But while this is true of such of the household goods as cannot be procured except by the medium of the machine, there are other examples. In the case of the wall paper the function of the machine is simply to transfer the proper design to the paper itself. This has no identity except as a surface. It is no more to be considered than is a canvas upon which a picture is painted. But when a chair or a table is formed out of pieces of lumber uniformly shaped by one machine, the seat or top put together by another and the legs or back carved or stamped by a third, art or individuality is lost because mechanical construction is involved.
Still more is this the case in the product of the manufactory of pottery. In commercial practice not only is a shape designed without regard to decoration but the same decoration is placed upon several forms, or a single form is made to suffer as the vehicle for many decorations. Some of the results may be pleasing, even beautiful, but it is more by luck than guidance and no piece produced in this way has any claim to be classed as a work of art.
On the other hand it may happen that a work of art, in the sense of individual expression, may not even be beautiful and one is tempted to ask the reason. If a work which is a genuine expression of a man's personality fail to please the senses of those who are trained in the finer perceptions there must be something wrong.
If the adverse opinion be at all general amongst the critics it may be assumed that they are right and that the worker is wrong.
For example, the form of a flower is not a fit receptacle for a candle. It often happens that a designer, struck with the beauty of, say, a tulip, has modeled the flower in clay and made it into a candlestick. Now it is obvious that the more closely the model simulates the flower the less appropriate it is for such a purpose. If the model be heavy enough to be of use it must be far removed from its prototype. If a conventional design for a candlestick be adopted the petals of a flower may be shown in relief upon it but there must always be a solid foundation to account for the possibility of use.
A favorite form with some designers is a bird's nest made into a flower holder. In this the same criticism applies. A bird's nest is always built to let water escape. Even a mud-lined nest is not impervious and the idea is obviously inappropriate. It is important that imitation be avoided and especially the imitation of material. One often hears the remark "How beautiful, it looks just like bronze." This, of course, comes from the casual observer to whom the skill of the imitation appeals but it cannot be too strongly insisted upon that to imitate one material in another is false from every point of view. Nor is it necessary. Clay is sufficient in itself. There are so many effects possible in pottery which are not possible in any other medium that it is entirely superfluous to seek outlandish texture and color. To be sure, such things are popular but that does not make them sound in principle or true in taste.