Staatliche Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen GmbH 61 –→ Table of Contents 1722 On November 8th, factory inspector Johann Melchior Steinbrück proposed the use of the blue underglaze crossed Electoral Swords from the coat of arms of the Electorate of Saxony as a factory mark, initially in combination with the company’s monogram, KPM (Königliche Porzellan Manufaktur) or KPF (Königliche Porzellan Fabrik). 1766 The factory’s archives attest to the production of “a very nice biscuit body.” 1774 The politician Count Camillo Marcolini (1739–1814) became director of the manufactory (Marcolini period, until 1814). 1806 Königlich-Sächsische Porzellan-Manufaktur Meissen 1816 Hiring of the modeler Carl Gottfried Habenicht (1800–1849), who became head of the design department in 1837. 1818 Hiring of the painter Georg Friedrich Kersting (1785–1847) as head of the painting department. ■■ 1828 The production of luxury porcelain was no longer generating the anticipated profits, partly as a consequence of the Napoleonic Wars. A period of technical and artistic innovation began under Carl Wilhelm von Oppel (died 1833), who was director from 1814 to 1833, and the inspector Heinrich Gottlieb Kühn (1788–1870), who became director in 1833 and served as head of the manufactory from 1849 to 1870. In the search for profitable products, the company began using more advanced manufacturing technologies. This development meant a shift from single-piece to series production and to the mass production of porcelain tableware for everyday use. Around the middle of 1828, Meissen became the second German manufacturer, after KPM Berlin, to manufacture lithophanes (in series production). Meissen’s products were inspired by the French lithophanes that had been imported by the Dresden-based merchant Carl Friedrich Höltzel “from his trips to Paris and Lyon” and presented for the first time in a German-speaking country at the Ostermesse (Easter Fair) in Leipzig. The imported lithophanes were produced by the Parisian manufactory of Alexis Sylvain du Tremblay (1796–1868) and Paul Charles Amable de Bourgoing (1791–1864). The 1828 Ostermesse in Leipzig ran from April 27 to May 4. We can assume that Meissen made its first attempts to produce lithophanes shortly thereafter. In his article on Meissen lithophanes (“Lithophanien der Meissner Porzellanmanufaktur”),100 Joachim Kunze makes reference to a series of correspondence that provides information on the early days of lithophane production at Meissen. In a letter dated August 27, 1828, and addressed to the “Sächsische Landesoeconomie-, Manufactur und Commerziendeputation” (Saxon Deputation of State Economy, Manufacturing, and Commerce), Höltzel wrote: “The recently developed porcelain pictures known as lithophanes are protected from imitation under a brevet d’invention (patent) issued by the French government to the inventor for ten years [author’s note: should be 15 years], which is why they are being sold by the inventor at high prices.101 If I’m not mistaken, these products could be easily copied by your porcelain manufactory in Meissen with no difficulty and even sold at much lower prices, nevertheless all at a significant profit; in this case, I would provide as much as I am able to purchase from this production, and supply all models that the factory produces.” After being forwarded by the Secret Cabinet of the Saxon court, the letter was received by the director of the manufactory on October 27, 1828, with the note “whether such (lithophane porcelain pictures) could perhaps be used profitably as models for similar works by the manufactory.” Von Oppel replied on December 14, 1828, as follows: “I found these items at the last Ostermesse in Leipzig among the French porcelain wares and purchased a warming device [tea warmer/réchaud] for the manufactory. The piece was immediately put to use there as a model and produced in Meissen porcelain. Since then, on my orders, several similar products have been made from existing, relief-like molds and used for the specified purpose, and new pictures of this kind have been produced. We are able to sell the latter products at roughly the same prices as the French, and the copied pieces at somewhat lower prices.” On January 23, 1829, von Oppel sent an update: “The lithophane pictures received from the merchant Höltzel, at least the ones that were found to be usable, were also immediately put to use as models and, to date, made into light screens and profitably sold, but also at the same time purchased from the merchant Höltzel for 25 thalers 17 groschen, and the pieces that were unusable or already owned by the manufactory were returned to him. In the very beginning, we also carried out testing to determine the most appropriate level of body translucency in the production of pictures of this kind, and the standard biscuit body was found to be the most suitable. Owing to the fact that both lighting and shading must be taken into consideration, the use of more translucent bodies means that shading is reduced by the same amount as lighting is increased, and vice versa. It is just as difficult to create the correct levels of shading as it is to create the correct levels of lighting.” These statements disprove the claims made by several authors that Meissen purchased the rights from Bourgoing. The following publications included such claims: A. & Chr. Scott, “Lithophanes – A Neglected Branch of Victorian Ceramics,” p. 72: “granted rights of manufacture under licence to the Meissen factory.” H. Newman, “Lithophane Plaques,” p. 7: “De Bourgoing did in 1827 sell the lithophane technique, or granted a licence, to the Meissen factory, and plaques are extant that bear the crossed-swords mark of Meissen.” Robin Reilly, Wedgwood – The New Illustrated Dictionary, p. 263: “[T]he manufacturing rights were bought by Meissen.” The truth is that Meissen (just like Bourgoing) had sought to secure economic advantage through the unlawful appropriation of another party’s knowledge, a practice that was quite common at the time. Factories copied products from other companies and used this experience for making their own versions of the same products. Furthermore, there would have been no reason for Meissen to purchase a license because the
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTMyNjA1