Designing as anti-industrialization (Ruskin and Morris)
After the Romantic period in the early 19th century, England saw the emergence of a technological mindset influenced by Romantic ideals. This perspective on “designing” was articulated by designers such as Ruskin and Morris.
Romanticism had opposed academicism in the arts, social institutions like salons, and bourgeois societal norms. However, in the late 19th century, post-Romanticism faced new adversaries in the form of the impersonal mechanisms of industrialization and imperialism. Ruskin and Morris emphasized that the value of design lay not just in the final form of an industrial product but in the process of making it, the act of creation, and the human relationships forged in the process. The post-Romantic design philosophy sought to propose a new societal form by emphasizing the organic creation of things and the establishment of organic human connections.
This design philosophy, as a critique of industrialization, produced artistic styles characterized by the beauty of organic curves, such as the Art and Craft movement in England, Jugendstil in German-speaking regions, and Art Nouveau in France. Importantly, its ideological traits can be seen as precursors to contemporary humanistic design ideas such as functionalism, do-it-yourself (DIY), and person-centered design.
Ruskin and Morris were particularly critical of the division of labor, where designers organically conceptualized and craftsmen mechanically produced. They argued that this approach turned the labor of craftsmen into a mere means to an end, depriving them of the pleasure of producing something and reducing them to mere instruments that followed instructions. According to Ruskin, this mechanization acted as the grim reaper, killing the craftsman’s soul. Meanwhile, for Morris, it led to barbarism that amputated the hands of the living people in colonial India.
For Ruskin and Morris, the value of a thing lay not solely in the final product but in the interconnectedness between things and people, or between people themselves. This value was achieved through the dynamic activity of the body in realizing and modifying the original blueprint. They termed this approach “decoration.”
Ruskin viewed the designer as a master, or “father,” who embraced the imperfections of their apprentices with mercy, fostering cooperation and breaking free from egoism. Meanwhile, Morris believed in a social physicality in which people helped each other on an equal basis, with no need for a specific master. This idea is reflected in today’s understanding of “everybody designs” (Manzini), emphasizing connection and creation without a central authority. While Ruskin’s model is paternalistic and Christ-inspired, Morris’s perspective is more anarchistic and socialist, and lacks transcendence.
Ruskin viewed the designer as a master, or “father,” who embraced the imperfections of their apprentices with mercy, fostering cooperation and breaking free from egoism.
Meanwhile, Morris believed in a social physicality in which people helped each other on an equal basis, with no need for a specific master. This idea is reflected in today’s understanding of “everybody designs” (Manzini), emphasizing connection and creation without a central authority. While Ruskin’s model is paternalistic and Christ-inspired, Morris’s perspective is more anarchistic and socialist, and lacks transcendence.
Contrary to the mechanistic worldviews of capitalism, socialism, and even communism which sought to maximize the mechanization of human labor, Ruskin and Morris retained the organic nature of individual expression, staying in the dimension of “design by whom” rather than “design for whom.”
(KOGA Toru)
References
Ruskin, The Seven Lamps of Architecture, Boston Dana Estes & Publishers, 1849
Ruskin, The Nature of Gothic: in The Stone of Venice, 3 vols., George Allen, 1851
Morris, The Art of the People (1879) :in Hopes and Fears for Art, Ellis & White, 1882.