Exhibition Catalogue for The Grand Exhibition of the Pre-Vinylite Society: An 18th Century Revival

1

a

C ATA LOGU E of t he

O r igina l PA I N T I N G S , S I G N S , gilded figu r es, &c. &c. &c.

Now exhibiting, by

The P R E -V I N Y L I T E S O C I E T Y, At the

bargehouse,

o x o t o w e r w h a r f,

Wr itt en & Cu rat ed by of

L ondon

meredith kasabian

best dressed signs &

T he

pr e-v in y lite societ y

#GrandExhibitionPVS

# S o c i e t y o f S i g n Pa i n t e r s

P r eVin y li t e S ociet y.com

#PreVin y liteSociet y

This publication is issued in conjunction with the exhibition “The Grand Exhibition of the Pre-Vinylite Society: An 18th Century Revival” Showing August 16 – 19 at Bargehouse Oxo Tower Wharf, London, in alliance with London Letterheads. © Meredith Kasabian, Pre-Vinylite Society, 2018

Credits Cover : Jakob Engberg of Copenhagen Signs Layout Design : Hilary Bouvier Copy Editor: Christine J. Sullivan

Acknowledgements Special thanks to Sam Roberts of Better Letters and Ghostsigns for hosting this exhibition and sponsoring this catalogue, and for his unending support and encouragement over the years. Sam is an invaluable asset to the world of sign painting and his dedication is evident in all his projects. Visit betterletters.co for info on lettering workshops and events and ghostsigns.co.uk to learn more about historic, fading painted signs.

Much gratitude to Ged Palmer and Shona Bland of The Luminor Sign Co. for all their behind-the-scenes work in bringing this exhibition to life.

Infinite appreciation for my talented husband, Josh Luke of Best Dressed Signs, for all his love, support, patience, and kindness. And to Elkay, the cat of our lives.

Bargehouse is owned and managed by Coin Street Community builders. coinstreet.org

4

Participating Artists

Carl Frisso Angell Liane Barker Brush and Pen Studio

Jack Hollands Signwriting Jack Helen Ingham

Mark Oatis Rose Oatis Ged Palmer The Luminor Sign Company

Joby Carter Carters Steam Fair

Christin Louth The Brushettes

Tom Collins, et al.

Hand Painted Signs Limerick

Dan Luckin Dan’s Hand Painted Signs

James Cooper Dapper Signs

Josh Luke Best Dressed Signs

Archie Proudfoot

Suzy Currell Muddy Creek Signs

Alice Mazzilli The Brushettes

Shelby Rodeffer Finer Signs

Jakob Engberg Copenhagen Signs

Mike Meyer

Craig Winslow & Anna Frederick

Miranda Ensink Amsterdam Sign Painters Zara Gaze Alex May Hughes

Paul Myerscough Bespoke Signs Rachel E. Millar Tobias Newbigin Newbigin Signs

Alicja Polachek Vanessa Power Signs of Power

Hana Sunny Whaler Andrew Wright C & P Graphics Damon Styer New Bohemia Signs

Bargehouse, Oxo Tower Wharf Barge House Street South Bank, London SE1 9PH Thursday, August 16 – Saturday, August 18, 2018 : 11AM – 6PM Sunday, August 19, 2018 : 11AM – 4PM Open daily, admission free

5

Curatorial Statement

6

Curatorial Statement

T

he Grand Exhibition of the Pre-Vinylite Society: An 18th Century Revival is a sign painting exhibition presented

in alliance with London Letterheads. The show directly references an exhibition of signs that took place in London in 1762. The original Grand Exhibition of the Society of Sign Painters opened on April 22, 1762 on Bow Street, Covent Garden. The exhibition was a satirical display of pictorial signboards, some painted specifically for the show (purportedly

by William Hogarth) and some taken clandestinely from the city streets in the aftermath of a sign ordinance that required all projecting signs to be removed.

One of the few surviving objects from this exhibition is its

companion catalogue, which playfully and often facetiously describes the pictorial signs for the 18th century viewer. For our Grand Exhibition of the Pre-Vinylite Society, the artists worked directly from the 1762 catalogue to translate the historic descriptions into contemporary lettering and pictorial styles.

Each artist in the show interpreted a description from the original catalogue by lettering it verbatim, rendering it pictorially, or by utilizing both techniques.

While our 2018 Grand Exhibition references 18th century

British signs, it is not a replication or reenactment of the 1762 Grand Exhibition. Instead, this show is a contemporary interpretation, or “revival,� of the historic event. In the 256 years since the men behind the Society of Sign Painters used the medium of sign painting to express their varied views on 18th century London life, sign making has remained an integral method of public expression and demonstration. Our Grand Exhibition of the Pre-Vinylite Society is a celebration of 21st century sign painting as told by a global community of sign painters, using the historic occasion in 1762 as inspiration for their work.

7

1 The Grand Exhibition of the Pre-Vinylite Society: An 18th Century Revival

T

he Pre-Vinylite Society is proud to present its

Bonnell Thornton and artist William Hogarth under

Grand Exhibition, a unique sign painting show

the guise of the fictional Society of Sign Painters, was

that expands the boundaries of our trade to include

a satirical event intended to mock the concurrent

works of art that articulate the many ways in which

(and earnest) exhibition of the Society of Arts, with

sign painters express themselves as artists. Using

whom Hogarth had recently had a falling out. The

the historic descriptions from the 1762 Grand

Society of Sign Painters’ exhibition consisted of

Exhibition of the Society of Sign Painters’ catalogue,

signs that had been taken off the streets, some of

the artists called on their sign painting and fine art

which were altered to add humor or intrigue, as

skills to create contemporary works that evoke the

well as signs painted specifically for the exhibition

past while being thoroughly modern. In the 18th

(purportedly by Hogarth). The 1762 exhibition was a

century, most signs were pictorial to direct a largely

response to the pervasive culture of connoisseurship,

illiterate public to the business of their day. The use

which favored art and artists from the European

of pictorial skills, which are often underrepresented

continent over native-born British artists. While

in our trade, allowed the artists to interpret the

the Society of Arts exhibition claimed to champion

historic descriptions more comprehensively than

British arts, their focus on royal patronage clashed

lettering alone would allow.

with the ideals of Thornton, Hogarth, and their

These interpretations vary from technical to

conceptual, with many of the artists taking a hint

8

fictional Society of Sign Painters, prompting them to schedule their mock exhibition to coincide with

from the satirical tone of the original catalogue to

the exhibition at the Society of Arts. By placing the

create profound and subversive works that exhibit

“low” art of sign painting in a gallery setting near the

the scope of impact an artistic sign can make. With-

exhibition at the Society of Arts (both geographically

out extensive knowledge of the politics and culture

and concurrently), the Society of Sign Painters

of the day, many of the descriptions in the 1762

effectively burlesqued the “high” art of the old

catalogue seem absurd or bizarre, which allowed

masters, while also managing to lampoon the signs,

the artists freedom to interpret the words at will.

the sign painters who made them, and the public,

The results are a medley of literal and figurative

who were duped into believing the Society of Sign

translations of the historic descriptions that

Painters’ exhibition was an earnest endeavor to

demonstrate both the mastery of technique and the

further the cause of native British artists.

cultural consciousness apparent in our 21st century

international sign painting renaissance. The array

Vinylite Society references the history surrounding

While our 2018 Grand Exhibition of the Pre-

of technical skill and conceptual acuity in the Grand

the 1762 Grand Exhibition, it is not intended as a

Exhibition of the Pre-Vinylite Society makes for an

replication or reenactment of this historic event.

eclectic exhibition that advances the possibilities of

Instead, this show is a contemporary interpretation,

what a sign—and a sign painter—can be.

or “revival,” celebrating the 21st century global sign

painting renaissance as a gallery-worthy enterprise.

The original exhibition, staged by journalist

Fig. 1 Cover page of the Society of Sign Painter’s Grand Exhibition catalogue, 1762. © The British Library Board.

9

10

The satirical nature of the 1762 exhibition implies

mapped and hence, controlled. In this new world of

that, for the organizers, the presentation of street

numbers and words, the symbolism characteristic

signs in a gallery setting was an anomalous act

of pictorial signs gave way to mere signalization and

intended to provoke laughter among its attendees.

the proliferation of lettered and numbered signs that

Even in the 21st century, the craft of sign painting is

remained throughout the literate era of the 19th and

rarely hailed as a gallery-worthy endeavor, perhaps

20th centuries was ushered in. (Incidentally, this

because signs are semiotic objects: their value is

shift from pictorial signs to the current tradition

attributed to the places they represent, rather than

of sign painting as a lettering art coincides with

to the artistic object itself. The Pre-Vinylite Society

emergence of the British the term “sign writer” over

holds the position that hand painted signs should

the earlier “sign painter.”) In our emergent post-

be considered art, and in that vein, our Grand

literate age, images in the form of logos or icons

Exhibition is a rebuttal to the Society of Sign Painters’

are appearing on signs in lieu of letters, signaling

implication that placing signs in a gallery setting is

another shift in the visual aesthetic and mode of

an act of absurdity.

navigation through our streets. While technological

advancements continue to pervade the sign industry,

The 1762 Society of Sign Painters’ exhibition

coincided with a city-wide ordinance to remove the

the 21st century sign painting renaissance that we

dangerous, hanging signs from the streets as well as

are currently enjoying is proof that despite myriad

with a general rise in literacy, effectively marking

options at their fingertips, humans still crave things

the end of a pre-literate era in which pictorial signs

made by hand. By recognizing quality, handmade

filled the city streets. The new numbering system

signs as the artistic objects that they are, sign

that emerged from this change established the city

painting can survive well into a post-literate future.

as an organized and disciplined space that could be

By celebrating the global renaissance of sign

painting and featuring artists from eight countries, the Grand Exhibition of the Pre-Vinylite Society also subverts the nationalistic views inherent in the Society of Sign Painters’ exhibition. As the Society of Arts exhibition aimed to champion the native born British (male) artists, the Society of Sign Painters also expressed their desire for a purely British exhibition.

Despite our 21st century globalized society, the Pre-Vinylite Society continues to struggle with inclusivity, as diversity in the sign painting trade is still severely lacking (in this exhibition as well as in previous Pre-Vinylite Society gallery shows).

Nonetheless, our Grand Exhibition is a response to the nationalism and bigotry apparent in our current political climate across the western world and a call for more diversity in our field.

As a response to the historical event, the Grand

Exhibition of the Pre-Vinylite Society aims to celebrate sign painting as a gallery-worthy art, to champion the international community of sign painters as artists, to encourage more diversity in this field through education and inclusivity, and to use our art as a political tool to resist the onslaught of mass conformityL Fig. 2 (pg10) Josh Luke painting “Shave for a Penny, Let Blood for Nothing.” For finished painting, see page 31.

Fig. 3 (above) Detail of Shelby Rodeffer’s “The Good Woman.”

For full image, see page 32.

11

2 The 1762 Grand Exhibition of the Society of Sign Painters

I

n the spring of 1762, scores of curious Londoners

publications, including The Drury-Lane Journal,

paid one shilling per admission for the chance to

The Connoisseur, or Mr. Town, and the St. James’s

glimpse the new exhibition by London’s fictional

Chronicle, in which he often used pseudonyms to

Society of Sign Painters. This “Grand Exhibition”

satirize and critique the cultural affairs of the day.

(Fig. 4) presented the nation with a satirical display

of pictorial signboards, some painted specifically

at the Society of Arts, which championed the British

for the show (purportedly by William Hogarth, under

artist in a culture of continental connoisseurship

the pseudonym “Hagarty”) and some taken clandes-

that favored art and artists from the continent over

tinely from the city streets in the aftermath of a

native-born British artists. The practice of hiring

sign ordinance that required all projecting signs

foreign artists began as early as the 16th century and

to be removed 1. The enactment of this city ordi-

caused strife for many British artisans, who hoped to

nance —along with a desire to mock the concurrent

make a living at their trade. As art historian James

exhibition at the Society of Arts (Fig. 5) — prompted

Ayres recounts, the employment of foreign artists

journalist Bonnell Thornton and his Nonsense Club

escalated during the late middle ages and “by 1516

to seek out, take down, and display these signboards

hand-bills were pasted up anonymously on the walls

in the world’s first gallery exhibition of hand

in London streets accusing the king of favoring foreign

painted signs.

craftsmen to the detriment of those who were native

born” (Arts, Artisans & Apprentices 3). In response

Bonnell Thornton was a satirical journalist who

One such cultural affair was the 1762 exhibition

kept company with some of the nation’s most well

to these disgruntled protests, the king forbade the

known playwrights, poets, and essayists, including

employment of foreign artisans — except for members

William Cowper, George Colman, and Robert

of Parliament and anyone with an annual income of

Lloyd. According to Lance Bertelsen, author of The

more than £100. Ayres claims that this law likely “had

Nonsense Club: Literature and Popular Culture,

the effect of making work by foreign artisans and artists

1749-1764, “the ‘Nonsense Club’ refers, historically,

all the more desirable and fashionable” and “by 1678

to a group of Old Westminsters and London wits who

the corporate memory of that Proclamation appears

met regularly every Thursday evening during the

to have faded from memory,” resulting in the 18th

late 1750s and early 1760s” (2). While the group may

century connoisseurship satirized by Thornton and

have hosted additional members, including William

his Nonsense Club (3). By the 1750s, Thornton’s fictional

Hogarth, Bertelsen considers Thornton, Cowper,

connoisseur, “Mr. Town,” and the connoisseurs he

Colman, and Lloyd “the literary core of the group”

satirized had emerged as London’s authority on all

(2). Thornton’s journalism manifested in serial

things continental, and therefore cosmopolitan.

¹Most scholars, including Hogarth biographer Ronald Paulson, agree that Hogarth’s intermittent involvement in other projects with the Nonsense Club, as well as his omission from the 1762 Society of Arts exhibition, warrant the attribution of the nine paintings “by Hagarty” in the Society of Sign Painters’ catalogue to Hogarth. However, there is some contention about this presumption because an Irish painter named James Hagarty exhibited at the Society of Arts between 1767 and 1783. However, there is no evidence of Hagarty’s presence in London before 1767. Scholar Jonathan Conlin maintains that Hogarth’s previous involvement with the Nonsense Club and his “anticonnoisseur crusades [that] marched nearly in step” with Thornton’s, warrant the acceptance of Hogarth’s participation in the Society of Sign Painters’ Grand Exhibition (20).

12

Fig. 4 Announcement for a Grand Exhibition, “St. James’s Chronicle or the British Evening Post” (London, England), March 13, 1762 – March 16, 1762; Issue 158. Image via 17th18th Century Burney Collection Newspapers.

Fig. 5 Excerpt from “St. James’s Chronicle or the British Evening Post” (London, England), March 23, 1762 - March 25, 1762; Issue 162. Image via 17th-18th Century Burney Collection Newspapers.

Fig. 6 “Beer Street” by William Hogarth, 1751. This engraving is one of a two part series depicting the plague of gin addiction in 18th century London. In this print, Hogarth presents the societal benefits of drinking beer over gin. The portrayal of the sign painter in this engraving, with his ragged clothing and thin physique, conveys the common assumption that sign painters were a coarse breed. © Trustees of the British Museum.

Fig. 7 “Gin Lane” by William Hogarth, 1751. In this engraving, Hogarth depicts the evils of gin during the height of the 18th century gin plague. The signs in these engravings are symbolic of the depravity caused by addiction. © Trustees of the British Museum.

13

14

In an effort to encourage the proliferation of British

Society of Arts exhibit is often cited as an impetus for

artists and patrons, the Society for the Encouragement

the Society of Sign Painters Exhibition. As Brandon

of the Arts, Manufactures, and Commerce (also known

Taylor, author of Art for the Nation: Exhibitions

as the Society of Arts) was established in 1754. It began

and the London Public, 1747-2001, suggests, “by the

as an instructional organization with design compe-

early 1760s when Hogarth and Thornton staged the

titions aimed at merchants but by 1760 began showing

Signboards Exhibition nearly opposite the Society of

temporary public exhibitions of British art. William

Arts show in the Strand, the battle lines were fairly

Hogarth was a member of the Society from its beginning

clearly drawn between the adulation of old-master

and participated in the 1761 Society of Arts exhibition

paintings from the continent, and the depiction of

with some trepidation about the Society’s new bent for

contemporary-life subjects by Englishmen in an

royal patronage and its implications of connoisseur-

irreverent and diversionary mode” (15). Hogarth’s

ship. Hogarth’s subsequent omission from the 1762

depictions of everyday life documented the crime,

poverty, and filth on London’s streets and marked a shift from his earlier, more frivolous work to an interest in the tangible problems of the day.

Hogarth’s affiliation with signs goes beyond his

and Thornton’s mutual reproach for the connoisseur.

He is said to have painted signs early in his career and many of his later works depict the signboards of London’s streets, often used in symbolic ways to reference subversive ideas of the day (Figs. 6, 7, 8). Hogarth’s discontent with the Society of Arts, combined with the deteriorating conditions of the signs on the streets and the impending sanitation ordinance, created the perfect climate for a satirical exhibition of signboards, which effectively lampooned both the signs and the Society of Arts.

The intention for a Society of Sign Painters’

exhibition was first announced on May 21, 1761 in the St. James’s Chronicle, a tri-weekly newspaper owned in part by Bonnell Thornton and other members of his Nonsense Club. The announcement stated merely, “An Account of the Exhibition designed by the Brokers and Sign-Post Painters of Knaves-acre, Harp-Alley, etc. shall be in a future Paper” (“News”).

The next mention of the exhibition came a week later on May 26th, when the organizers explain, “several ARTISTS (Natives of Great Britain) are invited to send to the printer of this paper, a list of those capital pieces, which they intend to submit to the public Judgment. N.B. No Foreigners, and Dutchmen in particular, will be allowed a Place in the Exhibition” (Fig. 9). The nationalistic tone of this announcement, with its insistence that the submitting artists be “Natives of Great Britain,” establishes the exhibition as a critique of the Grand Tourist connoisseur and a satire on the Society of Arts’ concurrent exhibition, which asserted to champion native British artists. The ensuing printed matter in the St. James’s Chronicle and other London periodicals—advertisements, announcements, descriptions, reviews, and satirical cartoons—made the event into a media spectacle and what Taylor calls “a propaganda success” (18). By holding the “low” art of sign painting up to the “high” art being exhibited at the Society of Arts, the Society of Sign Painters complicated the novel concept of the art exhibition, and their event became, as Jonathan Conlin suggests, “arguably the first ‘anti-art’ installation of objets trouvés [found objects]” (17).

Nearly a year after its first mention, the St.

James’s Chronicle again published the intention for

Fig. 8 (pg 14) “Night” by William Hogarth, 1736. The final piece in a four part series titled “Four Times of the Day,” this painting depicts the disorder and corruption of the city under the cover of night. The signs, of a tavern and brothel, convey the immorality of nightlife in 18th century London.

Fig. 9 (above) Excerpt from “St. James’s Chronicle or the British Evening Post” (London, England), May 23, 1761 - May 26, 1761; Issue 32. Image via 17th-18th Century Burney Collection Newspapers.

15

Fig. 10 Excerpt from the “London Evening Post,” April 15, 1762 - April 17, 1762; Issue 5374. Image via 17th-18th Century Burney Collection Newspapers.

Fig. 11 The Society of Sign Painters’ rebuttal to “a most malicious suggestion.” Excerpt from the 1762 Society of Sign Painters’ Catalogue, page 7.

an exhibition of signs, on March 13, 1762, this time

The success of the exhibition, apparent in the number

asking the public for assistance in bringing it to

of reviews it received, is a testament to the ability of

fruition by locating signs to be removed from the

newspapers to fuel public interest in any novel event

streets. The advertisement pronounced a “GRAND

of the time. The medium of periodical publications,

EXHIBITION” (Fig. 4) and requested the public’s help

unprecedented in the 18th century in both number

in collecting submissions. This announcement sug-

and the scope of circulation, led to a widespread

gests that “that the majority of the signs displayed

interest in all cultural events and the Sign Painters’

at the exhibition were authentic; that is, they were

exhibition was no exception.

gathered from the town or countryside rather than

painted especially for the occasion. The Nonsense

the Sign Painters’ exhibition prompted a wave of

Club, under Thornton’s direction, undoubtedly

suspicion about the intentions of the event. While

did a good deal of the collecting” (Bertelsen 139).

most of the advertisements and announcements for

While some of the signs were supposed to have been

the exhibition appeared in the St. James’s Chronicle,

painted by Hogarth, it appears that most of the signs

the Society of Sign Painters attempted to advertise

were taken from the streets, likely leading up to or in

in other local papers as well. The London Evening

the aftermath of the Westminster Paving Act.

Post, however, refused to run their ad, calling the

organizers “a pretended Society of Sign-painters”

In the months following the announcement of

the Grand Exhibition, the St. James’s Chronicle

and citing the public suspicion of mockery on the

was f looded with both accounts of the exhibition

Society of Arts as the reason for their rebuke (Fig. 10).

and objections to it for its apparent intention as

While the Society of Sign Painters vehemently denied

a burlesque on the Society of Arts exhibition.

the implication that their exhibit was intended as

According to Taylor,

a satire on the concurrent Society of Arts exhibit,

“

most scholars agree that it was exactly that. Despite

it is possible that in 1761 the idea of an exhibition of signs was a mere jeu d’esprit, conjured into existence for the amusement of the Nonsense Club. Yet by 1762 plans were well-advanced—though behind a crossfire of conflicting announcement, misinformation, and personal and political innuendo. Since the spoofed objections in the St. James’s Chronicle could no longer be distinguished from real ones, the ultimate effect was to generate publicity for the show and to sell copies of the Chronicle. And yet the show did take place, and was in some sense a propaganda success. (18)

16

The proliferation of printed matter referring to

their insistence, the ironic tone of their rebuttals suggest otherwise, as is apparent in their explanation in their companion catalogue to the exhibit (Fig 11).

This defense, seemingly sincere in its declaration that the Grand Exhibition did not intend to ridicule the “Brother-Artists” whose work was shown at the Society of Arts exhibition, emphasizes the common assumption that England lacked artists of quality.

Indeed, according to Conlin, the Grand Exhibition championed a nationalistic “critique of the connoisseur” by mocking the English collectors who shunned the works of English artists for those by the masters on the continent (6). In this way, the Society of Sign

Fig. 12 “A Brush for the Sign Painters” was a satirical cartoon circulated around the Society of Sign Painters’ exhibition. The cartoon depicts Hogarth, Thornton, and other members of the Nonsense Club and references the Ha! Ha! and He! He! signs on view in the Grand Exhibition. © Trustees of the British Museum.

17

18

Painters’ exhibition ridiculed both the signs that it

Ars Poetica prominently rendered in the gallery in

exhibited and the mission of the Society of Arts to

gold letters on a blue ground: SPECTATUM ADMISSI

improve the perception of English art.

RISUM TENEATIS (You who are let in look restrain your

laughter)” (“The Vernacular Art” 313).

While the Society of Sign Painters maintained

that the Grand Exhibition be taken seriously as a

This laughter, however, was apparently not

celebration of the skill of England’s sign makers, the

intended to be stifled. The proliferation of printed

witty tone of the exhibition cannot be overlooked.

matter surrounding the Grand Exhibition included

As Conlin points out, “to take [Thornton] at his word

many humorous descriptions, reviews, objections,

requires making several assumptions that would

and even satirical cartoons that lampooned the

have been impossible for many contemporaries to

exhibition and its organizers (Figs. 12, 13). In one

accept—first, that British signs were in fact some-

of several reviews of the exhibition, an anonymous

thing to celebrate and, more importantly, that signs

contributor to the publication, Dialogues of the

were ‘art’ and could be discussed by an attentive

Living, explains, “I was lately at the exhibition of

public in aesthetic terms” (2). Ayres seems to agree

sign painters” to which his partner responds, “which

that to take the Society of Sign Painters at their word

I hear was intended to ridicule the Society for the

requires an anachronistic suggestion that they were

encouragement of arts” (90). The dialogue continues

engaging in a commentary on the nature of art itself.

with a conversation about the intentions of the exhi-

He proposes that “an important clue to the intention

bition and concludes that the insistence on sincerity

behind this exhibition was a quote from Horace’s

alleged in the show’s catalogue, “looks rather like

Fig. 13 (pg 18) The satirical cartoon, “A Sign for an Exh[i]b[i]t[i]on,” printed in 1762, uses a rebus for its title and references the “Ha! Ha! Ha!” and “He! He! He!” signs on view, among other satirical jabs at Hogarth and the Nonsense Club. © Trustees of the British Museum.

Fig. 14 (above) A review of the exhibition from “A Despiser of All Tricking,” reprinted in the “St. James’s Chronicle” from “The Gazetteer.” “St. James’s Chronicle or the British Evening Post” (London, England), April 22, 1762 - April 24, 1762; Issue 175. Image via 17th-18th Century Burney Collection Newspapers.

19

20

a sneer, than a real apology” (Dialogues 91). The re-

the Society, at the Old Hat in Ealing—at the Expence

viewer goes on to describe the exhibition, including

of the Public” (Fig. 15). While the admission price

the “joke” that on either side of the chimney, “are two

for the Society of Arts’ exhibition supplemented the

curtains hanging down, which you would suppose

artists and the mission to inspire a more positive

hid something very curious, but on lifting them up

perception of the British artist, the admission price

you see behind one Ha! Ha! Ha! and the other He!

at the Society of Sign Painters’ exhibition funded a

He! He!” (Dialogues 92). These “signs,” concealed by

night out for drinks at the pub.

a velvet curtain (often employed in this era to censor

sexually provocative content) correspond to numbers

the signs in the exhibition were “worse executed

49 and 50 in the Society of Sign Painters’ catalogue,

than any that are to be seen in the meanest streets.”

which are described as: “These two by an unknown

Since very few of the painted signs exhibited in the

Hand, the Exhibitors being favoured with them from

show were painted for the occasion, the majority

an unknown Quarter. ***Ladies and Gentlemen are

of the images that this patron viewed were taken

requested not to finger them, as Blue Curtains are

directly from the streets. While it could be true that

hung over on purpose to preserve them” (Catalogue

Thornton and his Nonsense Club chose the “very

9). By compelling an interaction between the viewer

worst of Signpost Work” from the plethora of painted

and the artwork, the blue curtains served as a

signs in and around London, it seems more likely

tangible way for the Society of Sign Painters to bring

that the reviewer held different expectations for

the audience in on the joke and assert the exhibition’s

paintings in a gallery than he did in his experience of

intention as a mockery of the novel phenomenon of the

viewing functional signs on the street.

public art exhibition, specifically the concurrent

exhibition at the Society of Arts.

was not entirely new at the time of the Society of

The “Despiser of all Tricking” also complains that

The negative comparison between art and signs

Despite the Society of Sign Painters’ insistence on

Sign Painters’ Grand Exhibition in 1762. Despite the

sincerity, the public seems nevertheless to have been

fact “that many early modern artists emerged from

duped by this satirical art exhibition. In a review of

the art and mystery of sign painting,” sign painters

the exhibition in the London Evening Post on April

were often derided in public discourse (Ayres, Arts,

24th, a patron (who signs his letter, “A Despiser of

Artisans, & Apprentices 209). Andrew Gordon, in

all Tricking”) complains that the exhibition is “the

his article on the depiction of signs in early modern

most impudent and pickpocket Abuse that I ever

drama, cites various plays in which the character

knew offered to the Publick” (Fig. 14). The exhibition

of sign painter is treated with ridicule or scorn. He

catalogue, which was required for admission to the

explains, “the technique of satirizing a painter’s

exhibit, cost one shilling per admission. The first

artlessness and lack of ability through the limited

page of the catalogue acted as a detachable ticket,

repertoire and ambition of a signpainter [sic] seems

which was ripped off when entering the exhibition

to have been commonplace” (36). Perhaps the most

so that a patron could not see the exhibition twice

iconic depiction of an 18th century sign painter

without purchasing another catalogue. In addition to

appears in Hogarth’s 1750 engraving, “Beer Street”

this “pickpocket Abuse,” the Society of Sign Painters

(Fig. 6), in which a thin and unkempt sign painter in

also publicized how they spent the admission money,

threadbare clothing clutches his palette as he works

explaining that on April 25, three days after the

on a sign depicting a gin bottle—the very product of

opening of the exhibition, “the Door-keepers re-

depravity decried by Hogarth in his companion piece,

freshed themselves at Mother Red-Cap’s; as also did

“Gin Lane” (Fig. 7). This portrayal of a sign painter as

a ragged alcoholic is in keeping with the popular notion of sign painting as a low form of art.

In 1743, a London resident

commented in the Universal Spectator on the similarity between signs and high art, claiming, “The other Day, going down Ludgate-Street, several People were gazing at a very splendid Sign of Q. Elizabeth, which, by far, exceeded all the other Signs in the Street, the Painter having shown a masterly Judgment, and the Carver and Gilder much Pomp and Splendor: It rather look’d like a Capital Picture in a Gallery, than a Sign in the Street” (The Humours of Sign Painting” 37).

What matters for this observer is not that the sign is exceptional but that it is “in the street” and not “in a gallery,” suggesting that the location of a sign says as much about its value as its quality.

The Grand Exhibition of the

Society of Sign Painters disrupted the experience of viewing signs, which, as Conlin points out, “the visitor could have easily viewed [. . .] at no charge — just walking down the street” (10).

By displacing the London signs from their expected, functional locations, the Grand Exhibition confronted the viewer with a surprising perspective that separated the artifact from its utility, giving Londoners their first indoor glimpse at a collection of signs exhibited for the purpose of contemplation rather than directionL Fig. 15 Proceedings of the Grand Exhibition, “St. James’s Chronicle or the British Evening Post” (London, England), April 27, 1762 – April 29, 1762; Issue 177. Image via 17th-18th Century Burney Collection Newspapers.

21

ยง The Grand Exhibition of the Pre-Vinylite Society Artist Images

22

Dan Luckin / Dan’s Hand Painted Signs (pg 22) “A Man in his Element. A Sign for an Eating-House.” Acrylic, enamel, varnish, gold leaf, spray paint, and ink on wood. 73 x 100cm.

Helen Ingham (top right) “The Magpy. By Whitaker.” Enamel and gold leaf on wood with traditionally blued steel frame and fittings. 76 x 76cm.

Mike Meyer (above) “Entertainment for Man and Horse. A Landscape. By Bransley.” Enamel on wood. 43 x 102cm.

Carl Frisso Angell (bottom right) “Hand and Lock of Hair.

Hand unknown.” Enamel on cardboard. 25 x 39cm.

23

24

Alex May Hughes (pg 24) “All the World and his Wife. By Blackman.” Enamel, gold leaf, mother of pearl, and butterfly wings on glass. 46 x 73cm.

Rose Oatis (top) “The Logger-Heads. Ditto. By Ditto.” Translucent oil glazes, various gold leaf, and abalone shell on glass with routed and carved wood frame. 75 x 49cm.

Mark Oatis (bottom) “A Buttock of Beef stuft. By Lynne.”

Enamel, gold leaf, and glass jewel on epoxied, carved HDU board. 68 x 72cm.

25

26

Rachel E. Millar (top pg 26) “The Hercules Pillars. The Architecture by Young Soames. The Figure (from the Farnesian Hercules) by the Father.” Enamel on wood. 51 x 41cm.

Vanessa Power / Signs of Power (bottom pg 26) “An Ha! Ha!” Gold leaf, silver leaf, enamel, and spray paint on glass and wood with aluminium fixtures. 72 x 42cm.

Christin Louth / The Brushettes (top left) “An Owl in an IvyBush. Its Companion. By Allison.” Enamel on wood. 57 x 76cm.

Jack Hollands / Signwriting Jack (top right) “The Ghost of Cock-Lane. By Miss Fanny.” Enamel and gold leaf on wood.

65 x 85cm.

Tom Collins / Hand Painted Signs Limerick in collaboration with Dorothy Cross, Fergal Lawler, Niki O’Connell, and Joe Lane. (left) “The Irish Arms. By Patrick O’Blaney. [N.B. Captain Terence O’Cutter stood for them.]” Wood, gold leaf, Apple iPad, film/audio headphones, laser etched tempered glass.

33 x 39cm.

27

28

Joby Carter / Carters Steam Fair (top pg 28) “Three Coffins, its Companion. Finished by Shrowd.” Enamel on wood.

Approx. 61 x 196 x 38cm each.

Suzy Currell / Muddy Creek Signs (above) “Adam and Eve. The first Attempt of that famous Artist, Barnaby Smith.”

Enamel and gold leaf on wood. 65 x 75cm.

Alice Mazzilli / The Brushettes (bottom right pg 28) “Three Coffins, its Companion. Finished by Shrowd.” Enamel and gold leaf on found wood. 60 x 40cm.

29

30

Damon Styer / New Bohemia Signs (top pg 30) “[Over the Chimney] A Star of the first Magnitude.” Enamel and various gold leaf on glass and wood, with glass gems and brass and steel hardware. 98 x 69 x 13cm.

Josh Luke / Best Dressed Signs (above) “Shave for a Penny, Let Blood for Nothing.” Enamel on wood. 68 x 86cm.

Andrew Wright / C & P Graphics (bottom pg 30) “A Bird in the Hand, a Landscape. By Allison.” Abalone shell, mica powders, gold leaf, enamel, screen print on 3D print, cut glass, and MDF. 40 x 40 x 32cm.

31

32

Shelby Rodeffer / Finer Signs (pg 32) “The Good Woman. A Whole Length, but no Portrait. By Sympson. N.B. It is done from Invention, not being able to find one to sit for it.” Acrylic on satin with mirror, thread, lucite, fabric gimp braid and fringe. 56 x 76cm.

Liane Barker / Brush and Pen Studio, (above) “A Flying Swan; —by some supposed to be a Dying one. By Goustry.”

Enamel, gold leaf, relief hand carved foam, hand painted swan, variegated leaf on raised timber panel. 60 x 60 x 11cm.

33

34

Hana Sunny Whaler (top pg 34) “A Man Loaded with Mischief. By Sympson.” Enamel on wood. 60cm diameter.

Jakob Engberg / Copenhagen Signs (bottom pg 34) “An Half Moon. By Masmore.” Enamel, edged PVC panels, and gold leaf on glass. 60 x 60 cm.

Archie Proudfoot (above) “Three Nuns. The Drapery copied from a Bas Relief at Rome. By Soames.” Gold leaf, enamel, and steel on glass. 70 x 70cm.

35

3 The Semiotics of Street Signs in 18th Century London

B

efore the implementation of the numbering

pictorial nature of the signs required a form of visual

system and the fashion for inscribing names on

literacy by which the illiterate majority could “read”

houses in the late 18th century, London pedestrians

and understand the signs through a shared semiotic

“traversed their world following visual cues” (Austin).

code. While most signs in the first half of the 18th

Whether a candle in a window, a brightly painted

century depicted images that assisted the illiterate

door, or a pictorial sign, “these devices were a form

majority to the business of their day, the implemen-

of popular heraldry in which communication was

tation of the numbering system in the latter half of

direct and visual, rather than lettered” (Ayres, Art,

the century sought to rationalize and quantify the

Artisans, & Apprentices 199). In the 18th century,

city space and as a result, drastically shifted the

these “visual cues” were commonly indicated by

urban mode of navigation from a social practice to an

signboards, which were often carved or painted with

autonomous, behavioral response.

an image or crest as a means of distinguishing an inn,

tavern, or shop as a place of business (Fig. 16). The

Before the 18th century, the semiotics of London’s

pictorial signs were fairly straightforward. Common symbols ensured that thirsty travelers could find relief at the sign of the ivy, which indicated an alehouse, and customers in need of a specific trade would know that their shoes could be cobbled at the sign of the boot or a new pair of gloves could be purchased at the sign of the hand (Fig. 17). John Gay’s 1716 poem, Trivia, or the Art of Walking the Streets of London, instructs the reader on how to navigate the crowded streets of London and, according to scholar Alison O’Byrne, “argues that London can be read and understood” (94). In Trivia, Gay illuminates for the reader “how to walk clean by day and safe by night” and offers such diverse advice as how to avoid crowds and pickpockets, how to dress appropriately for the weather, and how to appreciate the pleasure of walking through an alley (2, 25). Gay talks about London’s pictorial, hanging signage as a means by which the pedestrian can make sense of the city, and even predict the weather: “But when the swinging signs your ears offend / With creaking noise, then rainy floods impend (157-8). Gay specifies how the signs operate as wayfinding tools when he writes,

36

Fig. 16 (pg 36) A typical 18th century carved and gilded sign. Image © The Museum of London.

Fig. 17 (left) Common symbols for inns and taverns, c. 1676-1688. The semiotics of inn signs communicated much about the establishment. Image © Ashmolean Museum, University of Oxford.

shops within the city. As the symbols on the signs represented the trade, not the individual practitioner of the shop (Fig. 18), it was not necessary to differentiate between signs in the same trade until competition between practitioners began to grow. As colonization spread and manufacturing technology grew in the 17th and 18th centuries, London experienced an unprecedented influx of goods, which led to the proliferation of signs, all of which needed to be diverse in order to advertise more effectively.

Nineteenth century sign historians, Larwood and Hotten, suggest that “as luxury increased, and the number of houses or shops dealing in the same article multiplied, something more was wanted” in the sign (5).

Since similar trades were often restricted to particular streets

“

or districts, a shop often opted to If drawn by bus’ness to a street unknown, Let the sworn porter point thee thro’ the town;

differentiate itself from its neighbors by choosing “a name or token by which it might be mentioned in

Be sure observe the signs, for signs remain,

conversation, so that it could be recommended and

Like faithful land-marks to the walking train.

customers sent to it” (Larwood and Hotten 5). As

(65-68)

competition amongst the trades increased, shops began utilizing symbols to represent their particular

The “faithful land-marks” that, along with the “sworn porter,” guide the walker through the unknown city streets, operate to map the city in local

business, in addition or opposed to the symbol of the trade. These symbols were often arbitrary and required that the customer know which symbol

terms. In Gay’s London, the signs are “faithful” not

represented which shop in order to patronize the

because they correspond to a verifiable coordinate

desired one (Fig. 19).

on a map, but because their symbols and images can

be relied upon to compose an “art of walking the

main mode of navigation through the city, their

streets of London.”

interpretation required a complex set of understand-

ings about the city and its citizens. In his study of the

As the century progressed and competition grew,

As the images on pictorial signs provided the

deciphering these visual signifiers became more

depiction of signs in early modern drama, Andrew

complicated. Before the Industrial Revolution took

Gordon observes, “navigation by signboards is

hold, a particular trade might only have one or two

founded upon engagement with the city as a social

37

entity. Signboards operate as orientational material

in the number of shops that both opened and closed

at a strictly local, neighbourhood level and presup-

their doors throughout the course of the century.

pose social interaction to be fully effective” (39).

Since a business’ sign “was a visual indication of the

As the symbols on signs became more complicated,

address,” when a shop went out of business and a new

the social aspect of navigation did as well, and

one moved into the premises, the new owner often

addresses became verbose and complex, requiring

opted to keep the original sign so that their custom-

a local understanding of signs and landmarks in

ers would know where to find them, (“A Nation of

order to make them comprehensible. Larwood and

Shopkeepers”). In an effort to differentiate himself

Hotten quote this convoluted means of describing an

from the previous owner, the new owner would often

address in the 18th century: “At her house, the RED

add to the sign “an element of his own trade or the

BALL AND ACORN, over against the GLOBE Tavern, in

sign of his former master (“A Nation”). The resulting

Queen Street, Cheapside, near the THREE CROwNS,

effect of these additions was a hodgepodge of

liveth a Gentlewoman” (30). Similarly, in this 1711

unlikely pairings that no longer accurately signified

advertisement for a house for lease, “Newburg House,

a specific trade or shop.

in St. James’s Park, next door but one to my Lady

Oxford’s, having two balls at the gate, and iron rails

London’s signs frustrated its residents. In a 1752

before the door,” the address is described in local

letter about the state of signs in mid-century London

terms and requires that the respondent understand

to the weekly publication, the Adventurer, a reader

or decode the landmarks depicted if they have any

by the name of Philip Carmine (supposed by Hogarth

hope of finding the place (“Advertisement” 414).

scholar, Ronald Paulson, to be Bonnell Thornton

38

The growing incongruities of the images on

While many signs utilized a rebus or symbol to

himself) complains, “I have been used to consider

signify the trade or proprietor of the shop, they also

several SIGNS, for the frequency of which it is

often used a combination of two or more symbols

difficult to give any other reason, as so many hiero-

that may or may not have designated the business

glyphics with a hidden meaning, satyrizing [sic] the

conducted within (Fig. 20). The rise of mercantile

follies of the people, or conveying instruction to the

capitalism in the 18th century led to a proliferation

passer-by” (52). In 1711, Joseph Addison complained

Fig. 18 The symbol of the wheat sheaf was often used to denote the linen draper’s trade. Image via Sir Ambrose Heal’s “Sign Boards of Old London Shops,” 1957.

Fig. 19 The “Good Woman,” also known as the “Silent Woman,” is an example of an arbitrary symbol used to denote a particular business within a trade—in this case the trade of oilmen or colourmen (purveyors of paints and colors). For the modern, feminist interpretation of this sign, see Shelby Rodeffer’s “Good Woman” on page 32. Image via Sir Ambrose Heal’s “Sign Boards of Old London Shops,” 1957.

39

Fig. 20 (pg 37) Trade card for a grocer located at the sign of the Bee-hive and Three Sugar Loaves. © Trustees of the British Museum.

40

Fig. 21 Joseph Addison’s 1711 article about London’s signs, 1711. Image via 17th-18th Century Burney Collection Newspapers.

of these absurdities in his daily newspaper, the

the streets, collecting rubbish, installing a sewage

Spectator (Fig. 21), stating that he would like the

system, and removing dangerous hanging signs from

authority to

the streets. While certainly an improvement to the

“

chaotic and filthy London streets of earlier days, the

forbid, that jarring and incongruous Natures should be joined together in the same Sign; such as the Bell and the Neats Tongue, the Dog and the Girdiron. The Fox and Goose may be supposed to have met, but what has the Fox and the Seven Stars to do together? and when did the Sheep and Dolphin ever meet, except upon a Sign-Post? (55)

Both Addison and Carmine also complained of

the difficulty of discerning the order of business that was conducted under a given sign. Carmine claims “it cannot be doubted, but that SIGNS were intended originally but to express the several occupations of their owners; and to bear some affinity in their external designations, with the wares to be disposed of, or the business carried on within” (Adventurer).

However, much had changed since the days when particular symbols aligned with particular trades and by 1752, “it would be endless to enumerate the gross blunders committed in this point, by almost every branch of trade” (Adventurer). Addison, writing more than 40 years earlier, expresses the same frustration as Carmine’s (in nearly the same words) as well as a desire to organize the city’s signage in a more logical manner. He claims that he

“

would enjoin every Shop to make use of a Sign

numbering system spelled the end of an era for the pictorial sign and the social mode of navigation it required.

An 1867 account of the history of signs explains,

“when the signs became relegated to the front walls, the use of numbers became general throughout the city, and their superiority for all purposes of commerce and ready correspondence could not fail to be at once acknowledged. By degrees the signs, from being the principal indicators of the shops and offices became less esteemed, and fell into neglect” (“Signs and Signboards” 154). A few years after the ordinance went into effect, a reader wrote into the Universal Magazine of Knowledge and Pleasure to suggest a way to compensate the sign painters’ loss of revenue due to the new sign ordinance. He writes, “it has been recommended to every private person to write their names over their door, and the fashion now begins to prevail. To these names, for the relief of the sign-painters, who have been hurt by the regulations for new-paving the streets of London, give me leave to recommend to every private family the addition of a sign” (“Means of Redress” 103). As most of the replacement signs now comprised letters and numbers as the main feature of the sign instead of images, the semiotics of navigation shifted from

which bears some Affinity to the Wares in

visual to literate.

which it deals. What can be more inconsistent,

As the pre-literate majority gave way to a widely

than to see a Bawd at the Sign of the Angel, or

literate society in the 19th century, sign painting

a Taylor at the Lion? A Cook should not live at

emerged as the lettering art that we currently prac-

the Boot, nor a Shoemaker at the Roasted Pig;

tice (and the British term “sign painter” soon became

and yet for want of this Regulation, I have seen

the contemporary British term, “sign writer”). In the

a Goat set up before the Door of a Perfumer,

aftermath of the Society of Sign Painters’ exhibition

and the French-King’s head at a Sword-Cutler’s.

and the contemporaneous Westminster Paving Act,

(Addison 55) This humorous complaint about the incongruities between signboard and shop speaks both to the difficulty of conducting business in London if one is not familiar with the designations of arbitrary signage and to the desire for a rational organization of space.

paving act and the introduction of the naming and

A general rise in literacy in the late 18th century,

combined with an ordinance to remove all hanging signs from the city, led to a decline of pictorial signs and their replacement with names and numbers.

The Westminster Paving Act of 1762 was a sanitation ordinance, which included cleaning and paving

the semiotics of the carved or painted sign shifted, compelling the city dweller to find his way through meaning derived from words and numbers and relegating the parade of painted pictures once seen in the city streets to the newly emerging galleries and museums available to London’s upper classes.

As pictorial shop and inn signs literally mapped the city as landmarks by which to give directions, the removal of pictures from the streets and their replacement with words and numbers not only shifted the mode of navigation but also profoundly altered the meaning that the city dwellers culled from the signs they used to navigate their cityL

41

4 From Pictures to Numbers to Corporate Logos: Disciplining Urban Space & the Modes of Navigation

T

he 1762 Grand Exhibition of the Society of Sign Painters marked the end of an era for pictorial

signs and inaugurated the lettering and numbering

must be punctuated and sustained by injunctions whose efficacity [sic] rests on brevity and

system that we continue to utilize today. According

clarity; the order does not need to be explained

to sign historians Larwood and Hotten, by the 1770s

or formulated; it must trigger off the required

“education had now so generally spread, that the

behaviour and that is enough. From the master

majority of people could read sufficiently well to

of discipline to him who is subjected to it the

decipher a name and number. The continual exhi-

relation is one of signalization: it is a question

bition of pictures in the streets and thoroughfares

not of understanding the injunction but of

consequently became useless; the information they

perceiving the signal and reacting to it imme-

conveyed could be imparted in a more convenient

diately, according to a more or less artificial,

and simple manner, whilst their evils could be

prearranged code. (166)

avoided” (28). These “evils” are the complex semiotics of pictorial signs that required social interaction for the pre-literate population to navigate through London’s streets. Over the centuries, the social aspect of navigation became an unruly practice, open to confusion, misunderstandings, and chaos (Fig. 22).

With the rise of literacy, the code of the signs became simplified, with letters and numbers providing the convenience and economy required for a disciplined metropolis.

In the highly logical Age of the Enlightenment,

in which classification and empiricism reigned, a chaotic cityscape had to be tamed for order to prevail. In his seminal work, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, French philosopher and historian Michel Foucault explains the conditions necessary for a “disciplined individual” to exist (166). An emergent subject in the 18th century, the “disciplined individual” is a product of authoritative forces, necessary for the new industrial and economic shift towards capitalism in the modern era.

Foucault explains:

42

“

All the activity of the disciplined individual

In the movement away from pictures, which require interpretation of complex symbols, towards letters and numbers, which merely signal a behavioral response, the code of the signs shifted drastically.

With the need for social interaction and its attendant vices diminished, the city dweller becomes autonomously obedient to the order of the signs.

The 1762 Paving Act sanitized the city from the

“evils” of pictorial signs and produced a quantifiably mappable space that sought to produce disciplined citizens through an orderly mode of navigation.

The numbering system made obsolete the need to understand or derive meaning from the complicated semiotics of London’s pictorial signs (Fig. 23). The city dweller, a disciplined individual responding to the signal of the signs, now needs to simply follow the sequential order of the street numbers to reach his destination. As Andrew Gordon observes, “cartography overlooks these symbols [pictorial signs] located at precise points, in favour of the representation of quantified areas punctuated by synchronic networks

of streets. The cartographic sign which promises to

a 21st century rural community, maintains, “spatial

stand in place of the site represented, and to offer

standardization makes an area comprehensible to

a mathematical articulation of its location, effects

all people, independent of local knowledge; it makes

the erasure of both the need for and the evidence

space legible beyond its immediate domain. Hence,

of these free-standing symbols in their capacity as

absolute space is connected to issues of power”

orientational markers” (39). The “social interaction”

(188). Like Foucault’s “disciplined individual,” whose

required for the efficacy of navigation by pictorial

prime advantage to those in power is his ability to

signs is replaced with a “mathematical articulation”

be surveilled and hence, controlled, the imposition

that favors the quantifiable rationalization of urban

of a numbering system allows the space to become

space over the social modes of navigation necessary

“absolute,” “comprehensible,” and observed, even to

in a city ruled by signboards.

those who have never been there. By removing the

interpersonal aspect of navigation and replacing it

Mapping a numerically ordered city allows the

reader of the map to navigate the city remotely. The

with numerical and lettered signals, the powers that

need for social interaction or even physical presence

be effectively sanitized the city and made way for an

in the city is no longer necessary for an understand-

era dominated by rational and controlled movement.

ing of its navigation. As Lisa Gabbert, in her study on

the implications of an imposed numbering system in

images in the form of logos or icons are appearing on

Fig. 22 “The Times, Plate 1” by William Hogarth, 1762. Published several months after the Society of Sign Painters’ exhibition, this print depicts the city of London in chaos—including its dilapidated signs—to make a political statement about the Seven Years’ War. © Trustees of the British Museum.

Fig. 23 (pg 44) This 1811 trade card for a linen draper uses the new numbering system to identify the shop’s location.

Compare to Fig. 20, a 1753 trade card that uses the social mode of navigation to convey the location of the shop at the sign of the Bee-hive and Three Sugar Loaves. © Trustees of the British Museum.

In our emergent post-literate information age,

43

44

signs in lieu of letters, signaling yet another shift in the visual aesthetic and mode of navigation through our cities’ streets. As more of our focus shifts downwards into our smart phones, rather than upward at shop signs, corporate businesses need to make the connection between their easily identifiable logo and their physical shop on the street. Many large chain businesses, like Starbucks and Target, are foregoing lettering altogether, signaling the consumer in real space through a visual reminder of the logo on their app (Figs. 24, 25). As icons and emojis are replacing carefully worded descriptions in our tech-based communications, it won’t be long before the semiotics of our cities’ signs are required to communicate this way as well.

However, despite an onslaught of corporate

conformity and technological advancements in the sign industry, our current 21st century sign painting renaissance is proof that despite myriad options at their fingertips, humans still crave things made by hand. Whether painting images, letters, numbers, or logos, the 21st century sign painter is experiencing a boom for the simple reason that machines cannot replicate what a human being can do. The handmade

Fig. 24 (top) A recently opened Target store in Cambridge, Mass, USA. Photo by Hallie Smith.

Fig. 25 (bottom) A recently opened Starbucks in Northfield, Birmingham, UK. Photo by Elliott Brown.

sign industry has a long history of adapting to major shifts in navigational modes and advanced technologies, thriving despite, or perhaps because of efforts to homogenize and discipline the aesthetics of the built environment. Recognizing quality, handmade signs as the artistic objects that they are, ensures that sign painting will survive into a post-literate futureL

45

Bibliography Adventurer, 1.9. London (1752): 1-304. Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Gale. Boston College.

Addison, Joseph. “Letter.” Spectator, 28 (2 Apr. 1711): 55 Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Gale. Boston College.

“Advertisement.” Spectator, 27. London (1711): British Periodicals Online. Boston College.

“Advertisement.” Town and Country Magazine, or, Universal Repository of Knowledge, Instruction, and Entertainment,

22 (1790): 49. British Periodicals Online. Boston College.

Ambulator: or, A pocket companion in a tour round London, within the circuit of twenty five miles: Describing whatever is

most remarkable for antiquity, grandeur: elegance, or rural beauty: including new catalogues of pictures, and

illustrated by historical and biographical observations: to which are prefixed a concise description of the metropolis

and a map of the country described. The fourth edition. London, 1792. Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Gale.

Boston College.

Austin, Charlotte. “Signs of the Times.” Victoria and Albert Museum Blog. 27 Nov 2010. Web. Ayres, James. “The Vernacular Art of the Artisan in England.” The Magazines Antiques. 151.2 (1997): 312-321. Print.

Ayres, James. Art, Artisans, & Apprentices: Apprentice Painters and Sculptors in the Early Modern British Tradition.

Oxford & Philadelphia: Oxbow Books, 2014. Print.

Ballinger, Louise Bowen & Raymond A. Sign Symbol & Form. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1972. Print.

Benedict, Barbara M. “Encounters with the Object: Advertisements, Time, and Literary Discourse in the Early

Eighteenth-Century Thing-poem.” Eighteenth Century Studies. 40.2 (2007): 193-207. Print.

Bertelsen, Lance. The Nonsense Club: Literature and Popular Culture, 1749-1764. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.Print.

The Beauties of all the Magazines Selected for the Year 1762. Vol. 1. London: T. Waller, 1762. Google Play. play.google.com/books/reader?id=ppAfAAAAMAAJ&pg=GBS.PP7 Chalmers, Alexander. “The Connoisseur.” Longman & Rees, 1817. Google Play. https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=NOstAQAAIAAJ&pg=GBS.PP1 Conlin, Jonathan. “’At the Expense of the Public’”: The Sign painters’ Exhibition of 1762 and the Public Sphere.”

Eighteenth Century Studies. 36.1 (2002): 1-21. Print.

Dialogues of the Living. London, 1762. Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Gale. Boston Public Library. 26 Feb. 2014.

Delderfield, Eric R. British Inn Signs and their Stories. Newton Abbott: David & Charles Inc., 1965. Print.

Delderfield, Eric R. Introduction to Inn Signs. New York: Arco Publishing Company Inc, 1969. Print.

Delderfield, Eric R. Stories of Inns and their Signs. Newton Abbot London: David & Charles Inc., 1974. Print.

Dent, Catherine. “The Functions of Inn Signs and their Place in Early Modern British History.” Reinvention: an

International Journal of Undergraduate Research. 4:1, 2011.

Endell, Fritz. Old Tavern Signs: An Excursion in the History of Hospitality. Cambridge, MA: Houghton Mifflin

Company, 1916.

Fisher, Thomas. The kentish traveller’s companion, in a descriptive view of the towns, villages, remarkable buildings

and antiquities, situated on or near The Road from London to Margate, Dover and Canterbury. Illustrated with a

correct map of the road on a Scale of One Inch to a Mile. 1776. Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Gale. Boston

College. 2 Apr. 2012 Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Trans. Alan Sheridan. New York: Random House,

1977. Print.

Gabbert, Lisa. “Distanciation and the Recontextualization of Space: Finding One’s Way in a Small Western Community.” Journal of American Folklore. 120.146 (2007): 178-203. Print.

46

Gay, John. Trivia: Or, the Art of Walking the Streets of London. London (1716): 1-92. Eighteenth Century Collections Online.

Gale. Boston College. 10 April 2012.

Gordon, Andrew. “’If my sign could speak’: The Signboard and the Visual Culture of Early Modern London.” Early Theatre. 8.1 (2005): 35-51. Print.

Heal, Ambrose. London Tradesmen’s Cards of the VXIII Century: An Account of their Origin and Use. New York: Charles

Scribner’s Sons, 1925. Print.

“The Humours of Sign Painting.” Universal Spectator. 744 (1743): 37-8. Web. Larwood, Jacob and John Camden Hotten. The History of Signboards: from the Earliest Times to the Present Day.

London: John Camden Hotten, Picadilly, 1866. Print.

“The London Magazine, Or, Gentleman’s Monthly Intelligencer.” Vol. 31, London: R. Baldwin, 1762.

“Means of Redress for the unfortunate SIGN-PAINTERS.” Universal Magazine of Knowledge and Pleasure. 40:276 (1767):

103. Web. “A Nation of Shopkeepers: Trade Ephemera from 1654 to the 1860 in the John Johnson Collection.” Bodleian Library

Website. University of Oxford, 2001. Web. “News.” London Evening Post (London, England), April 15, 1762 - April 17, 1762; Issue 5374. 17th-18th Century Burney

Collection Newspapers.

“News.” St. James’s Chronicle or the British Evening Post (London, England), May 21, 1761 - May 23, 1761; Issue 31. 17th-18th

Century Burney Collection Newspapers.

“News.” St. James’s Chronicle or the British Evening Post (London, England), May 23, 1761 – May 26, 1761; Issue 32.

17th-18th Century Burney Collection Newspapers.

“News.” St. James’s Chronicle or the British Evening Post (London, England), April 27, 1762 – April 29, 1762; Issue 177.

17th-18th Century Burney Collection Newspapers.

Norman, Philip. London Signs and Inscriptions. London: Elliot Stock, 1893. Print.

O’Brien, Patrick Karl. Urban achievement in Early Modern Europe : Golden Ages in Antwerp, Amsterdam, and London.

Ed. Patrick O’Brien et al. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Print.

O’Byrne, Alison. “The Art of Walking in London: Representing Urban Pedestrianism in the Early Nineteenth Century.”Romanticism. 14.2 (2008): 94-107. Web. Paulson, Ronald. Hogarth. Volume 3: Art and Politics 1750-1764. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. 1993.

Paulson, Ronald. Popular and Polite Art in the Age of Hogarth and Fielding. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame

Press. 1979.

“Signs and Signboards.” Leisure Hour: An Illustrated Magazine for Home Reading. 793 (9 March 1867): 153. Web. Sharpe’s London Magazine. Volume 7. T. B. Sharpe, 1848. Google Play. play.google.com/books/reader?id=Y-QRAAAAYAAJ&pg=GBS.PA42 Society of Sign-painters. A catalogue of the original paintings, busts, carved figures, &c. &c. &c. now exhibiting, by the

Society of Sign-Painters, at the large rooms, the upper end of Bow-Street, Covent-Garden, nearly opposite the

play-house passage. London, 1762. Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Gale. Boston College.

St. James’s Chronicle or the British Evening Post (London, England), April 27, 1762 – April 29, 1762; Issue 177. 17th-18th

Century Burney Collection Newspapers.

Taylor, Brandon. Art for the Nation: Exhibitions and the London Public, 1747-2001. Manchester University Press, 1999.

Wrigley, Richard. “Between the Street and the Salon: Parisian Shop Signs and the Spaces of Professionalism in the

Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries.” Oxford Art Journal. 21.1 (1998): 45-67. Web.

47

48

49

The Pre-Vinylite Society Manifesto The Pre-Vinylite Society is a loose network of self-ordained sign enthusiasts and advocates for a renewed interest in craftsmanship and the aesthetics of our built environment. The aim of the Pre-Vinylite Society is to encourage sign painters, sign enthusiasts, artists, writers, documentarians, business owners, and the general public to be more aware of their aesthetic surroundings and take pride in their neighborhoods by creating, commissioning, documenting, and appreciating quality signage, art, and architecture.

The name “Pre-Vinylite” is derived from the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood, a group of 19th-century English artists and writers who rebelled against the academic conventions of their day. The Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood defied the tradition passed down from Raphael that taught a strict approach to producing paintings. They felt that merely conforming to the conventions of previous masters made for art that was devoid of emotion because it lacked a sense of humanity and creativity.

The Pre-Raphaelites detailed their ambitions in four simple declarations: 1. to have genuine ideas to express;

2. to study Nature attentively, so as to know how to express them;

3. to sympathize with what is direct and serious and heartfelt in previous art to

the exclusion of what is conventional and self-parading and learned by rote; 4. and, most indispensable of all, to produce thoroughly good pictures and statues.

The Pre-Vinylite name also connotes the period before vinyl technology nearly decimated the hand-painted sign industry in the 1980s and serves as a commemoration of this pre-vinyl era, but not a wish to return to it. Despite the emphasis on a bygone era that “pre” suggests, the Pre-Vinylites are not a society of Luddites, shunning technology or advocating for a return to a simpler time. Pre-vinyl does not equal anti-vinyl. The Pre-Vinylite Society is a forward-thinking organization, dedicated to a future informed by the past.

The Pre-Vinylite Society aims to inspire a sharper cognizance of the built environment and a desire to create and appreciate new, forward-focused art that respects the traditions and techniques of the past. Much like the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood from whom we derive our name, the Pre-Vinylite Society is made up of members who are observant of the aesthetic world around us and resistant to traditions that dictate easy, quick, and careless ways of making our art. Also like the Pre-Raphaelites, we Pre-Vinylites are writers and artists, striving to make our mission heard as well as seen.

Ultimately, the Pre-Vinylites believe that artistic vigilance in the face of mass conformity can deliver us from a homogenous existence.

We are aware | Pre-Vinylites Unite

52