was increasingly the case in the home, of a self-conscious interest in the
aesthetic deployed inside them. Factories resembled large, open sheds,
made possible by the structural use of metal pillars. Although they had
much in common with the large, open spaces dedicated to commerce
they were essentially production rather than consumption oriented and
they did not need to demonstrate the same commitment to trans-
parency. The interior of Wheeler and Wilson’s sewing machine factory in
Bridgeport, was a large open space supported by metal pillars, filled with
undisguised pulleys and machines, and with high level windows as the
only source of light. Several straight rows of work benches were posi-
tioned within that open space, an arrangement that facilitated ‘the Colt
way’ of manufacture which involved the use of interchangeable, stan-
dardized components in products, the division of labour with sequential
tasks, and of specialized machine tools.^26 That cavernous internal space
was exclusively dedicated to efficient production. Its lack of decoration
contrasted dramatically, however, with I. M. Singer & Co.’s showroom in
New York, an equally large space but one that, because it was accessible to
customers, also boasted a patterned carpet on its floor, an intricately
moulded ceiling and ornate arches over the windows. The sharp contrast
between the two spaces emphasized the importance of the language of122 domesticity in retail spaces where customers needed to feel ‘at home’.
A San Francisco can-making factory with automatic machinery illustrated in American
Machinist, 14 July 1883.