• Style: Greek
• Technique: Multicolour block
print
• Designer: Christopher Dresser
• Maker: Mintons
• Dimensions: 8" x
8"
• Date: circa 1895
A super bold design and in most excellent bright
colours, rarely seen in this colourway, rarely seen at
all and then most often in browns. Made by Mintons after
a design from Studies in Design by Christopher Dresser.
Well printed and most brilliantly glazed, in fine
condition with corners lightly trimmed for the original
installation and just a few very tiny losses to the rim,
surface is very near perfect.
The British Museum has a group of four in their
collection with pattern number 2417 indicating an
introduction date of 1890, in the brown colourway it has
pattern number 1472 indicating an introduction date of
1875, it was not uncommon for Mintons to introduce new
colourways many years after the first.
It is important to understand that according to the
records there are no, none, zero, tiles designed by
Christopher Dresser. Many claim such indeed the claims
are found in several books which have attracted the
attentions of museums who repeat the claim yet without
any supporting evidence. I have even have a book
dealing with art nouveau tiles which illustrates yet
another so-called Mintons tile by Dresser which, as often
is the case, is in fact by Pugin.
Very few Dresser designs on tiles are known
although many are attributed even stated as "by Dresser"
including in the standard literature most of which has
been been written by pottery dealers ill-informed about
tiles. This is an important distinction for tiles,
especially of the times, are architectural whereas
pottery is personal, viewed close-up and held in the
hand. There are zero designs for tile by Dresser
found in the records despite the wishes of many, there is
an extensive examination of the subject on the Tile
Heaven website. Many so called Dresser tiles are
advertised indeed I have attended several sales with
multiple lots of tiles stated to be by Dresser despite
the auctioneers being aware of the paucity of evidence
for such. The wishes of dealers and other marketeers
extends to criticism of those who have conducted diligent
research despite the opinion being based upon wish and
hearsay citing an unnamed 'Dresser expert' who has
published an unspecified work on the subject (what
specific subject , be it pottery, wall coverings,
silverware, ironwork etc., is also unstated). One of the
main points of the Tile Heaven essay is that numerous
so-called experts have published opinions that lack
credibility and as anyone with good knowledge of any
particular subject can attest to there are errors in the
relevant literature.
And so it continues in similar vein for a few more
paragraphs.
The Dresser Delusionist is confused and writes again,
he can't understand if it is by Dresser or not for the
price and description suggest it is by Dresser but also I
say he didn't design tiles.
Obviously his comprehension skills are lacking and he
can't distinguish between 'tiles designed by Dresser' and
'designs by Dresser applied to tiles'.but it was quite an
epic rant so I try to simplify for him.
There is no record of Dresser designing any
tiles.
Some designs by Dresser were used on and adapted
for tiles.
This design appears in a book written by
Christopher Dresser therefore is by him.
I agree it is confusing but that is because of all
of the false claims that Dresser designed tiles. There is
no record of Dresser designing any tiles in factory
records or references to tiles in texts written by
Dresser himself.
This design is definitely by Dresser for it appears
in his book Studies in Design and is therefore by his
hand. Therein it is described as "Greek ornaments,
suitable for dados; but they require enlarging
considerably".
Mintons copied the design from the book, they were
prolific copiers of designs from reference books, art
books and other objects. In the 19th century the company
was well known for copying.
"The predilection of the Staffordshire man for
copying &emdash; for the reproduction of other men's
ideas, rather than the proper cultivation of his own
creative faculty &emdash; has been referred to on more
than one occasion in this work. Mintons have, perhaps,
sinned in this respect more than most, and with less
justification, from the opportunities they undoubtedly
possessed of obtaining the best available talent." -
Staffordshire Pots & Potters by G. Woolliscroft Rhead
and R. E. Frederick Rhead, both worked at Mintons and
at/for many other companies.
There is an essay on the Tile Heaven website
digging in to the Dresser tile mystery if you are
interested.
The Dresser Delusionist replies with the old canard
'Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' and
states that Dresser said in 1871 '.. there is not one
branch of art manufacture that I do not regularly design
patterns for…'. obviously without understanding the
difference between art and architecture. He goes on to
say Dresser worked for many companies and very few of his
designs are signed.
I respond:
There is an absence of truth in many records of
Minton tile manufacture especially in Joan Jones even in
Jewitt. Jones actually says a Dresser design is for tile
when it clearly is not and is proven otherwise. In
addition there are numerous errors regarding the
management of Minton in Jones and throughout the standard
literature which indicates a lack of attention to detail
in a fundamental area.
Tiles in 1871 were not considered art products,
they were building materials, cladding, tile design was
the province of architects. I am sure there are thousands
of objects bearing applied art that Dresser did not
design for. Where is the quote from? What is the
context?
I wouldn't expect pieces from major manufacturers
to bear the signature of the designer, it is not in the
manufacturer's interests for it dilutes the
manufacturer's brand. For the companies that you cite
there are records of objects designed by Dresser, there
are no records of Dresser designs for tiles.
There are dozens if not hundreds of tiles that
dealers and collectors claim to be designed by Dresser,
show me a record; a catalogue, a wage slip, a letter
…. Find me one and I will gladly amend my essay and
take it as a basis to consider that other tile designs
could be by Dresser.
I started off trusting in the received wisdom that
Dresser designed tiles but in my quest for accuracy in
writing descriptions of my tiles I came across many Pugin
designs attributed to Dresser, people who made claims
they could not substantiate and many argumenta ad
verecundiam.
My essay has been online for about seven years I
believe, it is highly placed in search results, I invite
evidence for Dresser designing tiles, I haven't seen any
yet.
But the Dresser Delusionist is obsessed, he doesn't
need evidence because he knows because he knows and it is
I who am unreasonable in seeking evidence. He says it is
unreasonable to assume that Dresser designed only for
manufacturers who kept a record that has survived until
today. That's putting words in my mouth, I make no such
assumption, I'm merely seeking evidence that Dresser
designed a tile.
Then more off the piste comments, history of companies
does not authenticate Dresser design, Dresser was an
architect, then he quotes Stuart Durrant and finishes
with, Dresser knew and was influenced Pugin's work. Is it
not more likely that Pugin designs are by Dresser who
designed at the date of their production and in their
colours?
This idiot has attributed falsehoods to me as he
struggles to make sense of his delusion so I am more
cutting in reply.
It is unreasonable to assume anything without
evidence. If there is no record there is no evidence only
speculation.
Dresser for the most part claims to be only an
ornamentalist and not an architect. That quote is, as far
as I am aware, the only time he claimed to be an
architect, it is a response to criticism and likely
emotionally charged for he appears to have felt
affronted.
"This, his defence of his reputation, was never
challenged." How can you make such a claim, the record of
such challenge may not have survived. Absence of evidence
is not evidence of absence.
De Morgan made claims in lectures which have not
been challenged but are false. Designers become well
known because they are good at self promotion which
almost inevitably includes elements of optimism and
exaggeration. There have been many wonderful and prolific
designers whose names are not in the public domain and
indeed whose work is often attributed to others with well
known names.
I know why Pugin designs appeared after his death
in different colours, Mintons copied from books and other
sources, and produced new colourways of existing designs
years and decades after the design was
introduced.
You repeat the phrase absence of evidence is not
evidence of absence, it is a meaningless phrase for
anyone can claim anything to be true based upon its
precept. It is also known as the argument from
ignorance.
There are of course thousands of Dresser collectors
who desperately wish that the tiles they own are by
Dresser, they have been misled by optimistic attributions
from both dealers seeking to profit and writers seeking
to enhance their reputations and sell books, they have
even patted themselves on the back for discovering
unknown Dresser tile designs. That collectors clutch at
straws to maintain the illusion and the value of their
investment is only to be expected.
I was looking forward to a response from you, frank
discussion is a great tool for revealing truths.
I am constantly amazed that Dresser collectors
cling to beliefs that tiles they have bought are by
Dresser based upon argumenta ad verecundiam (appeal to
authority) when the authority has a vested (financial)
interest in being trusted and yet when a verified tile by
Dresser is offered there are few if any takers.
It appears that you may be a collector of Dresser
having argued so vehemently for the accepted status quo.
You state, "its a Dresser tile at a Dresser price", yet
have not purchased nor made an offer. I am interested in
the psychology, the cognitive dissonance that pervades
when beliefs based upon hearsay are questioned due to the
lack of evidence. Rather than embrace an item verified to
be by the famed artist in question the reaction is to
ignore it and cling to the unauthenticated
objects.
De Morgan is somewhat similar, praised for his
technical skills he actually had very few, he didn't
understand technology (he never produced underglaze reds
which just about every other company on the 1890s
successfully used). That he was a great designer there is
no doubt, that his company's products were poorly
executed is self-evident.
Dresser coined the phrase "Truth, Beauty, Power",
what would he think that the first word of the phrase is
ignored by those who adore his works?
I love art (well perhaps I should specify more
clearly, I love design and engineering that come together
to make products of service and pleasure to people), I
love people, the interaction is most
enlightening.
(this has been slightly edited to remove a reference
to a third party)
The Delusionist now reveals the source of his
expertise, himself. His beliefs on Dresser are based on
"47 years study of the subject and he is his own
authority". That is a straightforward admittance of
delusion. He continues that his collection includes many
unsigned items and others that have never (in modern
times) been thought to Dresser and he is certain that the
hand of a designer can be recognised without a signature
or sworn affidavit.
Thank you for your reply. I have been collecting
tiles for over forty years and have been dealing
exclusively in them since closing my fireplace/decorative
architectural business in 2000. In those last seventeen
years I have really striven to provide accurate
information to customers and for many years the harder I
looked in to matters the more I discovered errors in the
established literature, more than had previously been
obvious. The more literature I accumulated to try to
resolve questions the more errors and unsubstantiated
claims, often with no indication why, I found. There is a
shortage of footnotes, writers make claims and when
knowing even just of their claims is in error it strains
credibility. Whilst one assumes writers make claims in
good faith having researched with care I know writers
whose studies lack the rigour to be called research, they
lack discernment, put too much faith in third party
claims and even simply make things up.
Something else I know for sure is that there are
many collectors out there who know lots of things that
are not found in the literature, it is unfortunate that
there is no way to bring it all together.
(this has been slightly edited to remove a reference
to a third party)
The Delusionist states 1081 in Mintons catalogue is
what one would expect of Dresser, then somersaults the
shark in stating all but perhaps four designs on Sheet 8,
Mintons catalogue 'appear to be by Dresser'.
Tile 1081 is precisely what almost any designer of
the times would create, a gothic quatrefoil with greek
palmette inserts, a combination of two popular elements.
Dresser has similar designs but with less overt
quatrefoil.
I'd be interested which four from Sheet 8 you think
are not by Dresser for of the total three I would suggest
are too realistic to be by him and at least six of the
others can not possibly be by him by virtue of the date
of introduction or by being known Pugin designs.
Collectors, dealers and authors for the most part
lack an understanding of how design works and an
understanding of how industry works, academics and
bureaucrats are usually the most divorced from the
realities of manufacturing. Neither designers nor
industry are particularly altruistic, they do it for the
money. A company does not pay a famous designer unless
there is clear benefit for example the use of the
designer's name is advertising increases sales, in-house
designers were much more affordable.
It's nigh impossible to attribute things based
solely on design, objects are made for the marketplace.
Most clients say they want 'something like that' which is
great because it gives a basis to work from otherwise you
have to show them designs until they point something out.
(I have done design work, mostly stained glass.) A tile
company seeing a successful tile from another company for
which they had nothing competitive may well instruct a
designer to produce 'something like that'. Designers
would of their own accord produce 'something like that'
and offer it potential clients, there were a few court
cases concerning similar designs and there are design
registrations not issued the only logical explanation
being because they were too much like something else.
Many designers had similar educations and used the same
reference books and magazines, there are several groups
of tiles apparently based on the same reference source.
The point of copyright laws is to prevent precise
copying, it was clearly a problem otherwise the law would
not have been introduced. It would be naive to assume
that people would not adapt and so change just enough to
avoid falling foul of the law.
Well known designers are often well known because
they copied designs by others and got away with it, they
were good at marketing their brand. There is inertia in
an established brand name.
My previous comment about people not buying the
tile I have for sale that appears in one of his books was
not directed at you, it was a general comment. Dresser
tile collectors tend to buy what they believe to have
been done by him based upon claims in literature and what
they imagine would be done by him being similar to those
claimed in the literature. When faced with a design
certainly by Dresser that doesn't accord with the
perception they don't bite rather they would buy tiles
from Sheet 8 and pat themselves on the back for
discovering something no-one has yet recorded in the
literature.
I should have pointed out something else about
Sheet 8. It is indisputable that at least eight of the
designs thereon are in the gothic style therefore,
according to the introduction, the original introduction
not the error filled introduction by Blanchett (nor the
even more erroneous forward by Jones), they are by Pugin.
So in the light of your assertion that all but four
appear to be by Dresser your eye for spotting Dresser
designs is no better than others'.
I am sorry that you have been misled into believing
that Dresser designed tiles (perhaps I should say many
tiles for it is not inconceivable that he designed some
yet evidence is required to show that he designed at
least one) but thousands of others have too so it's not
exclusive. Many of the others have also 'identified'
other 'Dresser' designs too whilst failing to understand
the tile business in general and Minton(s) in particular.
Harry Lyons didn't understand Minton(s), nor Joan Jones
which is a greater failing, so that 'lesser' mortals have
erred is rather less of a big deal.
If there is a crumb of comfort it is that perhaps
that misinformation about a designer from 150 years ago
pales in to insignificance compared to the misinformation
from the current politicians and media who govern most of
our lives.
I have enjoyed our discussion (although the
cost-benefit is lacking from my perspective) and most
certainly thank you for pointing out that one time
Dresser claimed he was an architect which I shall at some
point in the future address in an extension to my online
essay.
All but four of these designs are by Dresser
according to the Delusionalist
|
The Delusionist has totally lost it now, disputes that
gothic designs on Sheet 8 are by Pugin because the
introduction to the catalogue is heresay (sic) and with
"total conviction" appear to be Dresser.
You simply need to read the introduction to the
catalogue, you have the catalogue read it! Don't
speculate from looking at the pictures. It was likely
penned by Colin Campbell who was Mintons marketing man,
it appears in the 1883 version of the catalogue (the one
that is reproduced and usually called 1885), an earlier
one I have seen from 1881 and likely several other
editions.
Also part of the documentary record are the pattern
numbers which you clearly overlook, they for the most
part they are sequential and indicate the date of
introduction.
It is incredible that you put more faith in your
own delusions than the documentary record.
The Delusionist comes back for more, disputes the
original introduction to the Mintons catalogue because it
is not dated nor signed. He further disputes the
importance of the analysis of pattern numbers and goes on
to claim that an understanding of business is not
required for an understanding of design completely
failing to understand the relationship between the two
and that the objects he has collected were made by
businesses working on business principles rather than
design principles!
He then claims that he has not been misled and has
studied the evidence with forensically (sic) then
[jumped to his] own conclusions and asks have I
ever read Dresser's 'Art of Decorative Design' ?
So I'm done with this moron now, my final
response:
The introduction is published by the manufacturer
and contemporaneous with the images, it is a record. It
matters little precisely who composed it or precisely
when.
I am sorry that your comprehension is
lacking.
If you believe that business and design are not
intrinsically related then you are a fool.
Yes I have read that book, he does not mention
tiles and describes himself as an ornamentist not an
architect. They are dozens of similar books saying pretty
much the same things in English, German, French
….
Dresser worked out early on that to make lots of
money as a designer marketing was important. Writing
books opens the door to essays in print media, lectures
to students and societies and more lucrative design
commissions.
Your waffling has reached a level of banality that
exceeds my tolerance level, your belief in a notion that
is unsupported by fact is akin to believing in the
Invisible Pink Unicorn (BBHHH). Happy hunting, by your
definitions there are thousands of tiles designed by
Dresser, enough to keep you amused for a long
while.
19 July 2021
