected for exhibition across the many pavilions and on HMS Campania. To start afresh after the war Cooper moved into the production of bone china anticipating a change in taste. The majority of Cooper's work exhibited at the Festival was designed in about 1946-47. Apart from a few exceptions these patterns are less well known today, as they were for export and the pattern books, now held in the Wedgwood Museum, do not record them all. The range of hand painted patterns using stylised leaf motifs such as the pattern (2066) decorated on an earthenware plaque, was shown in the Entertainment at Home Section (catalogue no. E812) whilst 'Winters Leaf' (2081) (catalogue no.Y807) was shown on one of the many island stands. Other subtle designs including (2242), a stylised leaf pattern decorated on a dinner plate (catalogue no. Y808), designed in about 1950 and an abstract leaf pattern (2095) decorated on dessert plates, from about 1947 (catalogue no.Y809). One pattern that is well known today is her 'Chinese Fern' (2077) displayed on an earthenware plaque and jug. This pattern was later revised and called 'Highland Grass' (231 1) in about 1956. One of the enduring themes in her work was star motifs. Just before the festival she introduced the simple 'Starbursť (2067) pattern. Examples of this were shown within the Land Travelling Exhibition. Her popular 'Faenza pattern' (2038), was first designed during the late thirties but updated for current tastes and shown on tableware (catalogue no. B663) and displayed on the Festival ship (fig. 8).

79

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.96 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:24:01 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Fig. 8. An earthenware tureen and cover, soup dish and stand and plate decorated with the 'Faenza' pattern. Designed by Susie Cooper. Trustees of the Victoria and Albert Museum

As early as 1950 the Faculty of Royal Designers commissioned Cooper to produce a set of sixty cups and saucers for a reception to be held in honour of HRH Princess Elizabeth in November 1950. Cooper chose the Lion and Unicorn theme for this occasion. The ware was aerographed in either mahogany or blue with the pattern taken out of the colour by the sgraffitto method and finished with gilt decoration (these items were not shown at the Festival of Britain). A number of Royal Designers were asked to contribute to the Royal Pavilion. Cooper was commissioned to produce the tableware. For this she created the 'Gold Bud' (C.163) pattern on her newly organically styled bone china 'Quail' shape. To complement this set Cooper produced the 'Lion, Unicorn and Cockerel' pattern for a set of biscuit plates (fig. 9).

In complete contrast to the contemporary patterns and shapes produced by Cooper were the more traditionally styled patterns by W.T. Copeland (known today as Spode). The company was founded by Josiah Spode and became known for the production of bone china wares. The 'Blue Italian' pattern, first introduced in 1816, is still in production today. During the twentieth century they did respond to fashion trends and produced a limited range in the Art Deco manner, albeit rather restrained and without any of the

Fig. 9. Three examples of the bone china biscuit plates designed by Susie Cooper for the Royal Pavilion. Image courtesy ofThe Trustees of the Wedgwood Museum, Barlaston, Staffordshire

80

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.96 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:24:01 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Fig. 10. The 'Rhododendron' pattern designed by Harold Holdway in about 1942 for Spode. Courtesy of Spode Museum

Fig. 11. The 'Andromeda' pattern. Courtesy of Spode Museum

vulgarities associated with this style. The company, on the whole, produced more traditional wares that were best sellers.

The range of Spode exhibited at the Festival had a nineteenth century look. However, according to company literature these items were updated utilising new decorative processes. This probably explains why they were selected. A number of original Spode items were chosen for a display of the best of English tradition in the Lion and Unicorn Pavilion. Contemporary patterns were shown across the Festival with a notable example being 'Tropical Flowers-Orchids' (Y.5552), a multi-motif pattern first introduced in about 1876, although this version was introduced in 1938. A similar range was the 'Rhododendron' pattern (Y6638). Again featuring several different motifs, this classic and opulent pattern, although designed by Harold Holdway in 1942 for the North American market, was styled as though from the previous century (fig. 10). The pattern was shown across the Festival both in the 'Lion and Unicorn' Pavilion (K520) with a 'Stafford' shape 'Rhododendron' Service plate on display in the Power and Production Pavilion (catalogue no. Y7051). A set of six plates decorated with this pattern were shown as part of the Land Travelling Exhibition (catalogue no. D670).13

In complete contrast to the more traditionally styled designs, the 'Andromeda' pattern (Y7166) was clearly an attempt at a more contemporary look (fig. 11). The publicity material noted that that pattern was, 'Styled for the modern home in the clean, simple manner of today, and yet possessing a character that would allow of its use with period furnishings.' 14 This pattern was shown within the Power and Production Pavilion (catalogue no. S513). In retrospect it was probably too overtly contemporary and has clearly dated. This was

shown alongside the traditionally styled 'Camilla' pattern (R1464) decorated on a tureen (catalogue no. S504).

Spode took a whole page advertisement in the official booklet for the Festival and interestingly chose to select a traditional pattern called 'Tournai' (Y6572). Other exhibits included a puce and gold free hand pattern (Y7147) decorated on a 'Hamburg' shape plate and a floral centre pattern (Y6779) on the 'Stafford' shape. For the Entertainment at Home Pavilion a coffee set (Y4033), decorated with a red band and gold leaf decorated on the 'St. James' shape was selected (catalogue E815). Spode was also shown on the Festival boat Campania with pattern (Y2198), decorated on a 'Gadroon' shaped plate, cover dish and cream soup.

In contrast to the updating of patterns by Spode, Wedgwood had an already well-established reputation for the production of twentieth century patterns alongside their well known basalt and jasper lines, and were at the forefront of modern design. At the Festival of Britain they showed an extensive, if contrasting, range of ceramics. Since their foundation in 1759 they had a long history of employing freelance designers and artists, that kept them ahead of their competitors. However, during the early part of the twentieth century, following the Wall Street Crash and subsequent economic problems in Britain, Wedgwood was faced with financial difficulties. As a result many expensive lines such as the Fairyland Lustre by Daisy Makeig-Jones (1881-1947) were withdrawn. To overcome this situation they introduced a range of stylish but cheaper goods to appeal to a wider market. In 1934Victor Skellern (1909-1966) was appointed Art Director for the company. Throughout the thirties Skellern, alongside other designers such as Millicent Taplin (1902-1980),

81

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.96 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:24:01 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

produced a range of Art Deco styled patterns such as Persian Ponies, Forest Folk and Seasons. Skellern was also credited with attracting many freelance designers who contributed to Wedgwoods success during this period. The decision to contract freelance designers was both economical and artistic.

A notable choice was Keith Murray RDI (1892- 1981). This established designer known for his glass designs for Stevens and Williams Ltd was contracted by Wedgwood during the early thirties to produce a number of modern wares, such as vases and bowls decorated with matt glazes that proved very popular. He was appointed to the Faculty of Royal Designers in 1936. These stylish and architecturally inspired shapes met with a good response from the COID. His work was shown throughout the Festival, with a number of jars (shape 4216) and a vase (4217) displayed in the Entertainment at Home Room (catalogue no. E807) whilst an earthenware vase, probably designed by Keith Murray, was shown in the Best Room in the Festival Exhibition (catalogue no. D863). Wedgwood pottery was used for the popular Homes and Gardens Pavilion and for the Things for the Two Year Old Room that featured an example of the Peter Rabbit range of nursery wares, introduced a year earlier. Other notable

exhibits included 'Penelope' (fig. 12) and 'Taurus the Bull' by Arnold Machin, the latter was shown in the Bed Sitting Room (catalogue no. 1248). A classic Wedgwood shape from the nineteenth century was the 'Nautilus' shell given an update with a new pink glaze (catalogue no. D861).

Furthermore, as Keith Murray was a Royal Designer for Industry, a number of his wares were on display in the Royal Pavilion. Amongst these items were shapes from about 1934-1936 such as the classically styled twin-handled vase decorated with a celadon glaze. These were shown alongside a few more recent shapes with one featuring a solid banded base in silver lustre.

Alongside these contemporary styled shapes Wedgwood also showed the latest developments in transfer printed patterns pioneered by Victor Skellern and his team. Skellern was held in great esteem and therefore able to convince the management that the production of transfer printed patterns could be successfully used by the company, whilst still maintaining their reputation for high quality. A number were reproduced on lithograph such as 'Green Leaf' and 'Charnwooď, both exhibited amongst many other examples (fig. 13). The latter, a modern reworking of an earlier Wedgwood pattern, was shown throughout

Fig. 12. 'Penelope' by Arnold Machin. Image courtesy of The Trustees of the Wedgwood Museum, Barlaston, Staffordshire

82

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.96 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:24:01 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

the exhibitions and on tableware (catalogue no. F632), and on the Festival ship. A number of printed patterns were exhibited in the Lion and Unicorn Pavilion that included 'Cathay' (catalogue no. C548) "Napoleon Ivy' (catalogue no. C524) and 'Charnwooď.

The Shelley Potteries Ltd., originally established as Wileman & Co in 1853 with a name change in 1925 to Shelley, was well known for high-class bone china products. During the early thirties, under the direction of Eric Slater they had taken a new direction with shapes and patterns styled in the art deco idiom. Eric Slater (1902-1984) was born into a family of designers. His father was Art Director for Wileman and Co. Ltd., from 1905. Eric Slater, educated in the art colleges in Stoke- on- Trent, pioneered an innovative use of decorative techniques allied with modern shapes. During the late twenties he introduced a slightly more progressive approach, albeit still traditional, and by the early thirties he had developed a number of Art Deco bone china tea ware shapes such as 'Vogue' and 'Mode', which caused a sensation. These modern, if not dramatic shapes, featuring triangular filled in handles, were a departure for the company and did much to present a contemporary look. Although visually appealing they were not practical, as the solid triangular handles proved

unpopular with customers. In response Slater created several functional shapes such as 'Regent' that proved very popular when decorated with stylish painted floral patterns. A number of his works were exhibited at the Britain Can Make It Exhibition in 1946, including large bowls and ashtrays decorated with stylised leaves. These items were aerographed in colour with the pattern taken out with a skewer and were a foretaste of the work that he would submit to the Stock List for the Festival.15

Shelley Pottery was shown across the many Pavilions, the Land Travelling Exhibition and on the ship. The majority were traditionally styled with some more experimental items to give balance. In the Minerals of the Island Pavilion under the silica and limestone section Shelley exhibited a bowl (catalogue no. H536) described as 'lustre cut-out bowl by Eric Slater.' (fig. 14). Three patterns were displayed in the Power and Production Pavilion (fig. 15). These included 'Mountain Ash' (13656) (catalogue no. S562), 'Carlisle' (catalogue no. Y806) and 'Vernon' (catalogue no.Y805).

Further tableware patterns were shown in both the Homes and Gardens and Lion and Unicorn Pavilions. The lesser known 'Summer Rose' (catalogue no. K530) was shown alongside the 'Idalium' (catalogue no. K543), a new pattern, not to be confused with another

Fig. 13. Various tea wares decorated with the 'Charnwooď pattern. Image courtesy of The Trustees of the Wedgwood Museum, Barlaston, Staffordshire

83

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.96 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:24:01 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Fig. 14. A lustre bowl designed by Eric Slater for the Shelley Potteries Ltd. Courtesy of the Shelley Group

'Idalium' pattern originally introduced during the twenties. A twelve place setting of 'Idalium' was displayed on the Festival ship. More unusual were the series of jars and a lustre bowl. The latter may have featured a silver lustre laurel border (fig. 17). These were displayed in the Best Room of the People at Home Section (catalogue no. D854/D.855). Little information is available on a series of decorated jars probably by Slater and exhibited in the Entertainment at Home section (catalogue no. E808). Other patterns included 'Gold Bridal Wreath' (13658), 'Vine Leaf' (13659) and 'Simplicity' (13655). The latter was illustrated in the handbook Design in the Festival , An Illustrated Review of British Goods. Despite this pattern being illustrated in the book an actual example has never come to light

(fig. 18). Recent research by John Barter of the Shelley Collectors Group has highlighted an interesting discovery. He noted that, 'Of all the patterns, pots and shapes exhibited none are well-known to today's collectors.'16

The Shelley Pottery took part, with other manufacturers, in the demonstration area of the Power and Production Pavilion. Each individual factory was allocated a period of two weeks to demonstrate the various techniques of decoration.The twelve companies that took part were Carter Stabler and Adams (Poole), Susie Cooper Ltd., Spode, Doulton, Grays, Johnson Brothers, Minton, Plants, Shelley and Wedgwood. 17 Part of the aim was to encourage the general public to appreciate how ceramics were decorated. One of the designers for Shelley Pottery, John Evans was very intimidated as the public tended to get too close and he had to respond to the many questions they asked him.18

In conclusion the Festival of Britain, despite all the bad press and heated debates between the COID and the pottery trade, did present an important opportunity to show examples of current pottery production to a much wider public. It had been at times a stormy process. The pottery trade objected to the imposition of selection process that they felt would harm the pottery industry that had just started to recover after the war and the fact that many produced period styles, they felt, should not disqualify them from exhibiting at the Festival. On the other hand, the COID was keen to

Fig. 15. The Power and Production Pavilion. Collection of John Barter

84

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.96 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:24:01 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Fig. 16. A typical pattern by Eric Slater designed about the time of the Festival of Britain

Fig. 17. A silver lustre bowl designed by Eric Slater. Courtesy of the Shelley Group

improve design and subsequently promote British industry with the slogan, 'Good Design, Good Business.'

The pottery industry were also keen to improve quality of design but as they saw it, there were many different markets from traditional to contemporary, the latter suited to the younger generation that wanted something different from what their parents used. To show just one type of ware would be unfair.

The four selected pottery manufacturers studied in this paper responded differently to the challenges of modern design and to the criteria for selection. All were, however, united in that they saw the importance of good design and employed one or more designers.

In response to the failures of the Festival the pottery trade did what it always had done. They staged a large exhibition of pottery at the Kings Hall, Burslem in Stoke-on-Trent, allowing equal space for each exhibitor regardless of the size of the company. From the published illustrations and supporting text in the trade press it is evident that several manufacturers not featured

Fig. 18. A lesser-known pattern by Eric Slater illustrated in the official book Design at the Festival, An Illustrated Review of British Goods. Courtesy of the Shelley Group

at the Festival were displayed here. Whether they were rejected or chose not to send in details will probably remain unknown.

There remain many issues of design and production to be discussed more fully. It is hoped that this research will provide a starting point for others to explore the subject and to uncover new material. Some twelve years after the Festival a book entitled Age of Austerity 1945- Ì95Ì was published. One of the contributors, Michael Frayn, wrote a chapter discussing the Festival which gave a truer picture of the event. He commented that the event was for the radical middle classes and the do- gooders. He described them as being 'Herbivores', who looked out from the privileged position in British society, that they felt was their natural station in life, feeling sorrowful for the less fortunate.19 In some respects these comments express the conflict between the design establishment, based in London, who wanted to instil into the manufacturers from the Potteries the notion of good contemporary design, without any understanding of the processes and limitations of an industry employing thousands of people.

Acknowledgements The author would like to thank the following people

that have contributed to the development of this article. These include Alex Werner, John Davis from the Design Council, Pam Woolliscroft from the Spode Museum, Ann Eatwell, Diana Macmillan, John Barter and Linda Ellis from the Shelley Collectors Club, the staff at the British Library, Susan Bennett from the Royal Society of Arts, Lynn Miller from the Wedgwood Museum, Frank Lockhart and Martin Packer.

85

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.96 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:24:01 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Andrew Casey is a specialist in twentieth century ceramics. He has written two books on the subject: Susie Cooper Ceramics- A Collectors Guide , Jazz Publications (1992) and Twentieth Century Ceramic Designers in Britain, Antique Collectors' Club (2001). He is currently co-editing with Ann Eatwell the centenary book on Susie Cooper to be published in 2002. Andrew has curated several exhibitions of ceramics and writes for various magazines. He is a lecturer of art and design at the Suffolk College, Ipswich.

Bibliography Books

Eatwell, A., Susie Cooper Productions, Victoria and Albert Museum, 1987.

Hill, S., The Shelley Style, Jazz Publications, 1990. Batkin, M., Wedgwood Ceramics 1846-Í959: A New

Appraisal, Richard Dennis, 1980. Atterbury, P., Paul Denker, E., and Batkin, M.,

Twentieth- Century Ceramics: A Collectors Guide to British and North American Factory Produced Ceramics, Miller's, 1999.

Articles

'1851 and 1951', Pottery Gazette and Glass Trade Review, February 1950, p.205.

'Pottery and Glass at the Festival', Pottery Gazette and Glass Trade Review, June 1951, pp.905-906.

'Festival Exhibition of Pottery', Pottery Gazette and Glass Trade Review, July 1951, p. 11 00.

'Pottery decorating at the Festival', Pottery Gazette and GlassTrade Review, July 1951, ppl095-1096.

NOTES 1 Quote taken from: McCarthy, F., All Things Bright and Beautiful , British Design 1 830 to Today , Allen and Unwin, 1972. 2 For further information: Banham, M., and Hillier, B., (editors) A Tonic to the Nation:The Festival of Britain 1951, Thames and Hudson, 1976. 3 'Pottery and Glassware at the Britain Can Make It Exhibition', Pottery Gazette and Glass Trade Review, November 1946, pp.728-729. 4 See for further information: Sparke, P., (editor) Did Britain Make It? British Design in Context 1946-86, The Design Council, 1986. 5 Lucienne Day in conversation with the author, May 1993. For further information on the work of both Robin and Lucienne Day see:Jackson, L., Robin and Lucienne Day: Pioneers of Contemporary Design, Mitchell Beazley (2001). 6 'Designed for Export,' Pottery Gazette and Glass Trade Review, February 1950. p.218-219. 7 'Notes and News', Pottery and Glass, April 1949, pp.48-50. 8 Ibid, p.49 9 'Pottery and Glass', Pottery and Glass, April 1949, p.37. 10 Ibid 11 'Pottery and Glassware at the Festival', Pottery Gazette and Glass Trade Review, June 1951 pp 905-906. 12 Ibid. 13 Information from the Spode Museum, Stoke-on-Trent. 14 Information from company publicity material. 15 Information from John Barter, Shelley Collectors Group. 16 Ibid. 17 'Pottery Decorating at the Festival', Pottery Gazette and Glass Trade Review, July 1951. 18 John Evans in conversation with the author, April 2001. 19 See Age of Austerity 1945-1951, Penguin Books 1964.

86

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.96 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 19:24:01 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions