Compare and Contrast 3
Jessica Robinson
AHIS.218
Essay (Separate):
‘Strawberry Thief’ by William Morris and ‘Indian’ by Owen
Jones both have so many similarities and differences that
causes us to be drawn to each piece. Both these artworks
originate from the 19-century, they each relate to parts of
Asia through both method and design. Before we begin, lets
gain a brief idea of each of these pieces to help better
relate to what will be discussed;
‘Strawberry Thief’ uses a pattern of reflection to create
a motif of thrushes and flowers. It has a very cool toned
palette, with lots of more muted blues, green, yellow,
and a cool red. Its material consists of
indigo-discharged and block-printed cotton. The designer,
William Morris, was inspired by the thrushes stealing his
strawberries from his garden.
As for our other design, ‘Indian’ from The Grammar of
Ornament, we get a collage of a bunch of repeating
motifs. They consist of a warmer, but less vibrant
palette of mainly red, yellow, pink, brown, and a
yellow-green. It displays patterns of flowers and
greenery, inspired by the indo-islamic way of design.
When comparing and contrasting these two patterns, I really
dived deep and found some interesting observations between the
two, most notably how different their approaches in general to
methods and techniques of design from Asia. In this essay, I
am going to compare their differences and how each relates to
the colonial view from the western world.
As stated before, both designs have some sort of relation
to a culture from Asia, more specifically, India. For
starters, the Indigo discharge method used by Morris has
direct relations to both India, and the origins of Indigo
(specifically Indigofera) from the country as well. For Jones,
It’s his direct prints from “Indian”(Indo-Islamic) design,
specifically prints from Indian vases and textiles. Both chose
to incorporate ideas and items from south asian culture,
pushing the way of British/European art through the
incorporation of media from India. Although most likely not
the intention, it appears as a reflection of the British
colonial attitude of the western world.
As for the designs themselves, They connect the
popularity of the styles through the use of experimenting to
push western media to become “better” than the rest. Both
works incorporate the use of foliage (that of flowers mainly)
into their patterns. They chose to make the designs more
ornamental, repeating patterns with minimal to no depth to
show the design of the work itself through the differential in
colour. Owen Jones' belief in this design being superior
really pushes the boundary and reflects once again of the
British involvement and “adoption” of ideas from India to
further push their agenda. Experimentation seen by Morris also
pushes this, as he adopted items from India to create his own
work. He however, didn’t have the same outwardly opinionated
idea of the indo-islamic design, using only what he had
adopted to further push art as he too criticized the way
western art had become with its ferocious colour palettes that
could only be super bright.
Both designers criticized and expanded their way of
media, but it shows a deeper roots in itself to the ways
western media has always been. Both with their relations of
media, design, and colours used. Morris with the colour,
criticizing the high contrast way of design. And adopting
techniques to further push that colonial need for what's
better. Jones has his criticism of western design and how
inferior it is to that of the “Indian” design. Each was in
their own way a good viewpoint as to the way of design was,
and how that of how the west steals and “adopts” to create a
new.
Resources:
Jespersen, John Kresten. “Originality and Jones’ ‘The Grammar
of Ornament’ of 1856.” Journal of Design History, vol. 21, no.
2, 2008, pp. 143–53. JSTOR,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25228578. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.
NASH, R. C. “South Carolina Indigo, European Textiles, and the
British Atlantic Economy in the Eighteenth Century.” The
Economic History Review, vol. 63, no. 2, 2010, pp. 362–92.
JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27771617. Accessed 10 Dec.
2024.