The Grotesque Ceramic Sculpture of Robert Wallace Martin (1843-1923)

The Decorative Arts Society 1850 to the Present

The Grotesque Ceramic Sculpture of Robert Wallace Martin (1843-1923)Author(s): Peter RoseSource: The Journal of the Decorative Arts Society 1890-1940, No. 3 (1979), pp. 40-54Published by: The Decorative Arts Society 1850 to the PresentStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41806218 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 15:11

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Decorative Arts Society 1850 to the Present is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Journal of the Decorative Arts Society 1890-1940.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.79.253 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 15:11:33 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=das

http://www.jstor.org/stable/41806218?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


The Grotesque Ceramic Sculpture of Robert Wallace Martin (1843-1923)

by Peter Rose

The work of the Martin brothers has always been admired by a small number of enthusiasts, from their contemporaries to the present day, because they represent the first dedicated studio potters in post industrial England, responsible for the whole process of making and decorat- ing their ceramics. The autumn of 1978, about a century after the establishment of the Martin Brothers' firm at Southall and Brownlow Street in the City, provided a remarkably favour- able opportunity for study and a re-evaluation of the pottery produced by the brothers. Richard Dennis, the leading dealer in Martinware and other studio and art pottery, mounted an exhibition of over seven hundred items including much documentary and other supporting material. To coincide with the opening of the exhibition 'The Martin Brothers, Potters' by Malcolm Haslam, the most complete study to date of the lives and work of the Martin Brothers, has been published. At the same time the Decorative Arts Society mounted a day seminar on the brothers on the 30th September, 1978. The article which follows is based upon a lecture 'Grotesques, Monsters, Fabulous Beasts and other Creatures' given by the author on that occasion.

Before explaining why the main concern is with Robert Wallace and not - except incidentally - with the other brothers, the division of work between the four must be clearly understood together with their method of signing the work and consequently identifying their individual contributions. Charles, nearest to Robert Wallace in age, was the business man and manager of the Brownlow Street shop, judging the public taste and rather dictatorially instructing his brothers in what would sell and not sell. His only firmly documented work was a bird signed and dated 1890, but not fired until 1906. Sydney Greenslade, an architect and Martinware enthusiast, whose copious notes, correspondence etc. stored at the Southall Reference Library have been freely drawn upon, wrote about Charles :

'He was severely critical of anything unpracticable sent to Brownlow St. The balance of a base - its top heaviness, smallness of base - thinness, an impossible handle, a poor spout to the jug - an unpleasing ugliness or repulsiveness in any grotesque of R. W. Martins - all called for very serious condemnation - His visits to Southall - always on Saturday afternoon consisted of such reproves and suggestions. During all those early years he became gradually the autocrat - His position at Brownlow St. gave him this power . . . and his word became a law which dare not be broken . . . '

Edwin, the youngest and the most sensitive and adaptable of the brothers, was always willing to be guided in order to produce more ready sellers. He was much influenced by Sydney Greenslade and others, particularly in the major shift of emphasis in the late nineties to natural gourd-like pots. Nearly all the pots based on gourd and vegetable forms which formed the bulk of the pottery from 1900 onwards are the work of the extraordinary partnership and close harmony between Edwin and Sydney Greenslade, and there is no evidence that Wallace either sympathised with or participated in this side of the business. Edwin, as well as throwing smaller pots, finished and coloured much of the work done by Robert Wallace and was the chief signer of the pots, nearly always adopting the agreed 'Martin Bros. ' with a date.

Sydney Greenslade wrote the following note in January 1921 : 'The signature on the very great majority of the pieces of ware is by Edwin. This is naturally so. Very early in the story at Pomona House he undertook the duty of the colouring or painting under Walter's direction - and it was at this moment when the piece was completed and ready for the kiln that the work was signed! His signings are unmistakable, a perfectly legible simple signature! Very plain distinct and legible. Edwin sometimes signed E. B. Martin - on one dated 1880 (the only one seen). Some fine inlay ones done about 1908 [were signed by Edwin] but they are very rare indeed.'

40



Walter the chemist and thrower of the larger pots, was responsible for the clay mixes and in charge of the firings. Occasionally he signed his own initials but usually only on a test piece for some experimental glaze. Sydney Greenslade wrote:

'Rarely did ... - Walter or Edwin - sign distinctly or individually - Walter just on trial pieces sometimes had his initials WFM generally a large capital with often letters and numbers generally in large capitals - indicating mixture of clays and trials of colouring matters - but these rarely were sent to Brownlow St. and it was only by private treaty at Southall that they were tempted from him.

Perhaps in WFM's private collection now at Paignton in the possession of the widow many of this type of piece may exist'.

Finally Robert Wallace the real eccentric who refused to apply the rules to himself. Despite the agreement signed with his brothers much of his own work was signed R. W. Martin & Bros, or Brothers in a wholely distinctive 'spiky' hand. Because the general custom was that the signature and date was added last some pieces created by Robert Wallace but finished off

by others - a common practice as he was not concerned with the colour - are however signed 'Martin Bros.' in Edwin's rounded neat hand. In the birds for instance heads are sometimes

signed 'R. W. Martin & Bros.' and dated, and bases 'Martin Bros' and dated. Sydney Greenslade comments :

'R. W. M. 's signature is also very distinctive - when in a round hand all but the capitals -

[it] is not unlike Edwins! This is very so in the small things like chess pieces the Bands- men etc, but when there is more space R. W. M. 's signature becomes a very different one - often on the Birds - the flanges of the heads in particular and at the claws - it is much more untidy and sprawling . . . The 'R. W. Martin & Bros.' was always used by him -

but only on his own work even after the partnership was agreed upon and the signature officially settled as 'Martin Bros.' or 'Martin Brothers'. He always declined to sink his claim to special distinction sometimes R. W. Martin Sculpt, was used on portraits etc.

'

The division of work between the brothers, together with the evidence of the signatures shows that nearly all the birds and grotesques are the work of Robert Wallace and are possessed by his extraordinary imagination. Edwin, and others, perhaps Edward Willy who worked with the brothers throughout the '80s and '90s, explored the same ideas, and the dragons and

particularly the fish may well be mostly his. The brothers recognised no individual copyright and, during Robert Wallace's maddening and often long sustained periods of refusal to 'toe the line' and produce saleable work to fill the next firing, much was done by the ever willing Edwin to fill gaps in the better selling lines.

Perhaps the most important aspect of Robert Wallace Martin's character was his extreme dis-

agreeableness bordering at times on true madness. Greenslade undoubtedly disliked and distrusted him as he writes in his diary in May 1917:

'We went to the R.A. and then to S.K.M. and I left him about 4.00. His religious mania was well on him as we walked from the R.A. TO S.K.M. and as usual the attacking became very personal and hopelessly intolerant! Poor little old man! What will the end be! A strong illiterate intolerant blind faith of great sincerity with the most hopelessly narrow and limited horizon! The faith and its working out eating up all desire to practice love and sympathy to those around him - The daughter Amy - I expect considered outside the pale and poor aged slave. The hopeless household drudge . . . The grand- child a standing figure-post to her eternal disgrace ! The unspeakable sin which brought bitter disgrace on the family!

Sydney Greenslade admired and respected the other brothers particularly Edwin. Edwin was

always prepared to listen and be influenced and never to forget the essential difference of class between them. It was always 'Dear Mr Greenslade' never 'Greenslade' or, perish the thought, 'Dear Sydney' - although Marsh and Greenslade who met through their shared passion for the Brothers were on surname only terms in no time at all! Edwin signed his letters E. B.

41



Martin to the end - or almost for his very last moving letter from the hospital where he had suffered the most appalling surgery in shaky pencil, not neat and fluent as before, is signed 'Edwin'. Robert Wallace would have none of this social distinction he always wrote 'Dear S. Greenslade" and signed 'R. W. Martin'. A letter to Greenslade on a laudatory notice in 'The Builder' begins quite soberly and correctly but winds up into a mad religious tirade, the writing getting spikier and spikier. After congratulating him straightforwardly if unenthusias- tically on his "success" in 'The Builder' he continues:

. . .'The scripture says Adam digged. Scripture says too he disobeyed his maker and so brought in death which has passed upon all men; you all have sinned. Jesus the obedient Man died too and went into the places of death but was missed by the Glory of the Fathers who would not suffer His Holy One to see corruption . . '

Greenslade won in the end by, on the surface, behaving very well, first acting to protect Edwin's widow against Robert Wallace's extreme meanness and duplicity and then eventually negotiating grants and finally a pension for Robert Wallace through no less a person than the Prime Minister. In old age Robert Wallace was brought to heel, writing ingratiating cards with snippets of early memories as they occurred to him in response to Sydney Green- slade 's insatiable appetite for information. Most people behave well for mixed motives and Sydney Greenslade was no exception. He was determined to write the definitive work on the brothers and Robert Wallace the sole survivor was all that was left to fill the gaps in his knowledge, particularly of the early days. He hated the fecklessness and cunning of Robert Wallace and saw his son Clement as a rather pathetic character, always ailing and, during the 1914-1918 war, trying to avoid military service. A letter from Clement R. Martin dated 23rd December 1 909 reveals the nature of their relationship :

'I must apologise for not having written before to thank you for the suit which you kindly sent, it was very acceptable. I can assure you that I am more than pleased with your kindness. I was greatly surprised when father brought it home. I am sending you a card for you to criticise . . .

'

Despite dislike for both Robert Wallace and his son he stuck it out for the sake of his book - which sadly he never wrote.

Robert Wallace's disagreeableness produced rows and disputes from the start of his career; the seventies and eighties are punctuated by them. His early friendship with George Tin- worth and the close association with John Sparkes at the Lambeth School of Art both turned sour. Wallace and George Tinworth met at the Lambeth School of Art under Sparkes. In a note to Sydney Greenslade dated 21st September 1913 Robert Wallace recalls the occasion:

'My thoughts went back to nearly half a century ago and alighted in Millers land Vaux- hall where in a recently erected building the Lambeth School of Art was held, Modelling class 2 or 3 nights a week 7 to 9pm. (Class master Edwin Bale from S.Kensington schools, he is now a Water Colour Painter and had 2 in last R.A. Exhibition. I saw him last year and we talked about G.T.) It was upon one of these occasions a rough looking youth timidly presented himself, perhaps I ought not to say rough for there was nothing low about him though poor and hard worked, he was evidently a young genious (sic.) and soon tried an original panel 'The Roman Soldier Mocking Christ'. We became great friends and walked home together as we both lived in Walworth and he had to pass my parents' door which soon after opened to let him in, he became a welcome guest . . . We also got into the R.A. school together.'

There was clearly a division between the social level of the Tinworth and Martin families: although both belonged to the poorer segment of the artisan or working class they would not however have been considered 'the poor'. Wallace, Edwin, Charles and Walter were all literate, capable of writing coherently, correctly, even eloquently - Edwin's letters to Green- slade during his last dreadful illness are extraordinarily moving and vivid. Tinworth 's written style was faltering to judge from a note he wrote to Edwin in his old age at Kew.

42



Both Wallace and George Tinworth had ambitions to be sculptors although Tinworth was the first to recognise that the field of ceramics would provide the best opportunity to pursue his ambitions. Robert Wallace later described it as 'selling himself'. Sparkes himself must have been a very strong influence on that decision. He played an important unofficial role as artistic adviser to Henry Doulton and pressed the products of his School into service in the flourishingly successful new venture at Doultons, started in the late sixties. His failure to recruit Robert Wallace created much ill feeling between them. So much so that he omits mention of the work of Wallace in his 'Potters - their Arts & Crafts' 1897. Sydney Greenslade notes after a talk with Wallace dated February 8 1921 :

'Sparkes seemed to have been very friendly with the Doultons and tried to get all his students there to work. He was very annoyed with R.W.M. for not going there and also for the taking away of Walter and Edwin - quite an unfriendly feeling sprang up and when Tinworth joined up he seemed always afraid to have any intercourse whatever with the Martins! and never visited them until the time of the funeral of Walter! Any opposition or rivalry of Doultons was considered extremely wrong!

'

The other strong and important link between the two friends was their shared religious faith. Strongly Fundamentalist, it had an obvious and direct effect on George Tinworth's choice of subject. Tinworth was seemingly able to switch his religion on and off, so that a clear division existed in his work between the ambitious portrayals of biblical scenes and the mouse and other groups for which he is equally famous. On Wallace however it had a bizarre, less direct, but no less important influence.

His association with Mark Marshall suffered a similar fate. A much younger man than Tinworth or Wallace, Marshall appeared on the scene in the mid to late 1870's when he was employed as an assistant by the Martin Brothers. A close association grew up between him and Wallace and it was his influence which converted him to the extreme Fundamentalist beliefs of the latter. Wallace took him to meetings of the Plymouth Brethren where there was much hymn singing. Mark Marshall had as a boy been a chorister at St Margarets and no doubt was drawn as much by the opportunity to display his talent of singing as for any precise religious conviction.

Like Wallace's other friendships and associations this one also ended in bitterness and recrimination. Mark Marshall left to work as an artist designer at Doultons where he remained for the rest of his career. However in 1882 an article by Cosmo Monkhouse appeared in the Magazine of Art which described the work of the Martin Brothers featuring particularly the grotesques. Mark Marshall complained that the work illustrated was partly his own and demanded acknowledgement. This was denied by Wallace and certainly the visual evidence supports him. An annotation to the article by Sydney Greenslade makes the point :

'This was the article that caused the heat between Mark Marshall and the Martins - he wrote to Cosmo Monkhouse and pointed out what he considered his work and Cosmo Monkhouse wrote Robert Wallace Martin. The result was he left and being introduced to Doulton by Tinworth worked there until his death in 1912.'

The bitterness generated by this episode lasted both their lifetimes. Much can be ascribed to Wallace's strong religious belief bordering on mania. He was a devout member of the

Plymouth Brethren and believed that every word of the bible was God-given, literally true and the only path to salvation both for himself and humanity generally - whom he might convert and save if only he could convince. So he preached at everybody, bombarding them with

snippets of biblical revelation, seemingly without recognising that a time and place existed for these things in a well-ordered Victorian society.

43



Sydney Greenslade notes in 1921 : 'How lucky the fates were in keeping R. W. Martin at Southall - for few could have brooked his unreasonable persistent and intolerant dogmatic religious challengings! He compelled you to listen with nearly rude insistance at times it became a strange perse- cution : and yet how wonderfully this served him - this persistance.

"

A description by Greenslade of the firing of the 1902 kiln gives additional insight into Wallace's character:

'Very black smoke rising from the direction of the pottery and when we got there we discovered the fires had just been made up for the last time - Wallace, Walter & Edwin welcomed us - the two latter looked very hot and done up - they were very dirty - with the oldest clothes on - only flannel vests about the waist and towels around their necks - Wallace - looked most remarkable - He wore nickers (sic.) - with grey stockings and flannel shirt - with curiously worked birds - an old battered grey helmet - he generally got in the way melting glass on the ledges of the fire openings and was generally sworn at by the 2 men who were managing the firing ...

During the whole of the time I was there Wallace was hopelessly uninterested in the firing - He gave me a great discourse on the prophesies in Daniel and the revelations and explained perfectly how it fitted in with everything that was going on now . . . Charles lectured him as usual being particularly bitter because he had neglected certain very wealthy clients - The old, old story.

'

How they all hated it! Robert Wallace was both personally ambitious and at the same jealous of others' achievements. He wanted public recognition and begrudged his friend Tinworth getting it first, although he himself received early recognition in the Art Journal when an Academy work was given a full page reproduction. He read every piece which appeared even remotely connected with the field, even surviving long enough to read Blacker's 'ABC of English Ceramic Art' and complaining bitterly of the inadequacy and inaccuracy of the small section on the Brothers. No doubt he would have been much more happy with the lavish treatment accorded him in the 'ABC of English Salt-glaze Stoneware'. On a postcard dated 23rd February 1922 Wallace writes:

'I also went up to the library (at V & A Museum) and saw that book 19th Century English Ceramic Art. A very poor article indeed on "Martinware", only two Groups of our early pots, reproductions from that notice in Cassell's History of Art, quite mislead- ing but plenty of Doulton etc. in it. '

Wallace's ambition drove him to extend himself far beyond his real abilities. An extreme example was the protracted work on a Fountain which almost caused the brothers to dissolve the partnership in 1901. It was only partly completed, according to a sketch made by Green- slade after a visit to Southall in 1901, despite eight months' work. The completed upper part now functions prettily enough in the small park adjoining the Southall Reference library. Its major and fatal defect is, as Greenslade and others saw at the time, a complete lack of overall coherence and design - its parts are so much more interesting than the whole. After a visit to Southall on Saturday February 22nd 1902 Greenslade notes:

'Wallace's fountain has progressed considerably' 'It is curiously grotesque - does not build up well - and the three brothers looked up it angrily as a hopeless "white elephant'. He has been 10 months on it already . . . Charles blamed Edwin and Walter for allowing him to do it and told them they should have refused to have fired it - during the time he might have done £200 of face jugs, birds and grotesques which sell fairly well. Now he will have contributed nothing but the fountain -

very likely quite unsaleable - towards the coming firing. '

Before considering in more detail the development of Wallace's work a brief account of the more general influences on him might help to explain his bizarre imagination. The third quarter of the nineteenth century, his formative years, was a period of rapid development of

44



Scientific knowledge in all fields. This was nowhere more turbulent and disturbing to pre- conceptions than in the study of Biology. Through the work of many scientists, but in England particularly through Charles Darwin's 'Origin of the Species' in 1859 and 'Descent of Man' in 1871, man's place as a part of, rather than apart from, the animal world was slowly under- mining the traditional attitudes.

If animals developed and survived purely out of their capacity to respond to their environ- ment through natural selection, and man likewise developed and survived through chance of nature, what scientific evidence was there for a mind and soul separating man from beast.

The old mutliplicity of independent, unrelated animal species was under attack by a formid- able group of scientists armed with a general theory of man and nature which challenged religion and questioned the divine truth of the Bible. It is a striking circumstance that the three sculptor potters Robert Wallace Martin, George Tinworth and Mark Marshall were Fundamentalist Christians implacably opposed to the Darwinian theories. To them, man, animal, vegetable, were mutable categories in a divinely ordained creation. Christian mysteries were compounded by pagan mysteries producing images of great primitive power. John Ruskin, although a friend, was no Darwinian worshipping nature in his own way. Through his influence the aspiring artists and designers in the Academies and Government Schools of Design closely studied nature. Achievement was measured by the capacity to

precisely and exactly replicate nature's form and appearance.

In literature the work of Edward Lear and Charles Dodgson (Lewis Carrol) was immensely popular and influential. Alice in Wonderland (1865) and Alice Through the Looking Glass (1871) and Carrol's illustrator Tenniel created a whole menagerie of animals real and

imaginary interacting with humans in the most eccentric and extraordinary ways. Dodgson regularly visited Munro's Studios where Robert Wallace Martin worked for several years as an assistant. Ernest Griset, following in the tradition of Grandville and possibly influencing Tenniel, created throughout the sixties, seventies and eighties an immense range of birds and animals acting out human situations in popular publications. Artists such as Sir Edwin Landseer had achieved both popular fame and great prestige from his portrayal of animals in situations where their actions and postures aspired to human emotions and feelings. The

painting which Ruskin admired so much 'The Old Shepherd's Chief Mourner' was 'the most

perfect poem or picture' where the quality of the 'idea' raised it high above thousands of equal technical merit.

Although Wallace Martin must have been aware of the scientific, critical, literary and artistic trends of the period, his early work as a sculptor gives little direct indication of their influence. It is not until the middle seventies that the grotesques which eventually dominated his work

began to appear. The Terracotta reliefs he exhibited in the Academy in the middle and late sixties with titles such as 'Cupid', 'A girl at the Spring' etc, were sensitive and competent if somewhat spiritless. He was clearly much influenced by Alexander Munro in whose studio he worked for several years.

The strong Gothic flavour of much of the ceramic work he carried out in the early and middle seventies no doubt derived from his early experiences working on the stone carving for the Palace of Westminster, and also the architectural terracotta carried out when working for Farmer and Brindley's. The clock cases he produced for Lund and Blockley at this time have a bold and idiosyncratic treatment of Gothic frequently incorporating naturalistically modelled animals and birds and occasionally grotesque gargoyle like creatures. A watch holder of 1876

(plate 1) combines fanciful Gothic with an improbably housed nest of owls.

It was in the early seventies when Wallace was using the firing facilities of C. T. C. Bailey at Fulham that he produced the first caricature face jugs. Significantly these caricatures were not

45



his own idea but derived from an early associate. Sydney Greenslade records that Wallace stated that:

'A sculptor friend of his by name Frank Connaly - had modelled a tobacco jar with two faces "The Lawyer and the Artful Dodger" and "Tichbrum [sic] and his Judge" and so to Baileys R. W. M. goes for a price per hundred. Baileys man pressed them up and R. W. M. finished them. This was perhaps before 1869. They were made of Bristolware! not salt-glazed stoneware! perhaps some hundred were done - but on the whole it was not a successful adventure . . . '

Face jugs continued to be produced by the Martin Brothers throughout the whole period of the firm. They represent a long tradition of caricature in pottery which continues until the present.

The modelling of naturalistic or conventionally stylised animals and birds, with occasionally a more eccentric creation, continued throughout the late seventies. Seldom however is there any suggestion of anthropomorphism. The main influence apart from the Gothic derived from Doulton's particularly the Barlows, Hannah, Florence and Arthur who had all graduated from John Sparkes' Lambeth School of Art to the Pottery Studios of Henry Doulton. However the use of naturalistically drawn birds and animals and occasionally more fanciful creatures such as dragons was a much wider tradition than this. Both Jean-Charles Cazin the French painter turned pottery decorator and Edgar Kettle working for Bailey employed similar motifs.

In the early stages of the revival of salt-glaze for decorative pottery there was much rivalry even acrimony between Doulton, Bailey and Martin, stemming from a fear that the market would not be able to absorb the production of all three. Secrets were closely guarded, exper- tise bargained for and schemed over, and successful ideas were seized upon and freely copied, creating additional ill-feeling between the three main producers of salt-glaze pottery. Both Doulton and Bailey were massively large with a long tradition of commercial salt-glaze compared with Martin, who at this stage worked alone depending on Bailey's frequent firings for his own survival.

Walter Martin, who started experimental firings in 1873 using a domestic grate at Pomona House, Fulham, which Wallace had bought that year for the entire family to live in, never fully mastered the exacting technical knowledge required for reliably successful salt-ware production. Throughout the history of the Martin Brothers a whole series of partial failures and all too frequent complete disasters dogged them. The combination of such idiosyncratic and chance factors, together with Walter's remarkable achivements in the chemistry of producing the slip applied to the pots for colouring, is however a vital factor in the aesthetic appeal of Martin Brothers pottery. In contrast Doulton's smooth surfaced and predictable pottery is as Wallace later stated 'too pretty' and 'sugary'.

The idea of constructing a covered jar with the lid shaped like the head of an animal or bird, the lower part forming the body, belonged to a popular tradition of folk pottery and was not an idea originated by Wallace. In 1879 he was producing jugs in the shape of birds but without detachable heads. In 1880 he produced a duck described as follows in a Sotheby catalogue of 1964:

'A bird (duckling) covered jar with detachable head with brown glazed beak and staring eyes; the crouched body with thatch coloured feather markings, squatting clumsily on two large "webbed feet". '

The detachable head is awkwardly fixed and dies not rotate; the creature is cute without being either sinister or particularly amusing. There followed a whole series of smoothly contoured lugubrious creatures with rather soft sentimental natures standing somewhat lumpishly on shaped wooden bases (plate 2). The head position is fixed and consequently limits the range of possible expressions. From the illustration in the article in the Magazine of Art in 1882 by

46



Cosmo Monkhouse the bird in the centre is of this type. It is therefore surprising that Monk- house was able to describe a& well as anyone since the curious effect the more characteristic birds have on a responsive observer:

'In these curious imaginings Martin- ware has a true speciality. It is doubtful whether in Europe a quaint fancy has ever been so successfully indulged in work of a sculpturesque character since the days of gargoyles. In the middle of our group stands a wondrous bird, half owl, half spoonbill, a feathered sage of profound experience, but, like Major Bagstock, "sly, sir, devilish sly". He holds his head on one side for the better criticism of inferior creatures, and closes one eye after the most approved habit of connoisseurs - a Sam Slick and a Solomon rolled into one. He is designed appropriately to contain the weed of wisdom. On either side of him are two gaping boobies, one marine - a cross between a tadpole and a dolphin - the other amphibious and antediluvian. Both are of very complicated ancestry, and most decided character. To these silly ill-tempered creatures, with their vast but empty heads, is fitly assigned the duty of warming spoons. Between them meditates a pre-adamite armadillo, crimped like a cod to hold toast; and a strangely human jug completes a group of creatures like many things, and yet like nothing on this earth, but nevertheless admirably good company for one another. There is something so whimsically human in these fancies, they are so impossible and absurd yet so funny and attractive, that they remind us of nothing so much as the good old nursery rhymes. They are nonsense indeed, but good nonsense, which is even more difficult to carve than to write. It takes a wise man to be a fool of this calibre, and he would deserve to be prized if only for his rarity. We have a hundred young sculptors who will model you a Venus or an Adonis as soon as look at you; but who save Mr Martin who could give you a Boojum or a Snark in the round?'

The contents of the article, which Wallace clearly took very seriously, together with the illustration which significantly appears to somewhat exaggerate the characteristics described, may well have encouraged Wallace to develop the more sinister and bizarre features of the birds. There was much also in the Magazine of Art at the time which could have acted as a stimulus, particularly articles on Henry Stacy Mark's anthropomorphic birds, which had penetrated into the artistic establishment when 'Convocation' was exhibited in the Royal Academy of 1878, the year he was elected R.A. Charles Beard in his introduction to the catalogue of the F. J. Nettlefold collection of Martinware suggests that Wallace derived inspiration from articles by Lewis F. Day in the Magazine of Art supporting the view that he studied it closely.

Apart from such direct sources of inspiration, the opening of the Natural History Museum at South Kensington in 1882 stimulated interest not only in the lavish decoration of the building but also in the extensive galleries of stuffed specimens. A close partnership existed between its architect Alfred Waterhouse and the director Sir Richard Owen. Sir Richard's determination to have a comprehensively symbolic building, combined with Alfred Waterhouse 's skill in securing large sums of public money for the project, resulted in an extraordinary proliferation of terracotta reliefs and free-standing sculpture of birds and beasts both real and speculative, if not actually mythological. It was Sir Richard Owen who no doubt insisted on the prominent positioning of the Dodo carving. He was also the prime mover in the reconstruction of this unlikely and somewhat preposterous creature, which is still to be seen at the end of the Birds gallery - perhaps in its original position.

A strangely sinister almost surreal pot or Spoon-warmer dated 1883 suggests the development of a highly eccentric, nightmarish humour. Sprouting from a round topped pot, the opening a wide-gaping lopsided mouth, is a rubbery proboscis terminating in a hand extended in a clan- destine begging gesture. This and similar monsters are a prelude to the change in the mid- eighties from the smoothly contoured friendly birds to a series of creatures of such ferocious and eccentric character that their resemblance to birds in nature is almost fortuitous (plate 3).

47



48



Plate 1 Gothic watch holder. Dated 1876

Plate 2 Covered Jar. Dated 1882

Plate 3 Covered Jar. Dated 1887.

49



50



Plate 4 Detail from a page of drawings attributed to Wallace Martin. Undated

Plate 5 Tyg: three panels of bird groups in relief. Dated 1911

51



Plate 6 Bird-man. Dated 1907

Plate 7 Covered Jar: a bird sold in 1923 for £50 (later in Nettlefold collection )

52



As Charles Martin explained to a pedantic client who reported a friend's criticism of the orno- thological accuracy of a Martin bird: 'He should have been informed, when he said its crop was too low down, that this bird's progenitors were Martins and that these Martins have their crops low down.' To Charles is credited the idea that the heads could be made to rotate: he also constantly urged Wallace, fortunately with little success, to modify the more sinister features of the birds so that clients would not be put off.

Visitors to the Brownlow Street shop in the eighties reported on the bird which Charles was intermittently modelling and refining to fit in with his supposition of what clients wanted, so that it could be used as an exemplar by Wallace. This is the bird signed by Charles and dated 1890 but not fired until much later. The great period for Martin birds extends over twenty years, hundreds were produced infinitely varied in size and character. With the exception of the bird produced by Charles the modelling is entirely the work of Wallace, although he sometimes used moulds to form the basic shapes particularly in later smaller and composite groups. But, despite the use of moulds, each one remains unique.

The anthropomorphism is of an unusual kind. In the great majority of examples animals are portrayed adopting human mannerisms and behaviour even clothes. The converse is the case with Martin birds; they are humans in animal or strictly bird guise, giving them a sinister, evil and treacherous appearance. The contrast is very striking with hardly any of the embarrass- ing sentimentality of the animals-behaving-as-humans type. Undoubtedly Wallace intended his birds to portray popular types. Lawyer birds and Monk birds abound, no doubt the former designed to have direct appeal to his barrister clients. The most striking example of a caricature portraying an individual is the 'Judge Clarke' bird of 1898. Sir Edward Clarke QC was an enthusiastic collector of Martin birds and possessed some choice specimens. On the reverse of a photograph of two birds is a note signed by Judge Clarke and dated 7.11.1925 'Sent me by Mr Arthur May who says he was told by the late Mr R. W. Martin that they were caricatures of me and Mr Gladstone'.

A page of drawings of bird caricature faces has been preserved from the debris of the Southall pottery. Although unsigned and undated it is assumed to be the work of Wallace and used by him as an aide memoire. There are several Martin birds and bird decorated pots relating to it.

Perhaps the most interesting part of the drawing is a face with a faintly drawn beak continu-

ing the line of the nose and chin. Closely related to this is an unglazed head signed by Wallace and dated 1906 which for some reason remained uncompleted. Another section of the drawing (plate 4) portrays a Lawyer bird who listens complacently to an agitated associate. A three handled Tyg dated 1911 and signed by Wallace has a series of bird groups ranged round it modelled in low relief: one of these groups (plate 5) relates closely to the drawings, suggesting that Wallace, now in his sixties, was increasingly dependent on well-tried ideas, re-using material over a number of years.

Perhaps the only major innovation stemming from Wallace in the first decade of the twentieth

century was the introduction of groups of birds in twos and threes. These have acquired or were given fanciful titles. The earliest pair on record is dated 1901 and relates closely to a sketch in a notebook kept by Wallace with the title 'Cozy Couple' written beside it.

Unexpectedly from Wallace, harmony and affection are the predominant characteristics of these groups but when three birds are associated it is noticeable that 'Two's company three's none', to use another of the titles associated with these groups. The composite groups of birds mark the end of Wallace's exploration of identity and character in the twilight world between human, bird and animal. Wallace himself only dimly understood the primitive power under-

lying the concept. There was certainly much deep misunderstanding by his contemporaries, particularly his own brothers, who disliked and discouraged what they considered to be

unpopular characteristics of the birds. The pressure on Wallace to abandon his own instincts and play up to the popular demand eventually wore him down. Occasionally a true night- mare emerges like the Bird-man of 1907 (plate 6). At least two of these were produced; one is

53



to be seen unfired on a high shelf behind a photograph of Edwin and his young daughter. Almost certainly this is the .one now in the Toronto Museum which apparently was glazed and fired by Captain Butterfield when he and Clement revived the firm in the twenties.

At the end of his life Wallace was present to witness a bird from the Crittall collection sold at Sotheby's for £50. This is the bird illustrated in the Nettlefold Catalogue (plate 7). The faithful Sydney Greenslade was beside him to record his reaction; 'And we, my brothers and me, never got more than labourers' wages', but it was said without bitterness.

Designed by GLC Supplies Department and printed by Heffer Printers Ltd (26108/1)

54



Documents

The Grotesque Ceramic Sculpture of Robert Wallace Martin (1843-1923)