
In Brit Lit we read excerpts from John Ruskin's
Stones of Venice: social criticism thinly disguised as a treatise on Gothic architecture. In this essay, Ruskin disparages the modern buildings of his time, made with perfect, machine-made materials, and praises the magnificent, hand-made, imperfect, unsymmetrical Gothic cathedrals as the ultimate in aesthetically and morally pleasing architecture. The moral dimension is that he wants Art to have evidence of the human hand in it--a terrible problem confronting England during the Industrial Revolution of the Victorian era, when the dehumanizing nature of factory work, and its accompanying dire social problems were becoming apparent to social critics like William Blake, John Stuart Mill, Ruskin, and, of course, Karl Marx.
Dr. Hares-Stryker gave a marvelous lecture on Ruskin and the horrors of newly industrialized England. She showed us photographs from the period: children queued in front of a factory entrance, waiting to work their 12-hour day; a London street scene featuring trash on the sidewalks, as well as a homeless woman holding a baby (human beings as rubbish); a woman and her four young children on a city street, waiting with buckets to catch manure from passing horse-drawn vehicles--manure they could sell so they could have food to eat. Hares-Stryker also read to us from the court transcript of an inquest concerning the death by starvation of a cobbler, whose wife left his dead body in their tiny room for days rather than move to the workhouse, because, she explained to the judge, once there, she and her son would not have a place (read "little hovel") to call their own. And all of these things were happening in what was then the richest country on Earth: England at the height of Empire. The modern parallels are disturbing, to say the least.
Hares-Stryker finished her discourse by challenging our modern American desire for perfect things made by machines, using jeans as an example. No imperfections in the fabric, no broken seams, no irregularities in appearance are acceptable. Seemingly, we don't want to know that any real human being was involved in the manufacture of our clothing, or other material items. And yet, I thought, after this tour-de-force presentation of ideas, what about Martha Stewart? Not her mass-produced merchandise, but the leisurely, meticulously hand-crafted and home-made lifestyle she promotes with her publications? There is an undercurrent of protest against mass production in which unique, handcrafted things are celebrated and desired. And what about Slow Food? Some people want to sit down to a meal prepared with care and attention--one that isn't being eaten by thousands of others. Like Ruskin, we want to see evidence of the human hand in the things around us.