Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
22<br />
the second half of the nineteenth century that language of Victorian<br />
domesticity had become a feature of the interior landscapes of a range of<br />
semi-public and public ‘homes from home’, including cafés, restaurants,<br />
women’s clubs, hotels, the leisure areas of department stores, railway station<br />
waiting rooms, train carriages and mental hospitals. That replication<br />
challenged the separation of the spheres such that modernity, and by<br />
extension, the modern interior, were ultimately defined by the cross-over<br />
between the private and the public arenas rather than the distinction<br />
between them.<br />
Not everyone believed that the Victorian domestic interior was<br />
‘modern’, however. Several progressive architects and designers were<br />
already beginning to see the comfortable, bourgeois Victorian drawing<br />
room as antithetical to everything they were trying to achieve. <strong>The</strong> design<br />
reformer Charles Eastlake was especially vociferous on the subject. ‘By that<br />
expression [knick knacks]’, he wrote in 1868, ‘I meant that heterogeneous<br />
assemblage of modern rubbish which . . . finds its way into the drawing<br />
room or boudoir.’ 2 <strong>The</strong> art critic John Ruskin was equally dismissive of<br />
what he saw as the Victorian parlour’s excesses. ‘I know’, he wrote, ‘what it<br />
is to live in a cottage with a deal floor and roof . . . and I know it to be in<br />
many respects healthier and happier that living between a Turkey carpet<br />
and gilded ceiling, beside a steel grate and polished fender’. 3 Later, at the<br />
turn of the century, the Viennese architect and critic Adolf Loos was<br />
equally disdainful about the work of the Victorian upholsterer. ‘It was a<br />
reign of terror’, he wrote, ‘that we can still all feel in our bones. Velvet and<br />
silk, Makart bouquets, dust, suffocating air and lack of light, portieres,<br />
carpets and “arrangements” – thank God we are all done with that now.’ 4<br />
<strong>The</strong> visual and material culture of Victorian domesticity, characterized by<br />
its love of clutter and its devotion to the bibelot, was linked in those men’s<br />
minds with excessive materialism and a lack of aesthetic control. Above<br />
all they believed that Victorian domesticity was defined by its links with<br />
tradition and its resistance to the pull of modernity. 5<br />
Walter Benjamin, on the other hand, looking back from the perspective<br />
of the 1930s, understood the essential modernity of the Victorian<br />
home. For him it was the location in which the very idea of the interior –<br />
self-evidently, in his view, a modern phenomenon – had emerged. ‘Under<br />
Louis Philippe the private individual makes his entrance on the stage of history’,<br />
he wrote, adding that, ‘for the private individual, the place of dwelling<br />
is for the first time opposed to the place of work. <strong>The</strong> former constitutes<br />
itself as the interior. Its complement is the office. <strong>The</strong> private individual,