DOI issue:
No. 80 (November, 1899)
DOI article:Studio-talk
DOI Page / Citation link:https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.19783#0152
Studio- Talk
some jewellery designed by Mr. H. Wilson. To
the same artist we also owe a memorable little
figure of Christ. The jewellery, so it seems to
us, shows a trace of French influence, but the
chalice and the figure of Christ suggest no other
work. For the rest, it is to be hoped that Mr.
Montague Fordham will be as helpful to crafts-
men as the literary agent has been to many writers
of eminence. Thus far, we are glad to hear, his
enterprise has been more hopeful than he antici-
pated. It deserves to succeed.
The Church Congress, anxious for a little amuse-
ment, has had this autumn, as on previous
occasions, its Ecclesiastical Art Exhibition. The
Bishop of London, when he opened it at the
Imperial Institute, told his hearers that in the
CHALLENGE SHIELD DESIGNED BY JOHN WILLIAMS
EXECUTED BY MEMBERS OF THE ARTISTIC CRAFTS
DEPARTMENT OF THE NORTHAMPTON INSTITUTE,
CLERKENWELL
132
matter of art the Church had always been supreme.
He forgot that some of the greatest painters, rang-
ing from Titian to Rubens, and from Rembrandt
to Turner, were not, are not, in any sense religious
artists. And nothing is gained by giving expres-
sion to exaggerated dogmatisms. We are all eager
that the Church should become once more a lover
of noble architecture and a patron of true art, but
the Ecclesiastical Art Exhibition did not prove this
year that religion is particularly useful to-day as an
aesthetic influence. The most charming examples
of handicraft were to be found among the collec-
tion of old Church plate, some of it earlier than
the Reformation. In the modern exhibits, with a
few exceptions here and there, a little art was lost
in a great deal of pretentious utilitarianism.
Messrs. Hardman, Powell & Co. had some credit-
able metal-work, in which we seemed to
detect the influence of Pugin, and we should
mention several others if space permitted.
In his handsome challenge shield, which
is here reproduced, Mr. John Williams, of
the Northampton Institute, Clerkenwell, has
made a successful attempt to instil into his
work more interest than is usually to be found
in articles of this character. The shield is
three feet in height, and is of hammered
silver throughout. The design represents a
tree with fruits, leaves, and shields pendant
from the branches. In some parts the silver
is pierced, showing between the interlacings
of the branches plaques of turquoise and
blue enamel, and upon the centre of each
square is set a carbuncle. The background
is of oak stained and polished a very dark
green.
The windows representing John Ball and
Wat Tyler were painted last year by Miss
Mary J. Newill, for the ingle nook of the
hall of a house at Sutton Coldfield, the
residence of Mr. Crouch, of the firm of
Crouch and Butler, architects. As designs
they have a good deal of agreeable freedom
from convention without erring in the direc-
tion of an unduly pictorial manner. The
necessary restrictions of the stained-glass
method are well understood; and to the
fact that the work was entirely carried out
by the artist herself is to be credited not a
some jewellery designed by Mr. H. Wilson. To
the same artist we also owe a memorable little
figure of Christ. The jewellery, so it seems to
us, shows a trace of French influence, but the
chalice and the figure of Christ suggest no other
work. For the rest, it is to be hoped that Mr.
Montague Fordham will be as helpful to crafts-
men as the literary agent has been to many writers
of eminence. Thus far, we are glad to hear, his
enterprise has been more hopeful than he antici-
pated. It deserves to succeed.
The Church Congress, anxious for a little amuse-
ment, has had this autumn, as on previous
occasions, its Ecclesiastical Art Exhibition. The
Bishop of London, when he opened it at the
Imperial Institute, told his hearers that in the
CHALLENGE SHIELD DESIGNED BY JOHN WILLIAMS
EXECUTED BY MEMBERS OF THE ARTISTIC CRAFTS
DEPARTMENT OF THE NORTHAMPTON INSTITUTE,
CLERKENWELL
132
matter of art the Church had always been supreme.
He forgot that some of the greatest painters, rang-
ing from Titian to Rubens, and from Rembrandt
to Turner, were not, are not, in any sense religious
artists. And nothing is gained by giving expres-
sion to exaggerated dogmatisms. We are all eager
that the Church should become once more a lover
of noble architecture and a patron of true art, but
the Ecclesiastical Art Exhibition did not prove this
year that religion is particularly useful to-day as an
aesthetic influence. The most charming examples
of handicraft were to be found among the collec-
tion of old Church plate, some of it earlier than
the Reformation. In the modern exhibits, with a
few exceptions here and there, a little art was lost
in a great deal of pretentious utilitarianism.
Messrs. Hardman, Powell & Co. had some credit-
able metal-work, in which we seemed to
detect the influence of Pugin, and we should
mention several others if space permitted.
In his handsome challenge shield, which
is here reproduced, Mr. John Williams, of
the Northampton Institute, Clerkenwell, has
made a successful attempt to instil into his
work more interest than is usually to be found
in articles of this character. The shield is
three feet in height, and is of hammered
silver throughout. The design represents a
tree with fruits, leaves, and shields pendant
from the branches. In some parts the silver
is pierced, showing between the interlacings
of the branches plaques of turquoise and
blue enamel, and upon the centre of each
square is set a carbuncle. The background
is of oak stained and polished a very dark
green.
The windows representing John Ball and
Wat Tyler were painted last year by Miss
Mary J. Newill, for the ingle nook of the
hall of a house at Sutton Coldfield, the
residence of Mr. Crouch, of the firm of
Crouch and Butler, architects. As designs
they have a good deal of agreeable freedom
from convention without erring in the direc-
tion of an unduly pictorial manner. The
necessary restrictions of the stained-glass
method are well understood; and to the
fact that the work was entirely carried out
by the artist herself is to be credited not a