The next question arising is, in view of the restraints upon artists, what styles of decoration are the best? The subject is worth considering at length. There may be a beauty of a certain kind in the ware itself. As a rule, porcelain should never be overloaded with gold or any kind of decoration or color less beautiful than its own enamel. It demands lightness of ornamentation and gracefulness of design, rather than brilliancy of decoration. We can, when these canons are observed, find something to admire in capricious floral designs, even although they may not be floral to the naturalist. The best rule is to adapt the decoration to the object upon which it is laid. It would be a violation of good taste to demand pictures upon plates, or that a soup-tureen should resemble a sarcophagus. If an object be for use, let its usefulness be the primary consideration; if for ornament, let its beauty be its first; if it be meant to combine them, let the ornamentation be that best suited to the useful purpose.
When we come to consider color alone, a distinction must again be drawn between articles for different purposes. Ornamentation may address either the eye alone or the sensibilities through the eye. Restricting ourselves to the former, the article will be the most ornamental which, apart from shape, seems most brilliant, and reflects the most light. To illustrate this, we might reproduce an object in different materials--diamond, ruby, topaz, gold, iron, lead, sand, and plaster. Show it, in all these materials, to a savage, an ignoramus, an artist, a woman, and each will select the copy in precious stone as the most agreeable to the eye. The plaster would be the least likely to attract, and the person choosing it would be at once put down as devoid of taste. Suppose, now, that a vase is presented to us duplicated in different materials, we should find the turquoise of Japan or the red of China more pleasing to the eye than stanniferous enamel. It would, again, be like choosing between ruby and plaster. In this way a rule could be drawn up capable of universal application, one which would surmount all the advancing and receding waves of changing fashion.
In the shape which an object intended for ornament should assume, or in the style of its decoration, there is, as we have seen, no absolute rule. Individual taste is paramount, since ornaments are intended mainly to administer to the pleasure of the possessor, but one rule may be considered universal in regard to the decoration. If the object be a vase intended to brighten a house, then its ornamentation should never be of such an order that its greatest and best effect is perceived when it stands alone. What ought to be kept in view, is the extent to which it will increase the attractiveness of the room in which it stands. It is a very curious fact that the most perfect decoration demands isolation for the appreciation of its full effect, and that decoration of comparative mediocrity will frequently add more to an apartment. We are thus led to observe that decoration is not an end, but a way, a means to the beautifying of a home. Every such object in a house should be a note, and from combination of all the notes comes harmony. Were each a tune complete, however perfect, the result would be a jarring discord. For that reason, a vase of one perfectly simple color may harmonize with its surroundings as well as, or even better than, another showing a masterpiece of painting. Such a color must, however, be as near perfection as possible, like that of a precious stone. A vase of turquoise-blue may produce in a room the effect of diamonds in the ears of a woman. Taste is not likely to lead her to carry pictures in her ears, nor to exclude all but picture-painted porcelain from her rooms.