The cut and thrust between Muthesius and Van de Velde offer an exciting perspective on the coeval cultural scenario. The debate highlights the contrast between the individuality within Arts and Crafts movement and the aim at standardization and a universal taste suitable for the increasing industrial production. Muthesius is the paladin of standardization, which “will alone make possible the development of a universally valid, unfailing good taste” (par. 2). Standardization is the prerequisite to involving industrialists and merchants to organize efficient production and exportation of what Muthesius calls “industrial arts” (par. 6). Van de Velde, on the contrary, underlines how standardization and every discipline that imposes canons and types on artists make their inspiration sterile.
An artist is a creator that cannot be subjected to rules or driven “into universally valid form, in which he sees only a mask that seeks to make a virtue out of incapacity” (par. 11). Moreover, Van de Velde states that standardization aimed at export is not compatible with excellence in arts, architecture, and design: “nothing good and splendid, was ever created out of mere·consideration for exports” (par. 19). To strengthen his point, the Belgian architect provides some examples of excellent designs that thrived in specific environments before standing out for their fine quality and becoming export products (par. 9). Among them, are Tiffany glasses, Copenhagen porcelains, and Jensen jewelry.
Work Cited
Muthesius, Herman, and Henry Van de Velde. “Muthesius/Van de Velde: Werkbund Theses and Antitheses”, class reading, 1914.