Description
Notes from Dr. Doorknob: Schools & Rules: Reading Between the Lines of American Hardware History Some hardware historians would have us think that when it came time to select doorknob designs, American builders and building owners of the 1890s really cared about academic accuracy and what is called “Schools” of historical ornament. This is like saying John D. Rockefeller spent more than 10 seconds making sure his next big deal matched precedents set by Greek or Roman oil merchants. American interest in the Schools of Ornament actually emanated not from the scholastic interests of indigenous homeowners but from the economic needs of American hardware manufacturers. Beginning in the 1890s these companies were looking at a seriously declining market, with building styles steadily eliminating emphatic decoration such as fancy bronze doorknobs. Architecture was shifting back to traditional facades, symmetrical fenestration and a purposeful march towards fewer details, not more. But large companies like Russell & Erwin, Corbin, Yale, and Sargent had enormous investments in the designing and manufacturing of fancy hardware. They needed to build continuing interest and demand for their products and so they adopted the oft-used strategy of playing upon Americans’ always sensitive nerve of stylistic insecurity: they re-defined their maligned “American” designs into much more desirable, and sellable, “Historical European” styles. The proof of this marketing strategy is found not in what was offered up as the decorative “Schools of Consequence” but in what was branded with academic rejection. The acceptable Schools of Design promoted by the big hardware companies gave little credit to anyone but the Europeans while at the same time leaving out the one Monarch who was actually known & loved by everyone, who reigned the longest, and who actually had the greatest influence on American style. She, of course, was Queen Victoria. But “Victorian” style was considered the demise of American building, so something had to be done to replace that vulgar taste with elite and seemingly sophisticated products. The result was the purposeful promotion of “Kingly” designs, the romanticized acknowledgement of American Colonial style, and the nervous recognition of the Modern styles that were threatening to incorporate no decorative hardware whatsoever. One needs only look through the late 19th Century catalogs promoting Schools of Design to see that the publishers, i.e. the hardware manufacturers, were most interested in moving product, and they would comfortably mold history around their objectives. A few sample statements set this tone: “…about the middle of the nineteenth century craftsmanship in all lines descended to a low ebb…” (this was them, but maybe no one remembers) “…no period of which we have any written record was so hopelessly banal as this mid-Victorian desert of artistic achievement…” (MCCC was hopelessly banal?) “…the dominant note of the Elizabethan style was domesticity, a striving after modern home comforts…” (hmm…including indoor plumbing?) “…the Mission idea helped awaken…a greater respect for unadorned surfaces and...