DOI issue:
Nr. 224 (October, 1915)
DOI article:Studio-Talk
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.43459#0379
Studio- Talk
“ABELARD AND HELOISE.” TAPESTRY DESIGNED BY ELIO MAZZI AND WOVEN IN COUNT MARCELLO’S SCHOOL OF
WEAVING IN FLORENCE
last century in England that fine decorative genius,
William Morris, attempted its revival, with no
small measure of success, while in Florence within
late years Count Nicola Marcello has revived an
art which ought to reclaim its tradition in these
historic surroundings. The Count has devoted the
upper floor of his villino in the Via Solferino
at Florence to the work of his looms, and in the
painter Elio Mazzi, if he does not possess all that
imaginative beauty of type and wonderful feeling
for line which made our Burne-Jones an unequalled
designer for tapestry, Count Marcello has found a
valuable assistant, a draughtsman of great richness
of invention and exquisite finish of design.
What is the real scope of this art of tapestry?
It is a question which presents its own difficulties,
but which is indispensable to a sound judgment of
any modern revival of this delightful art of the
Middle Ages. Fundamentally tapestry is decora-
tive ; and any attempt to rival the tones and
colours of actual nature is outside the limits of the
art and invites failure. Raphael and Francois
Boucher are great names in art, but in this par-
ticular they may have been misled by their own
brilliant abilities. For tapestry—as has been
pointed out—cannot justly be considered as woven
painting. While the painter can often obtain his
impression with a few skilful touches, the tapestry-
weaver must advance slowly, watching always with
close attention for the harmony of effect; while
the painter can vary at will the colours on his
palette, the weaver cannot go outside of those
which are set ready to his hand, and in whose
subtle blending lies the mastery and the secret of
his craft. _
“ Tapestry,” says Count Marcello himself, “ by
its very nature a rebel to the innovations and
resources of mechanical skill, was always and in
every epoch made by hand. . . . The countless
difficulties of the technique are learnt and overcome
only with long practice. For this reason the
apprentices commence with executing designs for
leaves, flowers, and fruit, and weave at first small
industrial commissions for coverings of chairs and
sofas . . . then, when their apprenticeship is
completed, the pupils, who are generally taken at
the age of fourteen to fifteen, pass on to the true
and real tapestry in its more or less difficult parts,
and specialise according to iheir capacity and natural
inclination in the work which is slower and more
exact and costly. Tapestry, besides, can never be
separated from furniture making . . . and hence
a real school of tapestry must be also a school of
decoration. My own dream, therefore, has been,
in reviving this forgotten art, to secure the existence
of my modest school, so that, if fortune smiles
upon my efforts, it may gradually renew all that
rich decoration and equipment in this respect
which gave such splendour to our lordly houses in
the olden time.”
287
“ABELARD AND HELOISE.” TAPESTRY DESIGNED BY ELIO MAZZI AND WOVEN IN COUNT MARCELLO’S SCHOOL OF
WEAVING IN FLORENCE
last century in England that fine decorative genius,
William Morris, attempted its revival, with no
small measure of success, while in Florence within
late years Count Nicola Marcello has revived an
art which ought to reclaim its tradition in these
historic surroundings. The Count has devoted the
upper floor of his villino in the Via Solferino
at Florence to the work of his looms, and in the
painter Elio Mazzi, if he does not possess all that
imaginative beauty of type and wonderful feeling
for line which made our Burne-Jones an unequalled
designer for tapestry, Count Marcello has found a
valuable assistant, a draughtsman of great richness
of invention and exquisite finish of design.
What is the real scope of this art of tapestry?
It is a question which presents its own difficulties,
but which is indispensable to a sound judgment of
any modern revival of this delightful art of the
Middle Ages. Fundamentally tapestry is decora-
tive ; and any attempt to rival the tones and
colours of actual nature is outside the limits of the
art and invites failure. Raphael and Francois
Boucher are great names in art, but in this par-
ticular they may have been misled by their own
brilliant abilities. For tapestry—as has been
pointed out—cannot justly be considered as woven
painting. While the painter can often obtain his
impression with a few skilful touches, the tapestry-
weaver must advance slowly, watching always with
close attention for the harmony of effect; while
the painter can vary at will the colours on his
palette, the weaver cannot go outside of those
which are set ready to his hand, and in whose
subtle blending lies the mastery and the secret of
his craft. _
“ Tapestry,” says Count Marcello himself, “ by
its very nature a rebel to the innovations and
resources of mechanical skill, was always and in
every epoch made by hand. . . . The countless
difficulties of the technique are learnt and overcome
only with long practice. For this reason the
apprentices commence with executing designs for
leaves, flowers, and fruit, and weave at first small
industrial commissions for coverings of chairs and
sofas . . . then, when their apprenticeship is
completed, the pupils, who are generally taken at
the age of fourteen to fifteen, pass on to the true
and real tapestry in its more or less difficult parts,
and specialise according to iheir capacity and natural
inclination in the work which is slower and more
exact and costly. Tapestry, besides, can never be
separated from furniture making . . . and hence
a real school of tapestry must be also a school of
decoration. My own dream, therefore, has been,
in reviving this forgotten art, to secure the existence
of my modest school, so that, if fortune smiles
upon my efforts, it may gradually renew all that
rich decoration and equipment in this respect
which gave such splendour to our lordly houses in
the olden time.”
287