It appears something of a hoo-ha has been stirring in the ether over on X in response to our Art Editor’s recent column and Paul’s subsequent rebuttal. In response we have had others request to throw down their respective gloves. Here we are pleased to present the first, penned by the sculptor Fen de Villiers, in riposte to Paul’s first letter.

(One small point of order: to avoid repetition and ensure a continuation of good faith argument, any and all submitted responses from third-parties will be published at the discretion of the editor.)

Author: Fen de Villiers

Dear Editor,

Art Deco is not simply a style of design, to make such a remark is heartbreakingly naive. Art Deco encompassed the full spectrum of fine arts, including painting and sculpture, not merely decorative design and architecture. The movement manifested across the entire visual arts landscape: from architecture, painting, and sculpture to the graphic and decorative arts.

Sculpture, for example, was particularly integral to Art Deco, but naturally, as a broad sweeping movement, it encompassed many areas of expression. Masters like Paul Manship, Leo Friedlander, and Lee Lawrie created works of undeniable artistic merit within Art Deco. To call their sculptures ‘design’ reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of artistic practice. Although, like great artists through the ages, they were given vast patronage projects such as public monuments, architectural murals, and motifs.

Would we throw similar remarks at Michelangelo because he was employed to paint the Sistine Chapel, which provided a utilitarian design use for his work? No, naturally we wouldn’t. Similarly, the Hoover Dam transformed from purely functional infrastructure into an Art Deco masterpiece, proving that art and utility can coexist without compromising either. If we were sincere, we would be open to understanding that the Arts are employed in various scenarios depending on context and what is called for.

Considering that we are not simply talking about painting, it is crucial to understand the broad influence structure surrounding Art Deco. It emerged as a sophisticated synthesis drawing from numerous independent artistic sources, making it far more than a derivative of any single movement or style. The movement drew from primitive ancient geometric work, the Vienna Secession, and Fauvism, whilst simultaneously embracing the theatrical aesthetics of the Ballets Russes and the shape vocabulary of ancient Egypt, Assyrian art, and Greek sculpture. This eclectic foundation demonstrates that Art Deco artists were not simply locked into one path, but rather creating an entirely new visual language through conscious integration of multiple wide-ranging influences. They were searching for a fresh synthesis for the modern age, something we should continue pushing towards today.

Whatever finds formation today aims to not simply be a pastiche of the past. Just as a collective of painters working today who are inspired by Boucher and Fragonard would ideally avoid poor reproductions of said masters. A tall order undoubtedly; after all, we do what we can with the level of training granted within this time. Nevertheless, every artist starts within a language of form they train under before developing a more individual voice.

The final closing statements must be addressed. If the contention is technology, as Paul states: “Like other design movements from the 19th century deco was concerned with using industrial processes like printing presses and foundries,” then the critique of Art Deco’s industrial processes misses the point entirely. Every artistic movement employs the technology of its time. The question isn’t whether to use machines, but how to use them in service of genuine artistic vision. The lost wax process and early foundry work dates back to ancient Egypt. I am not sure what the contention here is with a foundry. But yes, some sort of industrial system is required for timely output of bronze sculpture. Again, let us not pretend we reside in an age devoid of technology.

And finally, the most positive remark which I can get behind: “the machines of today are different and more flexible than those of 100 years ago.” Yes, we are indeed living now in a machine and technology-dominated world, but the machine is just a tool. Just as an angle grinder is a tool stonemasons employ today to rough out large blocks of stone before hand refinement. The machine itself is nothing without the artist’s vision guiding it. It is the human imagination and creative will that breathes life into dead matter, whether wielding a chisel or commanding a foundry. So for me it is clear: what is lacking today is finding a way forward out of the sterile and deadening aesthetic era of postmodernity and into a visually powerful, uplifting, and optimistic humanity-focused approach. As Sam Wild has correctly identified, Art Deco represents our last link to truly human art before the utilitarian logic took hold; an art that treated people as subjects rather than units, that championed the decorative and a human ambition for modernity. The way forward is to reconnect with these vital principles and propel them into our current moment to find a fresh manifestation.

Fen de Villiers is a fine art sculptor passionate about strong aesthetics and powerful archetypes. Much of his energy is aimed toward challenging aesthetic relativism. You can follow Fen here.