Eric A Johnson and his dog, London, about 1937 Te Papa Tongarewa, Wellington, Purchased 1997 with New Zealand Lottery Grants Board funds |
In the painter and photographer Eric Lee-Johnson’s somewhat
hastily written and lightly edited autobiography, passing reference is made to
his becoming ‘one of the original members of the Institute of Industrial
Design’ whilst in London in the 1930s, noting that ‘I was invited to join by
the organiser, Milner Grey (sic), and
took no active part beyond attending lectures, but was glad to lend my name to
the aims of such movements (sic).’
(Eric Lee-Johnson, No road to follow:
autobiography of a New Zealand artist (Auckland: Godwit, 1994), p. 31).
There was no such organisation as the Institute of
Industrial Design, organised by Milner Gray, constituted in London during the 1930s.
However, Gray was one of the founder members of a group of practicing designers
that in September 1930 became the Society of Industrial Artists (SIA). The SIA
aimed at ‘becoming a controlling authority to advance and protect the interests
of Industrial Artists and at raising the standard of Industrial Art in this
country, both from an economic and cultural standpoint.’ (James Holland, Minerva at fifty (Westerham, Kent:
Hurtwood, 1980), p. 1).
Eric A Johnson – as he was then known – arrived in London in
May 1930 and, as an employee of some of London’s leading advertising agencies, initially
S H Benson Ltd and, later, Arks Publicity Ltd, he would have been intimately
acquainted with the efforts of British designers to
obtain professional recognition. Johnson was not the only New Zealander to be
recruited to the SIA; others known to have been members included his friend
from Elam days, the designer and artist James Boswell and the radical filmmaker
and kinetic artist Len Lye.
Eric A Johnson's packaging design for Alfred Imhof & Sons Ltd, about 1937 |
Lee-Johnson’s activities as an industrial designer remain
obscure: as with his photography, he evidently felt that knowledge of his work
as a designer would compromise his reputation as a painter. The only known
example of his work in this field was the design of the packaging of
long-playing gramophone needles that he undertook for the record shop Alfred
Imhof & Sons Ltd of 110 New Oxford Street while he was at Arks Publicity
Ltd. The packaging design Johnson developed for Imhof was typical of the work undertaken by his
London contemporaries such as Gray and Ashley Havinden. Influenced by German modernist designers, it was suited for mass display,
employed new font types - usually sans serif, employed high contrast tonal fields and,
characteristic of the work of many of the London designers, was slightly
whimsical.
Milner Gray's packaging design for Ilford Ltd, about 1937 |
The formation of the SIA came at a critical time in the
emergence of design as a clearly identifiable practice during the first half of
the twentieth century. While the ‘industrial arts’ had been a part of the
state’s teaching curricula since the 1830s, it had been regarded as a ‘minor
art’, a ‘decorative art’, an ‘applied art’. Industrial artists were regarded as
little more than ornamentalists and decorators, who, on the odd occasion they
were employed by manufacturers, were required to produce superficial designs
that could be adapted to the dominant requirements of mass production. Other
designers, such as Johnson, were identified, more often than not equally pejoratively,
as commercial artists and typographers and they were often employed as
technicians in printing offices and, from the 1890s, in advertising agencies.
But from the first decade of the twentieth century attitudes
towards design in Britain – and to a lesser extent in the ‘colonies’ – began
to change as the decadence of Britain’s manufacturing sector became increasingly
apparent. Officials at the British Board of Trade, somewhat optimistically,
identified design as a missing ingredient in the production process by as early
as 1908. But it wasn’t until after the First World War that the first hesitant
steps were taken in an attempt to address design deficiencies of the
manufacturing sector.
The most notable of these measures resulted from the
indefatigable endeavours of one of the most unlikely design promoters, Sir
Hubert Llewellyn Smith, permanent secretary of the Board of Trade from 1908 to
1919 and subsequently Chief Economic Adviser to the Government until 1927. In
1919 Llewellyn Smith wrote - anonymously - a short pamphlet, Art and industry, for the
Ministry for Reconstruction that argued a greater role for design in the British industrial
environment. Shortly afterwards he managed to extract seed funding from the
Treasury for the establishment of a prototype design promotion organisation,
the pompously named British Institute of Industrial Art, which functioned, anaemically, until 1933. He also published a theoretical text, The economic laws of art production (London: Oxford University
Press, 1924) and the following year taught a course on industrial art to
students enrolled for the London School of Economics’ new commerce degree; it
was not popular and William Pember Reeves, president of the LSE and a former
High Commissioner for New Zealand, had the embarrassing task of informing
Llewellyn Smith that his services were no longer required.
Llewellyn Smith was also the major driving force behind the next two measures implemented by the British state in what was an, at times, contradictory design promotion strategy: the formation of the Council for Art and Industry (1934) and the introduction of a National Register of Industrial Art Designers (1936), a state-funded registration formwork for designers, which while not offering the same level of professional protection that had been afforded to architects by the 1931 Architects (Registration) Act, at least provided a level of official recognition for the nascent practice: registered designers were able to employ the post-nominal NRIAD.
Llewellyn Smith was also the major driving force behind the next two measures implemented by the British state in what was an, at times, contradictory design promotion strategy: the formation of the Council for Art and Industry (1934) and the introduction of a National Register of Industrial Art Designers (1936), a state-funded registration formwork for designers, which while not offering the same level of professional protection that had been afforded to architects by the 1931 Architects (Registration) Act, at least provided a level of official recognition for the nascent practice: registered designers were able to employ the post-nominal NRIAD.
It wasn’t only officialdom that was interested in
design in Britain. While the formation in 1916 of the Design & Industries
Association - modelled on the Deutsche Werkbund (1907) - was probably the result of yet another Llewellyn Smith initiative,
the private sector, notably the advertising industry, was beginning to
understand how design could radically alter consumer preferences. Probably the
most innovative advertising agency in London was W S Crawford Ltd. In 1925 its chairman,
Sir William Crawford, who had attended the University of Tübingen prior to the
First World War, invited members of the Bundes Deutscher Gebrauchsgraphiker, the highly influential professional
association of German graphic designers to London, a seemingly fugitive event
that not only acted as a catalyst for modernism in Britain but also provided British
designers with a template of how to organise design practice. The SIA can be viewed as one of the more tangible results of this visit.
Lee-Johnson returned to New Zealand in 1938 and his career as a
practicing industrial designer came to an abrupt close. Lacking any significant
manufacturing sector and with a consumer market inured to the traditional,
there was no recognisable demand for the well-designed products of modernism,
even in the advertising industry where he was employed. Surprisingly, given his
involvement with the SIA during his years in London, Lee-Johnson does not
appear to have been involved with Milner Gray’s 1949 visit to New Zealand and
there is no evidence that he retained his membership of the practitioner body
following his return to the country.
Instead of practising industrial design, Lee-Johnson began to write
about it. His first article ‘Industry and the Artist’ was published
in Art in New Zealand in March 1943. In it he lamented the poor standard
of design prevailing across the country, arguing that ‘The bad designing in the
past of most things produced in New Zealand […] was the artist’s personal
responsibility, although noting that ‘this position exists because of the
shortsightedness of the majority of our industrialists.’ (Art in New Zealand,
no. 3 (1943), p. 3).
Page from 'New Zealand postage stamp design' from the Arts Year Book, no 7, edited by Eric Lee-Johnson (1951) |
It was not a sophisticated analysis of the situation and took little
account either of the realities of New Zealand’s trading position as a captive
market for British manufacturers or, indeed, the realpolitik of a wartime
economy. Lee-Johnson’s views on design shifted; in his last published essay on design
matters, ‘New Zealand postage stamp design’, he recognised that his simplistic
analysis of the design process was a more complex process and that good design
was not just an issue for designers and manufacturers but also other involved
parties such as consumers and, critically, the state. (Arts Year Book,
no. 7 (1951), pp. 91-96).
Like that other Elam-trained designer, Jo Sinel, Eric Lee-Johnson
can be counted among the first New Zealanders to be regarded as industrial
designers yet, due primarily to limited opportunity, neither practiced in the
country. Lee-Johnson’s impact on New Zealand design comes through his informed
writing about the subject at a time few New Zealanders were even aware of the
practice.