'Ruskin's theories
of Gothic changed him from a critic of architecture into a critic of Victorian
society'
Discuss the truth of this observation.
This essay will
discuss the beliefs of John Ruskin (1819-1900) in relation to his thoughts on
the Victorian work ethic. The essay will draw heavily from volume two of 'The Stones of Venice' and the
chapter called 'The Nature of Gothic',
(published in 1853.) which provides the ideological core of the book.
Ruskin has been
read and dissected by many renowned authors. Landow (1982) says 'Ruskin arrived on the Victorian scene with
his interpretation of art and society at precisely the right time, for he
challenged establishments, when a large number of newly rich industrialists and
members of the middle class began to concern themselves with cultural issues'.
Many others to describe Ruskin also used the term 'Victorian Sage', and they
point to an era when writers of the 19th century looked at all
aspects of Victorian society, other than just their own speciality. Unrau
(1979) says 'That like Thomas Carlyle
and Mathew Arnold, John Ruskin frequently tries to win assent of his audiences
by assuming the tone and techniques of a sage'. Holloway (1983) takes
this onwards when he says 'That works
such as The Stones of Venice do not attempt to convince primarily by means of
rational thought or logical argumentation, but that they employ indirect,
poetical, or rhetorical means'. This is a powerful statement, and it
allows us to convert Ruskin's indirect prose into a sensible concept for the 20th
century reader.
In 'Nature of
Gothic', Ruskin uses his considerable skills in the interpretation of gothic
architecture, (and uses their method of construction by the artisans of the
era), to lead us through the essence of the chapter, which is to criticise the
effect, that 19th century industrialisation has had on the worker of
this time. He saw the effect of the repetitive unskilled workmen producing
shoddy goods for ornamentation or frivolous purposes. Ruskin thought this as
'dehumanisation' of both the workman and society as a whole. Leon (1969) says 'That Ruskin moves his interpretation of a
building to that of society, with a beautiful transitional movement that
embraces, cultural history, religious polemic and political investigation'. Ruskin
saw a society that enslaves its workers in demeaning dehumanising labour, will
become itself demeaned. It starves its workers of imagination and sensibility,
and is therefore detrimental to that countries progress. Ruskin saw this as a
universal truth throughout Europe and this country
Ruskin also saw
that useless repetitive labour gave no personal satisfaction, and caused the
workman to look with envy at the profits made by the wealthy industrial owners.
He points this out when he says 'It is
not that men are ill fed, but that they have no pleasure in the work by which
they make their bread, and, therefore look to wealth as the only means of
pleasure. It is not that men are pained by the scorn of the upper classes, but
they cannot endure their own; for they feel that the kind of labour to which
they are condemned is verily a degrading one, and makes them less than men'.
Thomas Carlyle himself backed Ruskin, when in 'Chartism' he speaks of the
bitter discontent of the working class, and their working conditions, (alluding
to repetitive mindless labour). Ruskin to must have been aware of the crude
'laissez-faire' capitalism, and the associated social attitudes of the 19th
century workplace.
He reproaches
the new industrial masters wish to produce perfect replicas of their products
using automated methods such as steam generated saws and milling machines,
irrespective of the health and safety of their workers. One is reminded of this
with the 'Phosy Jaw' disease of the assembly line phosphorous match dippers.
Connor (1979) says 'That Ruskins idea
of social justice always involved a strong but benevolent guiding authority,
based on the welfare of the worker, and able to make full use of his individual
skills. Ruskin himself says 'It
is not, truly speaking, the labour that is divided; but the men; -Divided into
mere segments of men-broken into small fragments and crumbs of life; so that
all the little piece of intelligence that is left in a man is not enough to
make a pin, or a nail, but exhausts itself in making the point of a pin or the
head of a nail'. Here he emphasises the dehumanisation of the 'process
worker' who (like our own 20th century car assembly workers) has no
control over the finished product, and therefore no pride in their work.
Hewison (1981) believes the above was a conscious reference to Adam Smith's 'Wealth of Nations'
whereby the pin making division of labour was seen by Adam Smith as an
efficient and productive system. One wonders what Ruskin made of the 'Great
Exhibition' (1851), with its emphasis on mechanical machines, to increase
production, without skill, reward or personal satisfaction.
The simplicity
and grace of 'Gothicness' was seen by Ruskin, as an idealised form, and as such
he criticises useless ornamentation and embellishment. (He compares the free
expression and spontaneity of gothic to that of the repetitive decoration found
in renaissance buildings). Ruskin puts forward the point when he says ' Never encourage the manufacture of any article
not absolutely necessary, in the production of which invention has no share'.
(Does Ruskin use 'invention' as another word for self-creation here?) He very
cleverly cites the repetitive and unrewarding nature of the 'Bead-Maker' and
his lack of control over the finished product, plus the uselessness of the
finished product. He puts fair blame also on the people who buy the product,
and thus perpetuate this work slavery. Ruskin lays emphasis that such skilled
workers should be making useful articles, such as cups and vessels. Here Ruskin
allows for decorative inclusion provided its inclusion adds to its usefulness.
The satisfaction felt by the workers in honest useful toil is seen as a
desirable trait.
Ruskin goes on
to say 'Never demand an exact finish
for its own sake, but only for some practical or noble end'. Here Ruskin
compares the beautiful imperfections that denoted the hands of the artisan in
gothic building, with the repetitive 'sameness' of the mechanically produced
product. Ruskin goes on to point out, that the obsession with 'perfectness',
creates a slavery, whereby men are shackled to a process that removes any
individual skill, and reduces all the workforce to that of the least skilled.
Ruskin evokes the awful mental condition of the 19th century factory
worker. 'But to smother their souls
within them, to blight and hew into rotting pollards (tree without branches) the suckling branches of their human intelligence…..'
He saw the workers slavery to the machine becoming the norm, and
as such 'unhumanising'. Ruskin
looked at this nation-wide when he says 'Let
me not be thought to speak wildly or extravagantly. It is verily this
degradation of the operative into a machine, which, more than any other evil of
its times, is leading the mass of nations everywhere into vain, incoherent,
destructive struggling for a freedom of which they cannot explain the nature to
themselves'. Thus Ruskin saw the demise of the free artisan, as a
causative factor in nations degradation. This is yet another powerful statement
of Ruskin's belief in a workers freedom to individualism. This of course flies
in direct contradiction to the industrial Victorians belief in the rapid
advancement of science and technology. They saw progress through mechanisation
paramount to a countries success and prosperity. Ruskin in 'Traffic' (1865) called this 'The Goddess of Getting-on'.
As a practising
'High Churchman' (Probably of the Oxford movement) Ruskin saw good honest
workmanship and 'moral earnestness' as the ideal marriage, and in the 'Nature
of Gothic' extols the virtues of Christian belief. Ruskin saw that the
individual value of every soul should be recognised. He promoted this concept
when he said 'Do what you can, and
confess frankly what you are unable to do; neither let your effort be shortened
for fear of failure, nor you confession be silenced for fear of shame…'
Here Ruskin allows the failure of the workmen to produce perfection to be more
acceptable, and if done, in the name of honest labour, will still be acceptable
or even cherished. Thus the artistry shown by the individual is seen as a free
expression, even though the finished article may not have perfect symmetry, it
can still be a thing of beauty and usefulness. (Realising ones potential
perhaps?).
Such was the acceptance
of the 'Nature of Gothic' by the 'working intelligentsia ' Hewison (1976) says,
'The Nature of Gothic' was twice
chosen as a manifesto for a new ordering of society, first by the 'Working
Men's College in London, founded by the Christian Socialist F.D.Maurice in
1854. Then by William Morris, who reprinted the chapter at Kelmscott Press in
1892'. Morris's admiration for both John Ruskin and Karl Marx is one
sign of affinity between 'The Stones of Venice' and 'Das Kapital'. Marx would
certainly have agreed with Ruskin that the upper-classes deserved the hatred of
the working classes, which were degraded to an unendurable machine-like
existence. It is not surprising that the 'Nature of Gothic' would be adopted by
the emerging 'Socialist Parties' of the early 20th century.
In conclusion,
when one reads and re-reads the 'Nature of Gothic', it is easy to see, that
once you strip away direct architectural references, you are left with a
damming document on the 19th century work ethic, whereby the
industrial worker was simply seen as an extension of his machine. It is based
on the financial greed, the immorality of the upper-classes, and the
denigration of the working classes. Rhodes (1982) says 'We should look at the 'Nature of Gothic' as an independent critical
essay of the 19th century'. We would do well to heed the
warnings of Ruskin as we worship at the feet of 21st century
technology with its headlong rush into total automation that excludes human
imagination and simple participation, as part of its input. The 'Nature of
Gothic' should be required reading for all our future entrepreneurs.
REFERENCES.
Connor,P. (Ed.)(1979) Savage
Ruskin. (Macmillan Press. London.)
ibid.,
Unrau,J (1979) Chapter 3: Savageness
of Gothic.
ibid.,
Holloway (1953) " "
Hewison,R. (Ed.)(1981) New
Approaches to Ruskin. (Routledge.London)
Landow,G. (1982) Victorian
Thinkers. (Oxford Univ. Press. Oxford)
Rhodes,R (1982) Studies
in Ruskin. (Ohio Press, Ohio)
Rosenberg,J. (1963) Genius
of Ruskin. (Routledge Press, London.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
Brooks,M. Ruskin &
Vic. Architecture. (Thames & Hudson.London 1982)
Connor,P. Savage Ruskin.
(Macmillan Press. London. 1979)
Evans,J. Lamp of beauty.
(Phaidon Press. Oxford. 1980)
Hewison,R. Argument of
the Eye. (Princeton Univ. Press. 1976)
Hewison,R. New
Approaches to Ruskin.(Routledge. London. 1981)
Hunt,J. The Ruskin
Polygon. (Manchester Univ. Press. 1982)
Landow,G. Victorian
Thinkers. (Oxford Univ. Press 1982)
Leon,L. Ruskin, The
Great Victorian.(Routledge Press. London.1969)
Rhodes,R Studies in
Ruskin.(Ohio Press, Ohio. 1982)
Rosenberg,J. Genius of
Ruskin. (Routledges, London. 1963)
Ruskin,J. The Stones of
Venice.(Dent Press, London 1989)