In the rolling hills of the Cotswolds, away from the glitz and glamor of castles and royal diamonds sits the Kelmscott Manor, once home to one of England’s most revered creative minds, William Morris. Upon arrival, its frolic-worthy garden and vine-covered walls give a welcoming and unassuming impression to its visitors. The cozy and simple countryside aesthetic of the house’s interior fulfilled my Elizabeth Bennet fantasies. 

The recent popularization of the “cottage-core” aesthetic reflects the influence and long-lasting appeal of English country homes such as Kelmscott. The repetitive nature-themed textiles that Morris is so famous for have become a staple of this aesthetic, and are largely associated with traditional English design. However, too often the South Asian origins of these textiles are overlooked. 

 

Morris’s socialist response to the Industrial Revolution was a rejection of mechanization and a call for the return to handcrafted goods, manifesting in his approach to textile making. While the South Asian influence on his work is seemingly obvious, both in design and the dyeing and weaving methods used to make textiles, popular culture seems to disregard his inspiration. Morris is often credited as a revolutionary in textile design, creating the distinctly “English” style that would adorn (amongst other things) 19th century rugs, furniture, and dresses. Morris was one of many to harness these techniques, and the following decrease in Indian textile trading had repercussions on the Indian economy that we often do not discuss.

 

During our visit, I remember asking one of the estate’s extremely knowledgeable docents about one of the textiles. He launched into a history of the textiles, including an explanation of the woodblocking technique Morris used. He did not, however, acknowledge the hand South Asian textile makers had in creating this method, and presented it as purely a product of Morris’s ingenuity. Such a view strengthens the history of English culture at the expense of discrediting the artistry and innovation of South Asian textile designers, as well as ignores the negative economic impact on the entire region.

 

This is not to say I did not enjoy our visit to Kelmscott Manor. I was in fact completely in awe of the clear and cohesive design perspective Morris curated over his lifetime and the cultural reaction he spurred does not surprise me at all. There is immeasurable value in art produced as a response to other art and cultural exchange. However, like anything in history, the discussion surrounding these textiles’s roots is slightly more nuanced than a simple cultural crossover or a product of imperialism.

 

The failure to recognize South Asia as a center of artistic innovation fuels the imperialist mindset which has trained western societies to regard Indian civilizations as “primitive.” Claiming another region’s cultural accomplishments and slapping the sticker “English” on a repackaged version of it has obvious imperialist undertones. Society should celebrate South Asian art and creativity, as well as its spread throughout the globe. That is why it is so important to recognize the origins of these designs and avoid their erasure.