Hindoo No.2 1856

Editor: Here we have "Hindoo No.2" created in 1856 by Owen Jones. It seems to be a study of textile and design patterns with delicate lines and a muted palette. What stands out to you about this print? Curator: Immediately, I'm drawn to the processes of production embedded within this ostensibly decorative print. Jones was deeply concerned with how design, often sourced from non-Western cultures, was being appropriated and, in his view, often degraded by industrial manufacturing. Editor: Degraded, how so? Curator: Think about the labour involved. These intricate patterns would traditionally have been the product of skilled artisans, potentially imbued with cultural and symbolic significance accumulated through generations of practice. Mass production strips away that connection. Jones advocated for designers to understand the materials they were working with and the impact of their design choices on both workers and consumers. Editor: So, you’re saying he’s not just showcasing beautiful designs, but also making a statement about how things are made and consumed? Curator: Precisely! Consider the context. This was the height of the British Empire. Jones, in presenting these “Hindoo” patterns, engages with a complicated colonial dynamic. He is both admiring and appropriating. It prompts us to question the labour and cultural exchange, or lack thereof, involved in acquiring and then re-producing these patterns. Where are the original artisans in this transaction? Editor: That's a fascinating perspective. It makes me consider how even seemingly simple designs have layers of social and political meaning embedded in their creation. I initially just saw pretty patterns. Curator: And that’s okay! Art functions on multiple levels. But by looking at the materiality and the processes that bring it into being, we can unearth a richer understanding of its place in history and culture.