Vol. XVII, No. 12. 
SYRACUSE, NEW YORK 
April 1916 
E have had several inquiries about 
our next Summer School, but we 
will have no Summer School this 
year in Syracuse. However, Mrs. 
K. E. Cherry who has always been 
the corner stone of our schools will 
teach the coming summer in the East, 
beginning on June 1st at the store of 
B. K. Elliott & Co., 108 Sixth St., 
Pittsburgh, Pa. All those interested 
should write to Mrs. Cherry for further information, terms, 
etc. We are glad to hear that the Boston Society of Arts and 
Crafts has recently conferred on her the grade of Master 
Craftsman. This honor is well deserved. 
We have received several interesting answers to the V. P. 
S. letter published in our February number. It will be impos- 
sible for us to publish them all. We give here two of the best 
answers : 
To Editor of Keramic Studio: 
Apropos of the letter signed V. P. S. in February issue I submit the fol- 
lowing : 
I confess that it is always with mingled emotions that I set out for a cold- 
blooded argument in favor of a purely conventional decoration for china. 
First, because I have stood exactly where our conscientious friend now stands 
on the question, and secondly, because 1 do not now stand for much of the 
conventional decoration, so called, of the present time. 
The word Conventional does not to me cover the multitude of artistic 
sins which are daily being committed in its name. But my conversion to a 
formal type of decoration after twenty years of familiarity with nature forms 
and of depicting them on all kinds of surfaces was a matter of conviction and 
not the acceptance, of a "fad". It is true, as our Editor has said, that 
the study of Universal Principles gradually leads us into the realm of the 
absolute and that some rare souls do indeed get a glimpse of the Infinite and 
have the power of interpretation. It is, however, a realm where many take 
refuge, safe from academic criticism, but with no power to interpret to the 
multitude the truths they claim to have divined. It is true that those who 
see beneath or beyond the form, the underlying principles governing all form, 
have a vision beyond those who only see the material form, however pure 
their enjoyment may be, but it is one thing to grasp the essence of a form 
and portray it in a few simple fundamental lines that all may understand, 
and another thing to separate a form into its component parts and shake them 
up in a box and dump them as you would a puzzle for the ingenious to figure 
out. 
The Platonic philosophy has long been and will continue to be the in- 
spiration of artists in every department of art, but, laying aside philosophic 
arguments and the manifestations into which serious study of principles must 
eventually lead when considering design for itself or apart from its use, we, 
as decorators, always have the practical excuse for the simplification and rep- 
etition of nature forms and that is expediency. The pure joy and apprecia- 
tion of nature in form and color cannot be ignored or minimized. But when 
one leaves the broad field of Fine Art for that of decorative art, and especially 
for the branch known as keramic art, one must once and for all recognize the 
logical limitations and realize the difference between representation and 
decoration. Here, form, or the object, is primary, the decoration secondary. 
It is not merely a background or a surface on which we may depict such bits 
of nature as we deem worthy of being perpetuated. Itisanobjectpresumably 
already beautiful, which we hope by a sympathetic treatment to make more 
beautiful. And right here is one of the best arguments against the naturalistic 
decoration, for on a curved surface the drawing is necessarily distorted from 
any one angle and the purpose is defeated. A Hat simplified pattern does not 
suffer in the same degree. It may or may not be distorted in the process, 
that depends on the artist, but it does not suffer as does the more natural 
drawing because of the curved surface. Always one must decide which one 
is most interested in, the decoration or the finished object. If the former, 
by all the laws of expediency choose a flat surface and one not intended for 
some practical use. If you have realized your limitations and are trying to 
render more beautiful an object already beautiful in form, then in all sincerity 
study first the form to be decorated and see where and how the application 
of pattern will accomplish this end and do not let your love for nature forms 
blind you to the object before you, but make such changes and simplifications 
as are necessary in order to conform to the shape and become in effect a part 
of it. If one cannot after conscientious study and thought bring oneself to 
use nature in such simplified forms as will lend themselves to the harmony 
and unity of the whole, either ignore natural forms as inspiration and study 
pure line and color as abstract qualities, or return to that broader field of art 
where one i s at liberty to "paint the thing as he sees it," for itself alone, 
for the pure joy that may lie in him for representation. 
Referring to the suggestion in the letter of the use of '''small, rather 
flatly painted pansies, grouped in an orderly way" on table service, I would 
say that such a type of decoration is avast improvement over the large showy, 
sprawly kind and is a long step in the right direction, as it recognizes the 
principle of order and is in a measure subordinated to the shape. Much of 
this type of decoration is charming and attractive, but while it does not 
directly violate the principles, rhythm and balance, and may be harmonious 
in arrangement and color, one will eventually see that it is not as serious a 
type of decoration as that in which the individuality has been sacrificed for 
the sake of perfect unity. Art is broad and deep, and there will always be 
controversies and tendencies to fling off the orthodox restrictions. The ten- 
dency at present in the Fine Arts is more and more towards the decorative 
and abstract, and in the search for the ideal has in my humble opinion led to 
the committing of the same crime for which we have been accused and found 
guilty, i. e., the failure to distinguish between Fine and Decorative Art. Of 
course, the dividing line is very elastic and there must be room for much that 
is hard to classify. Poster work is of this type, and while an Aubrey Beardsley 
may be a legitimate offspring of the union of Fine and Decorative Art, a cubist 
portrait cannot be classified either from a materialistic or philosophic stand- 
oint. It is neither a picture nor a design according to any known definition 
of either, and according to one close student of this type of expression "it is 
not good metaphysics". So we object to that comparison. 
We can by persistent, conscientious study form a basis for individual 
judgment and not stand perplexed and discouraged over the antics of the 
extremists in either field of Art. As decorators we can combine the ideal with 
the practical in such a way as not to lose our equilibrium and in a language 
that will be intelligible to all. 
Henrietta Barclay Paist. 
To the Editor of the Keramic Studio: 
My dear Madam: — 
Comparison between the naturalistic and conventional modes of treat- 
ment in the ancient art of porcelain decorating is a little like comparison 
between forms of poetry. One poet declares the sonnet to be the highest 
form of poetic expression. Another poet points out the fact that he always 
employs the ballade and vigorously contends for its superiority. To war- 
ring poets and painters alike comes Kipling's aboriginal wiseman, with his 
equalizing statement that 
"There are four and twenty ways 
Of constructing tribal lays, 
And every single one of them is right." 
There seems to be enough room under the broad canop}' of art for the con- 
ventional and the naturalistic. Still greater than any expression of art, is 
art itself. The decorator needs to ask, not so much how this "conventional" 
compares with that "naturalistic," as to inquire searchingly: Is this good 
"conventional?" Is that good "naturalistic?" 
With swift intelligence the desert Indian weaves into her rug her prayer 
for rain — the lightning — and behold, a conventional pattern in its primitive 
power and beauty. With like untutored impulse a child groups the char- 
acters and objects of some fairy tale and produces a design made in obedience 
to laws of art which the child is privileged to express, perhaps, more unerringly 
than the teacher. The great Chinese or Japanese painter presents a group of 
ducks among the reeds at the water's edge. The form, the feathering, what 
is of the utmost importance, the characteristic action, or gesture, of the ducks 
is there in the drawing. Naturalistic? Supremely so. And yet the painter 
has not "copied" the ducks. In fact, the ducks were not before him when 
he painted the picture. With the sunshine pouring down upon it, Monet 
