In accordance with earlier trends in B ritain, Europe and the United States, A ustralian authorities began in the 1880s to consider organisational lines for improving taste and skills. Essentially th is evolved from reflections on the first three international exhibitions on A ustralian soil. The Sydney International Exhibition which ran from 17 September 1879 to 20 April 1880 was A ustralia’s first such showing. M elbourne’s International Exhibition began just over five m onths later, opening on 1 October 1880 and continuing u n til 31 M arch 1881. Adelaide’s first International Exhibition, from 21 Ju n e 1887 to 7 Jan u ary 1888, developed from the enthusiasm of parliam entarians who had visited the Melbourne Exhibition. These International Exhibitions were educational because of th eir enormous visual display, not because of judicial assessm ents which could be flawed.174 G reater consistency in th is latter area could have benefitted the population more, if indeed organisers seriously sought to enlighten with regard to quality in w orkm anship and discernm ent in form and adornm ent. However trade m anoeuvrings, both colonial and international, often seemed to influence assessments. These then exposed the fluctuating condition of A ustralian decorative arts which varied from healthy
174During the running o f the Sydney International Exhibition “exhibition” conferences were organised by the Working Men’s College and a series o f papers was given at the School o f Arts “dealing in an explanatory fashion with the exhibits and the probable outcome o f an investigation into the merits o f those exhibits” (see Album o f Newspaper Cuttings collected by John Plummer, 1879-1903, Mitchell Library, Sydney, ML.F981.1/30). The latter was instigated by John Plummer who expressed his regret “that no steps had been taken by the Commission o f the Exhibition to popularise and explain the many interesting objects”. Plummer claimed that “to a great extent” many o f the exhibits were “unintelligible” to the majority o f visitors (Ibid.: Sydney Mail, 15 January 1880).
m anufacturing in fu rniture to misleading interpretations of stained glass and neglect in wallpaper and textile production.
The Executive Commissioner for Sydney’s International Exhibition, P.A. Jennings, reported that
While thus maintaining our prestige and increasing our trade and population the Exhibition has done good educational service to the masses of the people by placing before them works of art of the highest character, and in this way propagating sound principles of taste and awakening a love for the
beautiful. , . . 175
Here Jennings was reiterating those foci established with previous English events: trade promotion, national pride and education. Jules Lubbock has suggested th at the “real m o tif’ of exhibitions organised by the state was “to reshape personal m orality by im plem enting... control over individual consum ption”.178 To some degree this stand is evident in Jennings’ words however realisation was somewhat m itigated in A ustralia because of the dominance of imported goods on display.
175 Official Record o f the Sydney International Exhibition, 1879, Thomas Richards,
Government Printer, Sydney, 1881, p.cviii. Previous exhibitions in Sydney had always been arranged by The Agricultural Society of NSW and this organisation likewise set into motion the 1879 affair with its secretary Jules Joubert suggesting the importation of a selection of goods from the 1878 Paris Exposition Universelle. The costing of an International
Exhibition proved to be beyond the means of the Agricultural Society and the Colonial Secretary was reluctant to assist. However the Society’s president, Governor Sir Hercules Robinson, brought his weight to bear in keeping the honour of the Colony intact and promised that the government would match subscriptions raised by the Society. Such fell short of the final estimates and the government agreed to see the Exhibition through to maturity. See also Peter Proudfoot, Roslyn Maguire, Robert Freestone (Eds), Colonial City, Global City: Sydney's International Exhibition 1879, Crossing Press, Darlinghurst, 2000. 176Jules Lubbock, The Tyranny o f Taste, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1995, p.248.
Trade was surely the strongest undercurrent to exhibitions in this country. In 1877 when the possibility of an international exhibition for Sydney was being mooted
The Australian Town and Country Journal declared that such “can hardly fail to
promote the commercial interests of the country”.177 Companies partook in
international exhibitions for the commercial advantages they could gain not for the influence they could exert on social standards. Jennings’ observation of the public’s reaction at Sydney was basically cautious but it did highlight an important
educational opportunity which Morris understood as essential to the people: “I want every one to think for himself about [the arts], and not to take things for granted from hearsay”.178 The Sydney Mail went too far in suggesting that any “love for the beautiful” awakened by the Sydney Exhibition would focus on “beauty for its own sake” and that such should “elevate a community’s thoughts and
aspirations, and keep it from fixing all its aims on mere money getting and utilitarianism”.179 International exhibitions were still competitive forums in a commercial world.180
177The Australian Town and Country Journal, Vol.XVI, No.394, 21 July 1877, p.92.
,78Morris, Architecture, Industry & Wealth, op.cit., p.77.
,79Quoted in Montana, op.cit., p. 171: Sydney Mail, 8 May 1880, p.864.
l80Morris’s “eccentricities” (Peter Faulkner (Ed), William Morris: The Critical Heritage,
Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1973, p.316) would lead him to a view opposite to that expressed by the Sydney Mail: “It is profit which draws men into enormous unmanageable aggregations called towns,...; profit which crowds them up when they are there into quarters without gardens or open spaces; profit which won’t take the most ordinary precautions against wrapping a whole district in a cloud of sulphurous smoke; which turns beautiful rivers into filthy sewers;...it is almost incredible that we should bear such crass stupidity as this” (Morris, Signs o f Change, op.cit., pp.29-30). An unsigned criticism in the Saturday
Review claimed that here Morris “describes a state of things which does not exist”, that he
“darkens his picture of the present in order to heighten the charms of the dream of the future” (Faulkner (Ed), op.cit., p.312). Morris’s above-quoted remarks are carelessly
pointed. Humankind is not gregarious for reasons of profit. The accumulation of Australia’s population in coastal towns was most strongly driven by desire for security and
Ju st over one million people visited the 1879-1880 Sydney International
Exhibition, compared with a little more than six million for London’s 1862 event and ten million in Philadelphia in 1876.181 Yet the attendance in Sydney was in fact comparatively impressive. Two years earlier the NSW Commissioners for the Philadelphia Exhibition had noted of a combined Australia and New Zealand “their 65 millions of sheep, and less than two millions and a half of people”;182 and in 1879 Jennings argued that distance from Europe suppressed immigration to Australia unlike the United States where the population was exceeding fifty million.183 Thus Sydney entertained at its International Exhibition the equivalent of close to half of its country’s population in comparison to Philadelphia’s one-fifth. While the
attendance figures themselves suggest in international terms a small market in Sydney, by percentage they indicate an enthusiasm by the public for first hand experiences. On a mercenary note, this would have been important to importer and local manufacturer alike.
At the Sydney International Exhibition organisers revealed a sophistication in product divisions which had been lacking just four years earlier with the
Melbourne Intercolonial. There was no hesitation in allocating stained glass to the Art Section, perhaps in emulation of the 1876 Philadelphia International Exhibition, while plain window glass found a logical place within the class comprising items
urban environment is decided by cost factors. Present day conditions testify to the essential truth in Morris’s words.
]S]Official Record o f the Sydney International Exhibition, 1879, op.cit., pp.cxvii, cxviii.
182The Australian Town and Country Journal, Vol.XVI, No.396, 4 August 1877, p.174.
m Official Record o f the Sydney International Exhibition, 1879, op.cit., p.cix.
manufactured by similar means: ceramics, pottery, porcelain and glassware.184 International exhibits in the stained glass section at Sydney were both highly competitive and enthusiastically assessed by the judges who were particularly captivated by the French entries. Comments disclose the elements undoubtedly seen to be essential to sustain a reputable professional industry here;185 those for the work of Leo Lefevre et Cie, Paris, which received a First degree of Merit, are
indicative:
Several painted church windows of the highest artistic merit, the designs and composition being of great beauty, force, and brilliancy, the grouping and attitudes graceful and striking, the colours bright, harmonious and pleasing, the skill displayed in the combinations of the colours and shades
praiseworthy and denoting great progress. 186
Similarly, in stained glass window design Morris looked for “clear, crisp,
easily-read incident” and colour which was always “clear, bright, and emphatic”.187 Yet, as with the 1876 Philadelphia Exhibition, Morris & Co. chose not to exhibit in Australian exhibitions. Again this may well have been purely a business decision based on marshalling resources for most likely markets, Australia not seen as an economically viable proposition. In comparison to the French exhibits in Sydney Camm Brothers of Birmingham, credited with equal distinction, received from the
184Morris classified these manufactures as “arts”; some may have been “lesser arts with a vengeance” (Morris, Architecture, Industry & Wealth, op.cit., p.45) but they nonetheless could satisfy the necessary conditions of art: functionality with beauty of form. Stained glass maintained a profile higher than a “lesser art” by virtue of its impact on architecture.
185 Official Record o f the Sydney International Exhibition, 1879, op.cit., pp.490, 491. 186Ibid.,p.490.
judges the terse observation of “Very excellent designs and careful work”188 while the Highly Commended work of Heaton, Butler & Bayne of London went without remark.189 While the products of Camm Brothers are unrecognised in Australia, windows by Heaton, Butler & Bayne became apparent following the company’s foray into exhibiting here.190 The London company’s Sydney display would have been responsible for the commission of the great East Window of 1885 for
St.Saviour’s Anglican Cathedral, Goulburn, New South Wales [see ILLUSTRATION 1191. Thus this international exhibition clearly allowed some of the public to “think for himself’ regarding artistic endeavour rather than accepting the “hearsay” of judges. Such a choice was rightly discerning when comments on other items are
considered.
The Australian colonies were represented in Sydney by two stained glass window manufacturers from New South Wales and one from Victoria. The former secured awards equal to the best overseas entries (First degree of Merit) while the latter was Commended. Despite the varying commendations all three Australian exhibits received comments from the judges. Remarks were not equable even for equally assessed items. Ashwin & Falconer of Sydney attracted attention similar to the French entries:
Show several painted (stained) ornamental glass windows of excellent execution, of very good designs, the colours being bright and harmonious,
188Official Record o f the Sydney International Exhibition, 1879, op.cit., p.495.
189Ibid., p.496.
190See, for example, Peter & June Donovan, 150 Years o f Stained & Painted Glass,
Wakefield Press, Netley, 1986, pp.59, 61-62, 73, 75-76. 63
the grouping easy, expressive, and correct, and the settings substantial and creditable. 191
The most obvious omission in the more insipid response to the work of Lyon,
Cottier & Co. - “Of fine execution, well designed, and creditable to the Colony”192 - is m ention of bright colours. In 1890 M orris wrote th at “Any artist who has no liking
for bright colour had better hold his hand from stained-glass designing”.193 This was
M orris’s way of verbally presenting a m ajor consideration in Gothic stained glass windows. With the Gothic Revival in the nineteenth century the lum inosity which formed such an essential part of original windows was revitalised by the use of high quality coloured glass. True Gothic Revival protagonists, including Lyon, Cottier & Co., held strongly to this fundam ental ingredient. While Lyon later m oderated the tonality of his colours from the vividness of early work he never abandoned
brightness in term s of lum inous intensity.194 The judges appeared loath to find fault with any of the stained glass works. In order to sustain this stand they om itted to comment at all on some entries while th eir reports on the A ustralian exhibits bear an almost condescending intonation, perhaps in the misguided belief th at colonial stained glass needed to be verbally supported regardless of its tru e quality. The report for the window by John Bell of Sandhurst would have been better left unsaid.195
X9XOfficial Record o f the Sydney International Exhibition, 1879, op.cit., p.504.
192Ibid., p.506.
l93Poulson (Ed), op.cit., p.44. 194See Chapter 6.
195“The effect is good, design and workmanship very fair and artistic, and the industry is worthy o f encouragement” (Official Record o f the Sydney International Exhibition, 1879, op.cit., p.515).
The panel responsible for stained glass (among engravings, photographs and design work) was composed of three Sydney judges including French expatriate Lucien Henry and one each from New Zealand, Paris and Philadelphia. Lucien Henry was a strong advocate of Australian decorative arts and produced designs for stained glass in the next decade.196 The preferential comments for the French
exhibits were very much a reflection of personal decorative taste197 as French stained glass was never in high contention in the Australian import industry. The awards, displaying as in the case of other divisions an almost blanket acceptance of all exhibits, laid the ground for possible public duping when prizes could
subsequently be announced by firms. John Bell’s ability to declare that his work had been “Commended” in Sydney would not have been a true indication of the standing of his products.
The furniture division of the 1879 Exhibition was something of a tame affair, particularly in terms of entry numbers compared to the following Melbourne show. British furniture manufacturers pressed accepted style choices for particular rooms, early English and “other superior Styles” such as Queen Anne and Adam predominating.198 This was probably done with the knowledge that Australians already appreciated such styles. William Walker & Sons deigned to include one Gothic piece in “Scotch Baronial” style which was simply a showcase for exhibits; its description suggests it was not a style really suitable for home consumption:
l96The Technical Gazette o f New South Wales, Vol.2, Part 3, August 1912, p.35.
197and perhaps the strength o f Lucien Henry’s position on the panel.
... The C ase is massive and well proportioned, and distinguished by that severity of detail which characterizes the Gothic of the period. 199
The Sydney furniture firm of J. Lawson held its own against British competition, to be awarded likewise a First degree of Merit Special and to receive the same notice for design, skilled workmanship and selection of materials.200 British judges were conspicuous by their absence, perhaps something of a political move to allay fears of favouritism and wisely so in view of Moore & Co.’s comments in their Catalogue of the British Court. This Sydney publication suggested that a “magnificent success” was assured for this first international exhibition held in the southern hemisphere, “the principal factor in this gratifying result” being the “display made by the
British Exhibitors”.201 As suggested in Chapter 2, the Australian press strongly favoured British furniture and promoted its acquisition by locals. Yet from the judging comments passed on J. Lawson’s exhibits, Australian products could compete on all levels with imported items but were not given the same
encouragement by the media. The ten-man judging panel for furniture at the Sydney International Exhibition was made up of eight Sydney judges, one from the country town of Bathurst and one from Vermont in the United States. All works received awards of some degree. The organisers of the Sydney Exhibition seemed determined to offend no-one and to ensure that the public believed they were being treated to a viewing of the world’s best products. In the majority of cases this was
199Ibid., p. 104.
200Ibid., pp.225, 217, 221.
201 Moore 's Catalogue o f the British Court, Sydney International Exhibition o f 1879, Moore
so; however, exhibits such as John Bell’s stained glass and the commended exhibit of Paris furniture makers Adam et Cie - “Elaborate in design, but being cheap it is rather rough and inferior in workmanship”202 - demonstrate that greater restraint should have been shown when granting lesser awards. This would have ensured that spectators could easily differentiate between the best and the rest.203 Yet, in presenting the first event in Australia to promote international participation,
Sydney organisers clearly wished to appear as both courteous hosts to international guests and proud supporters of local content.
The countries appearing at the Sydney International Exhibition and the volume of works from each reflected already established import preferences. Prior to World War I Britain supplied some 63 percent of imports to Australia, Germany 11 per cent and the United States nearly 12 per cent.204 At the Sydney International Exhibition Great Britain provided the most exhibitors at 1250, the home colony 1123, Germany 720, France 375 and the USA 310. Award figures followed a similar pattern.205 So while it is likely that the public were seeing some already available decorative styles they would also have been exposed to an enormously greater array of approved goods from abroad which had not been taken in hand by importers.
It is difficult to assess accurately the practical impact of this first International Exhibition on Australian soil as official reports do not offer sales figures. One
202Official Record o f the Sydney International Exhibition, 1879, op.cit., p.214.
2W3It was perhaps such misdirected judging which drew from Morris the scornful appendage o f “pretentious trivialities” for international exhibitions.
204Australia Today 1924. British Empire Exhibition Number, 10 November 1923, p.99.
205Official Record o f the Sydney International Exhibition, 1879, op.cit., pp.cxcv, cxciv.
instance of selling success however was the fact that Walker & Sons presented an entirely new furniture collection at the Melbourne International Exhibition because all their exhibits in Sydney had been sold during the run of the earlier show, the “handsomest” pieces going to a New South Welshman206 - that is,
Bathurst’s James Horne Stewart. The influence of the 1879 Sydney International