Real and fake

Unidentified painter after Mikhail M Adamovich (1884-1947) / M S Kuznetsov Partnership Factory, 'борьбд родинг героев РСФСР V 1918-1923
Heroes of the battle of the Motherland RSFSR V 1918-1923', porcelain and enamel painting [c 1910 - c. 1995?].
The design commemorates the fifth anniversary of the founding of the Red Army

Located on the outer fringes of the western civilisation it predominantly identifies with, New Zealand's non-indigenous material culture is characterised more by what is absent than what is present. This state of absence is one of the many tangible manifestations of colonial economies. While the colony supplies unprocessed material to the colonial power and acts as a market for manufactured commodities, it has few of the skills and resources necessary to undertake domestic conversion of the unprocessed produce.

When it comes to manufactured commodities such as ceramics, this skills deficit is accompanied by by the unavailability of what might be best described as the presence of comparative material. This deficiency ensures consumer choice is limited to what consumers are aware of, with the consequence being that market is defined not so much by competitive forces but rather by what manufacturers and their agents choose to supply. In New Zealand, for example, for much of the second half of the nineteenth century, this curtailed supply chain had little cultural significance as many European settlers brought not only their material culture with them to the colony but also memories of what they had seen in the metropolis; emporia of the mind.

But this situation changed dramatically as the population became more settled. By the early twentieth century, the ceramics market in New Zealand was dominated, exclusively, by English manufacturers. On the basis of information relayed to them by their New Zealand-based agents, the potteries of Stoke-on-Trent teamed up with import/export houses, based primarily in London, to determine what ceramics would be selected and distributed in New Zealand. It was a small, unsophisticated but lucrative market. The wares sent out were generally conservative in their design, repeating the shapes and patterns of familiar wares. When New Zealand manufacturers began producing tablewares during the import substitute phases that followed the institution of import licensing in 1938, they simply reproduced the familiar products of Stoke-on-Trent. External influences on the design of ceramics produced industrially in New Zealand were limited: the studio wares of the Anglo Japanese potting tradition (Temuka's stoneware lines); mid-20th century simple hand painted wares from the Netherlands, Sweden and Italy (Crown Lynn's brief foray into art ware in the mid 1950s); and American industrial ceramics (notably the rimless plates and the Dorothy Thorpe inspired wares produced at Crown Lynn). There was no reference to the larger European ceramic tradition or to those of Islam and China; to all intent and purpose they had no bearing on local practice.

Unidentified painter/Royal Saxon Porcelain Manufactory, Meissen, Tea bowl and saucer, porcelain, enamel painting and gilt, [c. 1730]. The extensive gilding and its baroque design suggests an early date of production.
Mackelvie Trust Board collection, Auckland Museum (1932.233)

These empirical limitations were recognised by some of the more pre-eminent early settlers including, in Auckland, George Grey and James Tannock Mackelvie. While Grey's primary focus as a collector of things was on books and manuscripts he also made significant acquisitions of Chinese decorative arts, apparently with the view of gifting them to a public institution. The non-resident Mackelvie – he lived in Auckland for only six years – acquired a significant collection of paintings but, as Mary Kisler observes, his 'real preference was for a range of decorative arts'<M Kisler, Angels & aristocrats: early European art in New Zealand public collections (Auckland: Godwit, 2010), p. 20>. A watercolour portrait of Mackelvie by George Halkett depicts him with a blue and white tin-glazed Delftware double gourd-shaped tin-glazed vase that is missing its lip. Unlike Grey, and no matter his proximity to the British Museum's extraordinary Augustus Wollaston Franks – they were neighbours in Victoria Street, Westminster – Mackelvie seems to have collected without the advice of experts; many of the pieces he acquired have been subsequently identified as being not what they were originally thought to be, a not uncommon problem in antipodean collections prior to the age of near instantaneous, high-quality visual digital communication.

Ceramics Study Gallery at the Victoria & Albert Museum, London. This publicly accessible display storage gallery, which stretches for over half a kilometre, displays a representative portion of the museums collection of ceramics

While the collections of New Zealand museums are, compared to those of Europe, minuscule in size and restricted in scope, the situation is exacerbated by the reality that, even when correctly identified, most of the material forming those collections remains in storage, disregarded by its curators and inaccessible to the public. Museum managements have long advocated using digital resources to compensate for the absence of display space but such a solution has considerable limitations and is, ultimately, reliant on the quality and knowledge of the cataloguer.

Screenshot of the Auckland Museum's entry for a tea bowl and saucer in the Mackelvie Trust Board collection (September 2015)

The Auckland Museum's collection database is a case in point. Take the tea bowl and saucer from the Mackelvie collection, which is housed by the museum. The entry correctly identifies the form and the ceramic body and also suggests, without any supporting evidence, a date of manufacture within an imprecise twenty year span. However, the data is deficient in a number of respects. The organisation producing the piece is referred to as the Meissen porcelain factory, rather than, as Anglicised, the Royal Saxon Porcelain Manufactory, a title that not only provides a clue as to the country of origin, Saxony but also resonates with the autocratic nature of the factory's formation by Augustus II, the Saxon elector. Any connection to the Prussian monarch Frederick II is spurious. The entry does not indicate how the crossed swords mark is applied, it was painted; it states the gilded mark '35c' is a manufacturers (sic) mark although there is a possibility that the gilding may have been undertaken outside the factory. There is no description of the ground colour or the painted vignettes. No reference material is cited. The entry appears to comply with an internal museum cataloguing standard (record richness) of ⅔ yet it is evident that the object has been catalogued by a person both without any specific knowledge of the work of the manufactory and a minimal understanding of ceramics. There is no dialogue between the object and its cataloguer, leading to an absence of dialogue with the viewer of the entry.

Screenshot of a part of the British Museum's entry for a plate produced at the Imperial Porcelain Factory, Lomonosov, Russia (September 2015)

By way of contrast the British Museum's  on-line collection data-base provides information based on the expert assessment of curatorial staff. There are hiatuses in the information which appear to relate to the limitations of the software. For example, while the porcelain blank was produced at the factory when it was designated the Imperial Porcelain Factory, St Petersburg, by 1922, when the blank was decorated, it was the State Porcelain Factory, Petrograd, and by 1925 the Lomonosov Porcelain Factory, Leningrad.

Detail of the obverse of Unidentified painter after Mikhail M Adamovich/M S Kuznetsov Partnership Factory, 'борьбд родинг героев РСФСР V 1918-1923 Heroes of the battle of the Motherland RSFSR V 1918-1923', porcelain and enamel painting [c 1910 - c. 1995?]

The 'Heroes of the Battle for the Motherland' plate heading this post encapsulates some of the problems encountered in using digital technologies to verify an object's origins and dates. The plate's appearance and size suggests it is an example of the revolutionary porcelains decorated at the Lomonosov factory between 1917 and 1927. The painting is crisp and confident, albeit a little pallid and the gilding somewhat scant; the painted marks on the obverse of the plate are not too dissimilar to those found on the British Museum's examples. The lower inscription correctly attributes the design of the Red Army soldier to Mikhail Mikhailovich Adamovich (1884-1947) and the painter's 'АГц' cypher is similar to those on other examples, although, like many of them, it remains unidentified <N Lobanov-Rostovsky, Revolutionary ceramics: Soviet porcelain 1917-1927 (London: John Calman and King, 1990), pp. 154-155>. The design appears, rather more confidently executed, on a plate formerly in the Nicholas Lynn collection dated 1925, published in 1990 by Nina Lobanov-Rostovsky (Fig. 3).

Mikhail M Adamovich/Imperial Porcelain Factory. 'V РСФСР V 1918-1923/V RSFSR V 1918-1923', porcelain, enamel painted and gilded plate (1925).
N Lobanov-Rostovsky, Revolutionary ceramics: Soviet porcelain 1917-1927 (London: John Calman and King, 1990, fig. 3

There is an obvious problem though with 'Heroes of the Battle for the Motherland' plate. Rather than bearing the underglaze stamp of the Imperial Porcelain Factory at Lomonosov – an imperial cypher – it bears a blue transfer-printed underglaze factory mark with the post-1900 version of the M S Kuznetsov Partnership Factory – '[a double-headed imperial eagle] / т в2 / мс кузнецова / дф' – at Dulevo, outside Moscow. This might not be so much of a problematic given that it's known that Adamovich worked at the Dulevo factory between 1927 and 1933 and it is not without the realms of possibility he may have provided a painter at the Kuznetsov factory with the design; the painted date on the obverse might relate to the date of the original design, rather than the decoration of the blank.

Rudolf Vilde (1868-1941) / State Porcelain Factory, 'Sieg der Werktätigen 25 Oktober/Victory to the workers 25 October', enamelled porcelain plate (1921). The plate commemorates, in German, Labour Day celebrations
National Gallery of Australia, Canberra (78.1288)

This is where digital information would leave a researcher; the information available suggests a possibility that the 'Heroes of the Battle for the Motherland' plate is what it claims to be. It's not. Examination reveals the decoration has been painted on a used, clear-glazed, plate which has been re-fired subsequently at a temperature somewhat lower than the original: abrasions consistent with quotidian use are visible under the painted decoration. While it may well have been decorated by a competent painter in Russia, possibly based on an unidentified prototype, it seems to have been produced within the last two decades of the twentieth century in order to satisfy a growing demand for Soviet revolutionary ceramics, which nowadays sell at auction for tens of thousands of pounds. Ironically, one of the first 'western' cultural institutions to acquire these graphic ceramics was an Antipodean museum, the Australian National Gallery in Canberra (now the National Gallery of Australia), which purchased a significant group of this material in 1978. The appearance of 'alien' ceramics in the gallery's collection represented a cultural shift from a provincial mindset to a sophisticated and knowledgeable one, comfortable with its place in the world.

Recognised for what it is rather than what it was intended to be seen as, the 'Heroes of the Battle for the Motherland' plate was acquired for a modest sum at Portobello Market in London in 1995.

Mangōpare modernism

In 2009 the British Museum's Department of Prehistory and Europe purchased at the Alexandra Palace Antique and Collectors Fair in London an earthenware plate decorated with a coloured transfer-printed kōwhaiwhai (painted rafter decoration) border. This ‘Maori Art’ plate was fabricated at the Lambeth factory of the British ceramic manufacturer Doulton & Co in about 1925. It is currently on show at the museum in a display devoted to the emergence of modernism in Europe. Surrounded by the work of George Walton, Josef Olbrich, Henri van de Velde, Mikhael Adamovich and Marianne Brandt, the plate’s abstract design seems to have been deployed by the museum to exemplify the art historical trope that links the ‘primitive’ to the modern. The positioning of this apparently anonymously designed plate amongst these modernist archetypes seems to resonate with Evan Kindley's recent observation in the London Review of Books, that there's a fear amongst historians that they 'will slip into the comfortable grooves of "great man" narratives - a tendency to which scholars of modernism, always a congress of cults of personality, are particularly prone.'

Accompanying the plate is a label that, even accounting for the constraints imposed by its function and format, is not only notable for the absence of accurate information concerning the plate’s design, production and consumption but also for the revisionist perpective it provides on contemporary British views of the relationship that existed between between the colonising power and its colonial subjects.  The label reads as follows:

Earthenware plate with ‘Maori’ pattern

English, made by Doulton Pottery, Lambeth, London,

about 1925

Doulton’s first Maori designs were made for the 1906 New Zealand International Exhibition in Christchurch. This plate was made for the Dunedin Exhibition of 1925. The patterns based on those of a Maori meeting house (see room 24) may have been inspired by the decoration of the New Zealand pavilion at the British Empire Exhibition in Wembley in 1924.

The British Museum’s plate isn’t the first example of Doulton’s ‘Maori Art’ ware to enter a British collection: the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge has a bone china cup and saucer exhibiting the same pattern, fabricated at Doulton & Co’s Burslem factory about 1930, which it acquired by donation in 1993. While the Fitzwilliam’s on-line catalogue description again fails to describe the pattern accurately or to acknowledge its source, it does suggest that the pattern pre-dates the ‘decoration of the New Zealand pavilion at the British Empire Exhibition in Wembley’ by at least twenty odd years.

'Maori Art' bone china plate. Made by Doulton & Co, Burslem, England, about 1929

As has been previously observed on this blog, the design of the ‘Maori Art’ pattern was based on an illustration that reproduced twenty-nine kōwhaiwhai collected by the Anglican bishop Herbert Williams to accompany his chapter ‘Description of Maori rafter patterns’ published in Augustus Hamilton’s Māori Art (Dunedin: Ferguson and Mitchell for the New Zealand Institute, 1897). 

Albert Percy Godber, [Photograph of Māori rafter patterns 22-26 from Augustus Hamilton, Maori art'], 1916.
National Library of New Zealand, reference no. APG-0586-1/2-G

The Doulton pattern design most closely matches Williams' rafter pattern no. 25, Mangōpare (hammerhead shark), which he identified as coming from the wharenui named Tamatekapua (constructed in 1878) of the Ngāti Whakaue subtribes Ngāti Tae-o-Tū and Ngāti Tūnohopū, of the Te Arawa descent, at the Te Papaiouru Marae near Ōhinemutu. 

John Dobree Pascoe, 'Kōwhaiwhai on the rafters of Tamatekapua meeting house at Ohinemutu', [about 1940]
National Library of New Zealand, reference no. 1/4-001700-F

It is unclear how the Mangōpare design came to the attention of the art department at Doulton & Co’s Burslem factory, who were most probably responsible for producing the transfer plate used for the production of the first wares – in bone china – that carried the pattern. However, confusingly, the British Museum on-line catalogue description, presumably on the basis of information recorded in the 1909 registration of the design (537842), identifies the pattern as being the result of a collaboration between the Doulton Lambeth factory artist Francis Pope and its art director Joseph Mott.

Speculatively, Doulton's 'Maori Art' line may have resulted from an order placed by John Shorter, their Australasian agent. Resident in Australia since 1878, the Staffordshire-born Shorter, during the 1890s, became involved in the efforts of Richard T Baker, a graduate of the South Kensington Museum design training scheme and curator of the Technological Museum in Sydney, to promote the use of specifically Australian iconography in manufactured commodities destined for the Australian market. The idiom identified by Baker as being uniquely ‘Australian’ was its flora; Shorter’s embrace of the 'Australian flora in art' cause focused on the upper end of the market and included boldly painted porcelain and earthenware vases and plates. 

Doulton was not unique in its efforts to employ Australian iconography on products specifically identified for the local market. Other British manufacturers, such as Josiah Wedgwood & Sons, also produced Australian lines, although not so exclusively and not so visually effective. Wedgwood, for example, produced from around 1882 a cream-coloured earthenware ‘Australian flora’ range decorated with painted transfer prints probably derived from botanical monographs. The qualitative difference between the productions of the two British companies seems to lie in the work of an exiled French Communard painter Lucien Henry, resident in Sydney from the late 1880s until his death in 1896. Whether he realised his role or not, the Beaux Arts trained Henry effectively reconfigured visual perspectives of colonial markets; from the documentary to the aesthetic.

From the 1840s until the early 1980s, British ceramic manufacturers dominated the New Zealand tableware market. Their goods entered the country under preferential trade tariffs that subjected non-British competitors to a range of swingeing taxes and duties. They also had an unrivalled network of local agents, but, most significantly, it was their close relationship with the London-based distribution firms who, until the advent of readily available illustrated media, controlled the British export market and, effectively, determined what New Zealand consumers knew about and purchased.

This cartel-like network was reinforced during the three major exhibitions held in the country between 1865 and 1925 which included representative displays from a number of  major British ceramic manufacturers, under either their own name or that of selected retailers. At the 1865 New Zealand Exhibition held in Dunedin, Doulton & Watts, the predecessor of Doulton & Co, exhibited under its own name while Josiah Wedgwood & Sons was represented by the Bond Street ceramic retailers William P and George Phillips; Pinder Bourne, the predecessor company of what became Doulton & Co’s Burslem plant, were shown by a local agent, M Calvert of Dunedin.

Unidentified photographer, '[The British court at the New Zealand International Exhibition]', about 1906. While the overall quality of the British court was disappointing, the impressive Doulton stand was located at the rear of the court.
Christchurch City Libraries

The 1906-07 New Zealand International Exhibition held in Christchurch again saw British firms dominating the commercial displays of ceramics either in their own right or under the aegis of local agents. Doulton exhibited both in the British government's fine arts pavilion and in the commercial court; its wares forming a significant component of the display put together by a local retailer, John Bates & Co. James Cowan, editor of the exhibition record, declared in awed tones that the Doulton display was ‘the finest of all […] some of these masterpieces of the designer’s and potter’s arts, were priced as high as £500 each ($78,424 in today’s terms).’ (J Cowan, Official record of the New Zealand International Exhibition of arts and industries, held at Christchurch, 1906-7 (Wellington: Government Printer, 1910), p. 299).

'Kia-Ora Ware' stoneware jardiniere. Made by Doulton & Co, Lambeth, England, about 1930.
Christie's

Doulton & Co appear to have produced two lines specifically for the exhibition: ‘Maori Ware’ and ‘Maori Art’. ‘Maori Ware’, later re-labelled ‘Kia-Ora Ware’, was produced in salt-glazed stoneware at the Lambeth factory, notwithstanding the Auckland Museum's erroneous identification of it it as being produced in Burslem. Its decoration – which resembles more closely the work of Joseph Mott - consists of a series of contrastingly coloured reliefs, loosely based on Māori carving. ‘Maori Art’, by contrast, reproduced kōwhaiwhai with a degree of accuracy and was produced initially in bone china at Burslem. 

Unidentified photographer, 'Hongi at the inner pā at the New Zealand International Exhibition, Christchurch', [1906-07].
National Library of New Zealand, reference no. 1/1-022026-G

Doulton’s decision to deploy Māori-derived designs for its Christchurch display conformed to a wider cultural agenda. From the first of the great international exhibitions, the 1851 Great Exhibition of the Works of Industry of all Nations, British colonial authorities and, later, New Zealand settler governments employed Māori cultural artefacts not only to promote the colony as a destination for immigration and, later, tourism but also to emphasise the country's difference from other outposts of empire. From the 1879 Sydney International Exhibition until the 1924-25 British Empire Exhibition, the scale of these displays of the taonga of ‘subjugated’ Māori expanded to include wharenui. Inspired by displays of colonised people at the 1904 Louisiana Purchase Exhibition, a decision was made at the Christchurch exhibition to supplement a contrived display of indigenous material culture with Māori themselves. (B Kernot, ‘Māoriland metaphors and the model pā’, in Farewell colonialism: the New Zealand International Exhibition Christchurch, 1906-07, ed. by J M Thomson (Palmerston North: Dunmore, 1998), 61-78.) For Pākehā, Māori presence and symbolism at the exhibition served settler need for a unique identity and iterated a sense of hegemony over what was perceived of as a ‘dying race’. By appropriating the iconography of a culture that was not their own, the Doulton wares reinforced that Galtonian view.

The British Museum’s earthenware plate was apparently produced for the New Zealand and South Seas International Exhibition held at Dunedin in 1925-26. The preeminent focus of the exhibition was the British government pavilion, organised by the British Department of Overseas Trade and the Federation of British Industry, both organisations legacies of pre-war Board of Trade attempts to reform British industry. It included: a ‘Hall of Empire’; an ‘Historical Relics Gallery, which included costume and electrotype reproductions of historical silver from the Victoria and Albert Museum, archaeological relics from the Guildhall Museum and models of British cathedrals lent by the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury Cathedral; Naval, Army and Air Force galleries; and an ‘Industrial Art Gallery’ organised by yet another Board of Trade initiative, the British Institute of Industrial Art.

Hugh & G K Neill, ' The Hall of Empire [in the British government pavilion at the New Zealand and South Seas Exhibition, Dunedin, 1925-26]'.
G E Thomson, Official record of the New Zealand and South Seas International Exhibition (Dunedin: Otago Master Printers' Association, [1926])

The over-riding sense conveyed by the exhibition generally was one of imperial recycling and Doulton & Co, rebranded in 1922 as ‘Royal Doulton’, entered into this zeitgeist by using the Dunedin exhibition to launch recycled Māori patterned wares: ‘Maori Art’, produced in earthenware at the failing Lambeth factory, was given a fashionable, buttery yellow ground. Contrary to the claims of the British Museum label, if any display in the New Zealand pavilion at the 1924-25 British Empire Exhibition at Wembley influenced the design of Doulton products it was probably the colour of  its ‘reasonably decent show of butter and cheese’, rather than its tokenist displays of decontextualised and misappropriated Māori art.

Fleetway Press Ltd, 'New Zealand pavilion British Empire Exhibition 1924'.
The only identifiable New Zealand-sourced items in this postcard view of the façade of the pavilion are the cabbage tree/tī kōuka (Cordyline australis) and the flax/harakeke (Phormium tenax) in the foreground garden