William Morris Meets Alibaba: Mass Manufacturing, Marxism and the (Lost) Beauty of Nature

Today, for most people, the name William Morris is probably synonymous with colourful wallpaper prints, filled with birds, plants, and other references to nature. But Morris was much more than that. In his own time, Morris was a well-known poet and writer, co-founder of a magazine, associations, and movements, a successful entrepreneur, designer, craftsman, and artist. But he was also a “radical socialist” (William Morris Gallery, n.d.-b), who eventually embraced Marxist ideas and regularly gave lectures about his political beliefs. This article juxtaposes William Morris’ material legacy and beliefs with his work’s contemporary ‘virality‘ (The Art Newspaper, 2025) to demonstrate how his dream of ‘beautiful’ mass consumption could eventually bring about nightmarish consequences for the nature and culture he aimed to preserve and celebrate.

The Early Contradictions of William Morris

Morris was born in 1834 at Elm House in Walthamstow, near London. His family belonged to the upper-middle class and was wealthy. Morris’ father–who was also named William Morris (William Morris Gallery, n.d.-d)–was “a prosperous financier, with his own business and an office in Lombard Street at the heart of the City of London” (Harvey & Press, 1990). He invested, among other things, in Devon Great Consols, the world’s most profitable copper mine. In 1840, the family moved to Woodford Hall, where they lived until the sudden death of Morris senior in 1847 (William Morris Gallery, n.d.-a). After his death, the family moved to Water House. Both Elm House and Woodford Hall were demolished (London Remembers, n.d.), but Water House still exists. Today, it houses the William Morris Gallery.

Figure 1: A picture of Water House after it had become the William Morris Gallery.

Already at a young age, Morris junior seemed interested in landscapes, design, beauty, craftsmanship, handicrafts, and high-quality materials (The Art Newspaper, 2025). His reasons to refuse to enter The Crystal Palace during the 1851 ‘Great Exhibition’ when he was 16 are often cited to illustrate his teenage attitudes. According to Morris, he did not want to visit The Great Exhibition of the Works of Industry of All Nations, because of his taste (BBC, 2025)–demonstrating “his loyalty to craft principles” (Victoria and Albert Museum, n.d.-a).

Thanks to the money his father had earned, and the investments in the copper mine, Morris remained wealthy despite his father’s death. Hoping to become a clergyman, Morris went to study at Oxford University. At Oxford, however, he became fascinated by the Middle Ages, architecture, and art, and met many people who would go on to play an important role throughout his life (BBC, 2025; William Morris Gallery, n.d.-a). The contradictions and complexities that would imbue the remainder of Morris’ life and ideas probably also first started to float to the surface during this period (The Art Newspaper, 2025). In Oxford, for example, Morris financed a large part of The Oxford and Cambridge Magazine — using his family’s fortune —, which published essays, stories, and poems, among other things (Victoria and Albert Museum, n.d.-a). Morris harboured deep feelings of nostalgia and romanticism for the world before the Industrial Revolution and decided he wanted to become an artist–fully aware that it was precisely the rise of industry that enabled him and his friends to focus on art and culture, while others toiled in coal mines and factories.

Figure 2: An image of Crystal Palace during the Great Exhibition.

Becoming thé William Morris

Morris worked for eight or nine months for the architect George Edmund Street, before–being heavily influenced by his friend Dante Gabriel Rossetti–he decided he wanted to become a painter. Via Rossetti, he also met Jane Burden, the daughter of a stableman (William Morris Gallery, n.d.-a). In defiance of the idea that he should marry someone from his own social class, he married Burden, who would then go by the name Jane Morris. Together with Jane, he commissioned Philip Webb to build a house that would embody all his ideas about tasteful architecture, art, and interior design. This house, named ‘Red House’, became one of the most important ‘Arts and Crafts’ homes ever built (Victoria and Albert Museum, n.d.-a).

Figure 3: A picture of Red House in Bexleyheath, south-east London.

It proved difficult to find objects and materials that matched Morris’ taste and ideals. As a result, Morris and his friends began designing and producing the interior of Red House themselves (Kennedy, 2013; Victoria and Albert Museum, n.d.-a). Thanks to this process, Morris realised that his true talent lay with the decorative arts, rather than with painting. Together with his friends, he founded Morris, Marshall, Faulkner & Co., a firm focused on interior design and decorative arts (BIFMO, 2024; London Society, 1983). They created murals and various textile products, including embroidery. One of their most famous products is the Sussex armchair (William Morris Gallery, n.d.-c), but the company also produced custom work–such as a stained-glass window for a house in Woodbank (William Morris Gallery, n.d.-e).

“No programme is worthy the acceptance of the working-classes that stops short of the abolition of private property in the means of production. Any other programme is misleading and dishonest.”

Morris’ love of craftsmanship also made him concerned about the working conditions of labourers (BBC, 2025) and the emergence of ever more industrial, machine-made products. Morris wanted his employees to “make things well, and with joy” (The Art Newspaper, 2025), and to feel connected to the creation process and have their skills appreciated. He also employed and educated “destitute boys” and women, convinced of his responsibility to contribute to more equality between classes and genders (BBC, 2025). For this reason, he initially envisioned Morris, Marshall, Faulkner & Co. as a workshop that would function like the ones that existed before the Industrial Revolution–a vision that was far more romantic than actual medieval reality (BBC, 2025), evoking contemporary comparisons to the overly romanticised nostalgia and “imaginary past” of modern “tradwives” (Kaur, 2022). Soon, Morris’ vision of the ideal workshop proved to be practically and economically unfeasible (William Morris Gallery, n.d.-a). Instead of continuing with the handcrafted interior production techniques of Red House, Morris, Marshall, Faulkner & Co. began using machines to produce their goods.

Figure 4: A picture of a Sussex armchair.

Ironically, it was the very technology of the Industrial Revolution that allowed Morris to create work that appeared, to observers, as if it was ‘medieval’. Furthermore, the Industrial Revolution also created an expanding middle-class that could afford his products (BBC, 2018). Morris reconciled this apparent contradiction by arguing that machines and industry are only problematic when machines control the workers, rather than the other way around. At Morris, Marshall, Faulkner & Co., workers were therefore to be treated well. Morris wanted them to experience a sense of ownership over the production process.

Correspondence, legal documents, and traces of various contract negotiations (Sharp, 1997; Elliott, 2021) suggest that it was often difficult for the owners of Morris, Marshall, Faulkner & Co. to reach agreements. Various circumstances eventually led to Morris becoming the sole owner of the company in 1875, after which he renamed it Morris & Co..

19th Century Mass Production and Marxism

Because of his evolving socialist beliefs, Morris wanted the products of Morris & Co. to be accessible to more people. He experimented with various techniques, materials, and designs in an effort to offer at least some products at lower prices. Mass production–something Morris had long opposed–turned out to be the only way to reduce costs. However, the complexity of many of his designs, combined with the use of high-quality materials, meant that Morris never fully succeeded in making his vision a reality. Despite implementing mechanisation, Morris & Co.’s products remained accessible only to the elite; a reality Morris became increasingly uncomfortable with (The Art Newspaper, 2025).

“[Morris] did not so much become a Marxist as discover that he had been one all his life.”

Meanwhile, Morris’ continued to develop his political views, and became “increasingly disillusioned with parliamentary politics as a means of ending class division” (Victoria and Albert Museum, n.d.-a). He became active in conservation and nature preservation, gave lectures about his political ideas, and wrote books in which he expressed his convictions. Morris actively opposed capitalist ideas and eventually found his political home in the work of Karl Marx (Morton, 1984; William Morris Gallery, n.d.-b), as “he did not so much become a Marxist as discover that he had been one all his life” (Morton, 1984, p. 46). In Monopoly; or, How Labour is Robbed, for instance, Morris argues that: “no programme is worthy the acceptance of the working-classes that stops short of the abolition of private property in the means of production. Any other programme is misleading and dishonest” (Morris, 1887).

In 1890, Morris made “his most singular attempt to present a revolutionary ideal aimed at inspiring a ‘Movement towards Socialism’ in his day” by publishing his “celebrated utopian romance News From Nowhere” (Foster, 2017, p. 17). Protesting other utopian publications of that time–which embraced industry and mechanical labour as a means towards a utopian future —, Morris’ novel describes a future in which “reforms, economic crisis, repression, struggles of the press, dual-power relations, massacres, organised resistance, right-wing vigilantes, guerrilla warfare and the final triumph of socialism” (Foster, 2017, p. 20) have produced an “ideal, humanistic world” (Foster, 2017, p. 21). In a town called ‘Nowhere’, “the complex dialectic of labour, ecology and gender” (Foster, 2017, p. 17) are addressed through descriptions of transformed relations between “town and country (the ecological problem), work and art (social labour) and men and women (gender relations)” (Foster, 2017, p. 19). The ideas Morris presents in News From Nowhere are still regularly debated. Willard Wolfe, E.P. Thompson and Perry Anderson (Anderson, 1980), for instance, have (sometimes heatedly) discussed Morris’ place within socialist and Marxist thought–notably disputing over the question whether he was an orthodox or revolutionary Marxist (Wolfe, 1977). Feminist critics, on their turn, have labeled Morris both a ‘feminist’ and an ‘anti-feminist’, though often concluding that “while Morris has his moments of possible anti-feminism, as a whole, [News from Nowhere] takes a feminist stance” (McLenaghen, 2017).

Besides his increasingly persistent political activism–he was bringing “socialist pamphlets to rallies and demonstrations” and even got arrested (William Morris Gallery, n.d.-b), though “his fame protected him against the sanctions of a disapproving establishment” (Victoria and Albert Museum, n.d.-a) —, Morris continued to engage in the decorative arts. In May 1883, he designed his most famous print, Strawberry Thief. According to Morris, this print was meant to be used for curtains and draperies, and possibly to loosely cover furniture. Although Morris believed that everyone should have a right to shape their lives themselves, in individually fulfilling ways, he was quite strict about how his designs were to be used (The Art Newspaper, 2025).

Morris died in 1896. Although his company continued for a while after his death, it failed to remain successful without him. Together with his friends, family and colleagues, Morris had created many beautiful designs. His utopian dream, however, was never fully realised.

Figure 5: A picture of a piece of fabric with the Strawberry Thief print.

The Contemporary ‘Uses of William Morris’

That Morris’ dream probably never could have become reality has become increasingly evident in recent decades. Morris wanted his designs and products to be of high-quality, accessible to all, and not harmful to nature and labourers. While Morris believed that certain prints were meant only for specific products, his designs are now used on all kinds of mass-produced items. Inspired by Morris’ beliefs about (dis)embodied labour, craftsmanship, equality, environmental protection and the democratisation of ‘beautiful’ interior design products, the remainder of this article will critically reflect on some products with Morris’ designs that are being offered for sale on Alibaba, one of the world’s largest e-commerce platforms. The five products that are shown below represent the top five different product types that could be found on Alibaba when searching for “William Morris” on July 15, 2025.

Figure 6: A “Tote Bag” on Alibaba that is described as being: “2024 High Quality Printed Heavy Duty Eco-friendly William Morris White Rose Canvas Bag Portable Canvas High Capacity”.

Though the William Morris Gallery sells special licenses to access and use Morris’ work, his actual designs became part of the public domain 75 years after his death. As a result–and likely also because high-quality images of Morris’s designs are now widely available online–the creators of a tote bag sold on Alibaba (see Figure 6) are able to use a print titled ‘Sunflower‘, originally registered and printed in 1879. Though the original design was described as a “formalised pattern of sunflowers and grape vines with fruit” (Victoria and Albert Museum, n.d.-b), on Alibaba, the only vegetation identified in the title is ‘Rose’. It is of course impossible to get inside the head of the creators of the Alibaba product page. However, considering the list of key words that together constitute the Alibaba title, it appears ‘Rose’ was chosen for ‘Search Engine Optimisation’ purposes. This assumption is supported by a quick Google Trends comparison between the terms ‘Sunflower’ and ‘Rose’, which shows that on any day of the past year, the term ‘Rose’ was searched for at least ten times as often. In order to allow Morris’ work to gain visibility and higher yields on the ‘capitalist internet’ (Meyler, 2025), his work is altered to reach the greatest possible audience. The use of ‘Rose’ thus instantly uncovers how the contemporary uses of Morris might magnify the contradictions that have always plagued his work and ideas: While Morris actively opposed capitalist ideas during his life, the capitalist objectives of Alibaba and its sellers are pushing the transformation of Morris’ work to fit the capitalist mechanisms of the internet, in order to reach the ‘masses’ Morris himself never managed to reach.

The notion that the tote bag is ‘Eco-friendly’, however, might cause this bag to align with another of Morris’ ideological focal points: ‘the ecological problem’. Products labeled as ‘Eco-friendly’ ought to be those “that are manufactured using sustainable materials and processes and have a minimal environmental impact during their use and disposal” (Gu, 2024). A further exploration of the product page’s texts, however, reveals that the tote bag is advertised as being ‘Eco-friendly’ because of it being ‘High Quality’ and ‘Heavy Duty’, which should permit its long-term use. Though the bag’s creators aim to prevent the rapid disposal of their product through ‘High Quality’ manufacturing, the responsibility of not quickly disposing the bag–and thus making the bag’s ‘Eco-friendly’ promise a reality–is transferred to its buyers. The page contains no information that would suggest the bag was produced using ‘sustainable materials and processes’ that will minimise its ‘environmental impact’. Though Alibaba has taken steps to decrease the environmental impact of its technology (Igini, 2024), it is unclear whether similar efforts are made by its sellers. Ultimately, no conclusions can be drawn, except that for the Alibaba seller, ‘the ecological problem’ does not appear as multifaceted as it did for Morris, who never understood nature and the environment as merely revolving around ‘consumers’ being able, from a mere material perspective, to use his products over an extended period of time.

Figure 7: “Cotton Fabric” on Alibaba that is described as being: “Custom Digital Print Liberty Cotton Fabric 100% Cotton With Morris Floral Designs Printed for Women Dresses”.

Figure 8: A “Canvas Painting” that is linked to “William Morris the Victoria and Albert Museum Exhbition” and described as “Wall Art Hd Posters and Prints Living Room Decoration”.

Figure 9: “Wallpaper” on Alibaba that is described as “Symon Vintage Floral Wallpaper Peel Stick Wallpapers Removable Orange/Green William Morris Design 17.3\”X118\” for Bedroom”.

The three types of ‘Morris’ products listed after the ‘Eco-friendly tote bag’ all come from product categories Morris and his immediate family originally contributed to. Producing printed textile and wallpaper was one of Morris & Co.’s most prominent activities. As mentioned before, Morris was very strict about the intended applications of his designs. One of the printed Alibaba fabrics (see Figure 7), for instance, features his design ‘Pimpernel‘. Morris intended this print to be used only for wallpaper, even applying it to his personal dining room, as the print was “one of his favourites” (Morris & Co., 2024). Although the Alibaba textiles deviate from Morris’ intended use of ‘Pimpernel’, the product page does echo his strictness, arguing that the printed fabrics are meant “for Women Dresses”. This direction, however, evokes another of Morris’ ideological fields of interest: gender relations. Discussions about Morris’ masculinity have argued that: “Along with his more overt activist stances […], Morris’s achievement can also be considered a reclamation of what was construed as “feminine” in Victorian times” (Brennan-Smith, 2009). This reclamation becomes both visible in some of Morris professional activities–working on ‘crafts’ that were considered to be ‘feminine’–and the intended uses and private uses of prints that “look feminine” (Brennan-Smith, 2009, emphasis in original). With his work, Morris focused on all genders, balancing and challenging the ‘masculine’ and the ‘feminine’.

“Along with his more overt activist stances […], Morris’s achievement can also be considered a reclamation of what was construed as “feminine” in Victorian times.”

The poster (see Figure 8)–here presented as a “Canvas Painting”–is a whole different story. William Morris never created posters, just like he never created bags. But his youngest daughter, May Morris, did. The style of the Alibaba poster resembles the style of a poster that was created by May for the William Morris Centenary Exhibition at the Victoria and Albert Museum in 1934. Interestingly, according to the William Morris Gallery, many cheap William Morris posters are not using Morris’ actual designs. Instead, they combine May’s poster design and her father’s floral prints to prompt Artificial Intelligence to produce new posters that are merely “inspired by” the original. These posters “got an aura of authenticity” and “the name William Morris on it” (The Art Newspaper, 2025), convincing people who are not familiar with all of the Morris family’s designs–meaning almost everyone–there is an actual Morris design hanging on their ‘Bedroom’ wall.

Figure 10: A “Phone Case” on Alibaba that is described as a “William Morris Inspired Pattern Phone Case for IPHONE 16 15PRO MAX 14 13 12 11 Acrylic TPU Two in one magnetic Phone Cases”.

The Politics of ‘Crafts’ and Luxury Communism

Having both positive and negative feelings about the ‘virality‘ of Morris, the William Morris Gallery does wonder whether the use of ‘automated labour’ might present a new path towards “taking the drudgery out of work”, subsequently realising Morris’ dream and consequently inducing a type “luxury Communism”: “Machines making everything, while everyone else has a kind of News from Nowhere life, following their interests and their hobbies” (The Art Newspaper, 2025). The notion of ‘luxury Communism’ probably gained initial mainstream popularity with the publication of Fully Automated Luxury Communism by Aaron Bastani. Though some have praised the book for its optimism, others are sceptical (Beckett, 2019). Bastani himself mainly sees political and technical barriers for the coming true of his ideas, and believes that accelerated technical development will solve the world’s wicked problems. Considering this reflection, the idea of ‘luxury Communism’ reeks of ‘technological solutionism’, and disregards that some of the biggest technology breakthroughs are both produced and controlled by tech billionaires (Korten, 2025). Furthermore, research increasingly highlights the environmental costs of AI technologies like ChatGPT, and the unequal distribution of its environmental impact (Dauner & Socher, 2025). Even if it was a realistic scenario to address Morris’ notion of “social labour”, luxury Communism would probably not align with Morris’ other ideological beliefs.

There is, however, another interesting link between Morris and AI that can be explored. In their time, Morris and his friends also decided to ‘craft’ things themselves because they feared the Industrial Revolution would cause people to forget how to make things. They believed traditional techniques would be lost (BBC, 2025). As such, they deliberately focused on complex, labour-intensive crafts–particularly embroidery–and designs, which machines were unable to create. The ‘beautiful’ and often colourful surfaces of Morris’ work both cover and manifest the political activism of the Arts and Crafts movement. Natural, organic designs stress the mental and physical humanity of Morris. The fact that none of the Alibaba products feature ’embroidery’ or any other labour-intensive crafts, might signal that Morris’ version of ‘craftivism’ could still have a contemporary application.

As society experiences what has been labeled the ‘fourth Industrial Revolution’–or ‘AI Industrial Revolution’ —, fears that are comparable with the fears of the Arts and Crafts movement are revitalised. Feelings of ‘FOBO’–’fear of becoming obsolete’–intensify among labourers, while people that don’t count themselves amongst the potentially affected ‘workers’ argue that the characteristically human ‘skill’ of “creative thinking” is not threatened by AI (World Economic Forum, n.d.). ‘Creative thinking’ is of course far more abstract than ’embroidery’. And though ‘creative thinking’ itself is not necessarily threatened by AI, many of the most profitable outputs of ‘creative thinking’ can now easily be mimicked by computers. This ‘instrumental threat’ becomes evident in AI’s capacity to generate texts, web designs, and logos (Wade, 2024). And though these might not be as ‘good’ or ‘beautiful’ as their human generated counterparts, it remains to be seen whether this is something people will care about. Would contemporary consumers be willing to pay more for products shaped by human creative thinking, even when the result appears functionally similar to cheaper, AI-produced alternatives? Assuming contemporary elites will have a taste for ‘human creative thinking’, workers who believe their creative skills will distinguish them from machines might still meet a fate similar to Morris’: Only pale imitations of their work will manage to reach the masses. What may have started as a form of “social labour”-activism could deliver ‘plutocratic designs’ that merely cater to ‘billionaire aesthetics’.

The final product type of the top five results for “William Morris” on Alibaba is the ‘William Morris inspired phone case’. Featuring a design that evokes associations with ‘Willow Boughs‘–a “homage to the wonderful willow trees that grew in [Morris’] garden” (Morris & Co., n.d.) —, this phone case can serve as a symbol for many of the topics that were previously discussed. Like the William Morris Gallery described, the smart phone case uses the name “William Morris” and a pattern merely inspired by his work. Being made for a small selection of smartphone models, its usefulness is emphatically limited. Technological developments and the ‘planned obsolescence’ embedded in the ‘techno-capitalist’ system anticipate the phone case’s rapid disposal. The rest of the product page demonstrates how this product too is envisioned to fit the tastes of women, while the other aspects of “the complex dialectic of labour, ecology and gender” (Foster, 2017, p. 17) remain unmentioned. Using “Acrylic TPU” as a material, and providing a discount option for orders of over one thousand pieces, it is difficult to imagine the labourers involved as not experiencing their labour as being ‘disembodied’ and not connected to nature.

“Morris in All of His Glory and Horror”

Morris’ patterns have been applied to nearly every imaginable surface (The Art Newspaper, 2025). Most people will at least have seen designs that were ‘inspired’ by his work. Although there are notable examples of products that also reflect Morris’ ideological commitments–such as the “positive protest” collaboration between the William Morris Gallery and Marc Jacobs (Ellison, 2015)–most resemble the Alibaba knickknacks described above. While the ‘instrumental’ outputs of Morris’ work are now gloriously visible and available to the masses, the ideological beliefs, craftmanship and ‘creative thinking’ behind his work appear partially lost, and largely out of reach. The deeper ‘horror’ for Morris, however, might lie in the gendered uses of his work and their obscured labour and environmental costs.

It is easy to dismiss Morris’ work and beliefs. After all, in our current capitalist system, his objective to make beautiful interior design available to the masses appears to have revealed itself as being incompatible with joyful craftsmanship, equality between classes and genders, and the protection of both nature and heritage. If Morris could have seen into the future–like he attempted with News from Nowhere — he might have thought his dreams for the future to be unrealistic, while both applauding and despairing over the uses of his work. This is the contemporary “paradox” of William Morris, the William Morris Gallery believes (The Art Newspaper, 2025).

Looking at this article’s analysis, however, it also becomes evident that with his “complex dialectic of labour, ecology and gender” (Foster, 2017, p. 17), Morris touched upon many of the interrelated issues that still imbue society today. In this sense, Morris’ eclectic legacy can be used as a kaleidoscope–rather than a ‘lens’ —, through which these issues can be reconsidered and reimagined. Though Morris’ fantasy of “the virtues of medievalism” led Morris to believe–too optimistically–that guilds and the working class could experience comparable forms of ‘collectiveness’ and ‘ownership’, his ideas do demonstrate how imaginary pasts can be used to commit to advancing equality in the present. While society worries about exploitation, cultural loss, climate change and the dominance of AI and tech billionaires, Morris appears to offer some joyful approaches to address the accumulation of these concerns. And though honest labour and creative skills might not be able to control the machines indefinitely, they might yield culturally meaningful ideas and artifacts along the way.

References

Anderson P (1980). Arguments within English Marxism. Blackwell Publishers.

BBC (2018). In our time [podcast episode]. William Morris.

BBC (2025). You’re dead to me [podcast episode]. The Arts and Crafts Movement: William Morris and his circle.

BIFMO (2024). Morris, Marshall, Faulkner & Co., later Morris & Co. (1861-1944). The Furniture History Society.

Gu W (2024). Research on strategy optimization of sustainable development towards green consumption of eco-friendly materials. Journal of King Saud University.

Harvey C and Press J (1990). The City and Mining Enterprise: The Making of the Morris Family Fortune. The Journal of William Morris Studies.

Igini M (2024). The Truth About Online Shopping and Its Environmental Impact. Earth.org.

Kaur H (2022). ‘Tradwives’ promote a lifestyle that evokes the 1950s. But their nostalgia is not without controversy. CNN.

Kennedy M (2013). Pre-Raphaelite mural discovered in William Morris’s Red House. The Guardian.

Korten D (2025). When billionaires rule the world—A global threat to a viable human future. The Club of Rome.

London Remembers (n.d.). Woodford Hall.

London Society (1983). First Appearance of ‘The Firm’. The Journal of William Morris Studies.

McLenaghen K (2017). Williams Morris’s Feminism in News from Nowhere. English 435. 

Meyler P (2025). The Internet, the Engine of Capitalism?.

Morris W (1887). Monopoly: Or How Labour is Robbed.

Morris & Co. (2024). The history of Pimpernel.

Morris & Co. (n.d.). Willow Boughs.

Morton AL (1984). Morris, Marx and Engels. Contribution to a colloquium on William Morris.

Sharp CS (1997). The Earliest Agreement between the Partners of Morris, Marshall, Faulkner & Co. The Journal of William Morris Studies.

The Art Newspaper (2025). The Week in Art [podcast episode]. Museum visitor figures—highs and lows, William Morris mania, Marguerite Matisse, the unsung hero of her father’s art.

Victoria and Albert Museum (n.d.-a). Introducing William Morris.

Victoria and Albert Museum (n.d.-b). Sunflower.

Wade M (2024). Is AI a Threat to Human Creativity?.

William Morris Gallery (n.d.-a). About William Morris: Revolutionary designer, craftsman, writer, social activist and conservationist.

William Morris Gallery (n.d.-b). Fighting for a Cause: Morris’s political activism and his fight to create a better world.

William Morris Gallery (n.d.-c). Sussex armchair (designed c. 1860).

William Morris Gallery (n.d.-d). Portrait miniature of William Morris (Senior) (11.1824).

William Morris Gallery (n.d.-e). The Lady of Woodbank and Her Daughters (c.1861).

Wolfe W (1977). On William Morris. New Left Review.

World Economic Forum (n.d.). The rise of FOBO: fear of becoming obsolete in the age of AI.