Victorian Furniture - The Biedermeier Style 3

The fact that Biedermeier was so pre-eminently a middle-class style perhaps forced its functionalism. A chair could not be simply a graceful object to look at, as was frequently the case in previous periods, but it also had to be functional: comfortable to sit on, in fact. During the period few armchairs were produced, however, the most popular form of non fitted furniture, seat furniture, was the sofa. The fronts of these were often heavily decorated with carving, the exception to the flat sheets of wood rule, and the upholstery was deep and comfortable, often being supplemented by additional cushions. It was perhaps the most typical piece of the period, placed as it was normally behind a large round table, which was the other essential element in the living room, so that people could sit comfortably both for conversation and for eating. Sometimes the desire for a fully functional piece led to the inclusion of cupboards or drawers in the arms.

Chair shapes were simple, in the early part of the period normally standing on square tapered legs, straight at the front and with a curve at the back. The backrests were normally of simple curved shapes, seldom with decorative splats. Sometimes they have plain caned seats, but more frequently they were upholstered, as the primary consideration was comfort rather than appearance. The efforts of the upholsterer to create an interesting effect can, however, look strange to our eyes, as in a design by Danhauser, where the fabric radiates in pleats from a central button, hanging like a shawl at the front and sides, with tassels at each of the corners. Upholstery was of major importance to the Biedermeier designers, who used it more imaginatively than had previous generations, as it was Georg Junigl, a Viennese, was is credited with the invention of the coil spring in 1822, which he claimed was 'so elastic that it is not inferior to horsehair'.

There were, of course, regional differences, which were mainly caused by the differences in political circumstances. North Germany, which both through trade and the connection of Hanover with the Crown of Britain had closer links than the south or Prussia, followed more closely the English styles, and at the same time favoured darker woods. Berlin, which was the centre of activity of Karl Friedrich Schinkel, followed the Neoclassical. Schinkel, an architect mainly concerned with public buildings, is in fact considered to be the creator of a peculiarly Prussian Neoclassical style. In Munich the Court architect was Leo von Klenze, who had worked for King Jerome of Westphalia under the Empire, but moved to Munich in 1816 at the invitation of Ludwig I. His main responsibility was a large public building programme, but he also designed interiors and furniture, mainly derived from the classical but which in contrast to the northern states was normally made in light coloured indigenous woods.

From 1830, the purity of the taste began to decline, simultaneously with the beginnings of political reaction, and after that, although a considerable number of pattern books survive, surprisingly little attributable handmade furniture can be found. Whether this is a function of its impermanence or the inability of the makers to sell the new designs is, however, not clear. In common with the rest of Europe however, taste was becoming less certain in its direction and therefore began to split into differing retrospective styles, including Gothic and the coarsened neo-Rococo which is normally considered to be so typically Victorian.