The Normal, or Head School of Design opened on 1 June 1837, in rooms at Somerset House, with 12 students, and the architect and artist John Papworth as Head.192 Classes were to be held from 10am to 4pm, but it was quickly realised that those for whom the school was intended – the artisans – were in employment during the day and could only attend the School in the evenings, so on 1 August the School started an evening class which ran from 6-9pm and allowed artisans to attend after work.193 Regarding the curriculum of the School the 1841 report of the Provisional Council of the School noted that ‘In the absence of any example in this country of a school of a similar nature to that, the management of which had been intrusted to their care, they felt it difficult for them to decide on the particular form of instruction which its object demanded’.194
No system of art education as applied to manufactures had ever been attempted before;
no one was sure what the teaching of art as applied to manufactures should entail, and no one on the Council had any educational experience. As Frayling comments, the majority of the Council members thought that training at the School should be different
192 Report made to the Right honourable Henry Labouchere, MP., &c. &c. &c., President of the Board of Trade, by the Provisional Council of the School of Design; 2 February 1841. (1841) HC 65, p. 2.
193Ibid., p. 1.
194Ibid., p. 1.
from the fine art training given at the Royal Academy (RA) – and this was indeed the aim of the School as seen from the 1836 Select Committee report. However, the question of how it should be different was not entirely clear.195 Frayling goes on to comment that the School was, in effect, nothing more than an experiment, ‘for no one seems to have had any idea of what it was to teach’.196 There was a Committee of Instruction of the School which was composed primarily of Royal Academicians who made sure that instruction at the School of Design would not overlap with any of the Academy’s own teaching.197 This Committee was apparently very clear on several issues: architectural detail, vases, scroll-work, geometrical design or studies of
vegetables were all considered appropriate for artisans to study; the study of the human figure was not.198 The Royal Academy was the place for fine art to be taught; the human figure was idealised as the only subject worthy of study and certainly did not have a place in a school of design.199 Elements of the curriculum of the School of Design seem to have been decided on a negative basis – what was not to be taught, rather than what was considered suitable for students of design. As Bell comments, it was if the Council of the School of Design was effectively saying:
We will give you half an education, but not more; we will not see whether you are able to rise, but will assume that you cannot do so and will close the doors of opportunity at that point in your career which seems to us appropriate. We know best for what occupation you are fitted and we shall take steps to see that you have no chance to enter any other.200
This ‘half an education’ reflected, suggests Bell, a view that while it may have seemed unfair to dissuade students from becoming fine artists, it was actually worse to
encourage students towards fine art – a profession in which there were few prospects of making a good living – when ornamental artists were much more necessary.201 However rather than provide students with the sort of training that would ensure better job
prospects once they left the School, Bell notes that the Council did not do much more
195Q. Bell, The Schools of Design (London, 1963) p. 67.
196C. Frayling The Royal College of Art: One Hundred and Fifty Years of Art and Design (London, 1987) p. 6.
197Ibid., p. 18.
198Ibid., p. 17.
199Q. Bell The Schools of Design (London, 1963) p. 2-3. The ‘History Painting’ was not a direct representation of an event, but the interpretation of it, showing history as it should have been.
200Ibid., p. 69-70.
201Ibid., p. 68-9.
than forbid the teaching of certain subjects which might put ideas into a student’s head and encourage them to become fine artists rather than ornamental artists.202 The RA was keen to protect its status as the keeper of fine art and guardian of the Academic Idea, and the Academicians on the Committee of Instruction were clear in their views that artisans should not be taught anything related to fine art. Bell comments that ‘the purpose of the schools was emphatically not to produce artists but rather to form the taste of artisans’, and goes on to reiterate the point, saying:
It was the business of the School to supply industry. It was not a school of art, It was a school of design.203
While Bell is correct in his assertion that the School of Design was to form the taste of artisans, as has been demonstrated from the 1836 Select Committee report, he is not entirely correct in saying that it was the business of the School to supply industry. The School was set up with the intention of educating artisans who were working in
manufactures so there is more of a sense of improvement of an existing situation rather than ‘ready supply of trained workers specifically for manufactures’ which Bell’s comment seems to imply.
The first students at the School were initially to take Elementary Outline Drawing, which included shading from plaster, modelling and colouring.204 Then they would go on to ‘Instruction for design in special branches of industry’ which was split into two sections: firstly a study of the fabrics and processes of industry, and secondly the study of history and taste and theoretical knowledge.205 It is not clear what is meant by the phrase ‘fabrics and processes of industry’; today that would imply at least some form of practical work and/or knowledge of industrial processes, but it seems that this was not the case in 1837, as the first reported practical work done by the students was not until 1838 when William Dyce became Head of the School. Towards the end of the first year numbers attending the School during the day were very small; even the evening class,
202Ibid., p. 69.
203Ibid., p. 67-8.
204Ibid., p. 73.
205Ibid., p. 73.
which was more popular, had just 45 students.206 A review of the School was undertaken, and it was at this point that the Council of the School decided to replace Papworth with the Scottish painter William Dyce.