Studio: international art (29.1903)

The National Competition

exhibitor; but Annie
Parker (Blackheath) re-
vealed it also in her un-
pretentious but quite satis-
fying patterns. Leonard
G. Andrews (Battersea)
repeated the blunder of
his school in applying to
muslin an exceptionally
good design for, let us
say, a bathroom dado, with
large classic discs adorned
with sea-birds and mer-
maidens. In the case of
Amy Eyre's printed muslin
for a nursery the error was
not quite so flagrant, but
the Pied Piper and his

sketch design for an over-door by ernest g. webb (plymouth)

muslin. The strong bold masses suggested by ^

the outline, and the solid forms of lions and -jS/?^

tigers, demanded at least a wall-paper or a sub- ^Jrf

stantial tapestry to contain them in a fitting way. . msSw ,

Muslin calls for the most ethereal forms for /z&pr^Mr

the bases of its decoration,—as, for instance, <&* '

butterflies, birds, and the lightest kinds of foliage. !¥

The designs of Emilie Gardiner, though less jtF

brilliant and original than those of the success- Lav

ful competitor, were far more suitable to the inCw-.

medium for which they were meant. Cuthbert 'fffmSk ''

Partington (Heywood) had perhaps caught the true ^w!s
spirit of muslin decoration better than any other

design for a plate

by f. van h. allan phillips (burslem)

procession of followers would have been much
more at home on a cretonne or paper. With the
same reservation, the design of John Holden
merited cordial praise; its contrast of the ships on
the sea with the sheep in the meadow was an
ingenious exercise in convention and suggestion,
carried out with very decorative effect. Jessie
Browton (Watford) again proved herself quite
equal to the Battersea standard with her dainty
design of poplars with circling flights of birds.
Francis Baker (Blackheath) was equally successful
in her charming little floral patterns for printed

design for a plate j i • rp. ,. , t ,,r t>i i u

by edwin penson (stoke-on-trent) delaines. The woven muslin by J. W. Blackburn

269