Since September last year I have been occupied with a project for York Art Gallery researching the nineteenth century history of the York School of Art.

This institution was established in 1842 as a branch school, or provincial outlet, of the London run Government School of Design.

Interestingly, for the first 13 years the institution operated under the name of the ‘York School of Design’, and by way of introduction to my research I thought it would be apt to attempt to explain the reasons behind the change in name, as well as how this reflects the broader debate of ‘fine art’ versus ‘design’ in the Victorian era.

 

In 1830s Britain there was a widespread feeling that the aesthetic merit of the country’s applied arts and manufactures was by a long stretch inferior to that of our European neighbours, and the lack of a sense of taste – in all areas of artistic production – was insufficient for a prosperous nation.

Comparisons were drawn between Britain and states such as France, Prussia and Bavaria, where arts applied to industry had been institutionalised in an effort to educate and elevate the taste of the manufacturing population. Being persuaded by this example, the Board of Trade founded the Government School of Design in 1837, and the York School of Design followed 5 years later.

From the outset it is obvious to see how dedicated these institutions were to the applied and industrial arts. This was mirrored by the very technical curriculum which encouraged simply copying from stylised patterns and ornamental schemes and discouraged anything that might be considered a component of the ‘fine arts’, such as drawing and sculpting from the live model and painting in oils.

The school at York is unique in a way due to its resistance to the stringent curriculum implemented by the Board of Trade. The influence of the reputable figure painter William Etty – who was a central figure in the campaign to found the institution in York – was such that for a period in the 1840s there was a regular life drawing class.

 

Also the unorthodox methods of an enthusiastic Art Master named Thomas Cotchett meant that drawing from live specimens of flowers and plants was a staple part of the curriculum throughout much of the school’s early years. Needless to say these embellishments to the syllabus were met with hostility from the central committee of the Government School of Design.

After the Great Exhibition of 1851, when the inferiority of Britain’s applied arts and manufactures became a more palpable and pressing problem, the conclusion was reached that the status of ‘design’ must be raised to that of a significant visual art.

In London the Government School of Design was renamed as the National Art Training School and the curriculum became more elastic in its purpose. York School of Art followed shortly after, reincarnating in 1855 and reinstating its aversion to the commercial spirit of the Victorian Design Reform.