The Stones of Venice

Ruskin defines three kinds of ornament, then goes on (top of 1327) to praise Gothic (Christian) ornament. Consider why and for what he praises it. Then consider what he says of modern English architecture and manufacture, its effect on the worker, and the rules he proposes for modern manufacture. If you like, also try to relate it to some aspect of present-day manufacture, art or business.

The three types of ornaments are servile, constitutional, and revolutionary. “Servile ornament, in which the execution or power of the inferior workman is entirely subjected to the intellect of the higher” Servile he attributes to Greek , Ninevite, and Egyptian methods of thinking. With the Greek style, imperfections could not be bared, so this often involved geometric shapes, like balls, ridges, and symmetrical foliage. This was because the lines could be more appropriately measured and regulated. The Assyrians and Egyptians were less concerned with perfection and either gave lesser workmen work they could not hope to do properly or else work that is lessened in skill required and therefore easy to complete. Both of those systems still made the workman a slave, thus them being counted as servile. “Constitutional ornament, in which the executive inferior power is, to a certain point, emancipated and independent, having a will of its own, yet confessing its inferiority and rendering obedience to high powers.” Here the worker is given more independence, every soul has an individual value, but they still report back to a higher power, which came from Christianity. “Do what you can, and confess frankly what you are unable to do; neither let your effort be shortened for fear of failure, nor your confession silenced for fear of shame.” Morris likes this and sees this as a fine example of the Gothic style as it takes the imperfections and presents them as perfectly acceptable. “Revolutionary ornament, in which no executive inferiority is admitted at all.” Though Morris feels the Modern English mind and the Greek mind had something in common in how they strived for perfection. Morris points out though that this is silly. “This is a noble character in the abstract, but becomes ignoble when it causes us to forget the relative dignities of that nature itself, and to prefer the perfectness of the lower nature to the imperfection of the higher.” He even mentions how in looking for perfection as perfection, one should prefer wild animals to humans because of lower creature is of a more refined perfection.
I feel Morris liked the imperfections of the Gothic architecture because they didn’t force strain on the worker. He didn’t think you should question a worker who is doing a fine job, asking him if he thinks he can better it because in his attempts he might simply hesitate and foul up the job he had been doing. You need to just be accepting of the imperfections. He suggests that you shouldn’t force a perfected finish and discourage imitation of others. Workers should just do their best. This is something that I feel is in the workplace today. I read about “millennials” which are young people in their twenties and thirties that have been rewarded for mediocrity throughout life and are expecting more of the same. This is ridiculous. If anything is rewarded, it should be greatness, striving to do your best even if your best is not perfect, but not rewards for doing the minimal and that’s it. I relate these two because I feel that in a Socialist workplace, the sort that Morris promotes, that would take place today would fall into this trap. You completed what you set out to do, huzzah! But did you really do your best? Maybe that’s just me though, I think equality is a nice idea, but I always fear someone will take advantage of the system.