Archive for the ‘Culture’ Category

Winifred Milius

Saturday, March 21st, 2009

Winifred: now there’s a name that conjures up a lost era.  If you’re thinking the Great Depression, you’re right on the money. 

Winifred Milius (born 1914) is an American artist and writer who first made her mark in the 1930s producing prints in sympathy with the WPA era social realist school.  Here is a photo of her marching in an Artists’ Union Rally in 1935. 

This morning I successfully bid at auction for a 1937 woodcut of hers entitled “Newsboy.”  It’s a close-up view of scurying street life, rendered in a loose expressionist style suitable to the woodcut medium.   Smack dab in the center of the chaos Milius places a kid hawking papers.  Depicting this occupation was a favorite of urban artists of every stripe.  In an earlier period the subject produced some awful, sentimental pictures meant for the walls of Victorian parlors.  By the 1930s the subject could be used symbolically in the fight for economic and social justice.  A newsboy offers a two-fer:  he’s a hard worker fending for mere coins, and also a kid whose formal education has been sidetracked so he can develop the street smarts needed to support his family.

 winifred-millius-newsboy-1937-11

[Winifred Milius, “Newsboy,” woodcut, 1937, signed and dated lower right, numbered (#12) and titled lower left, 8 1/8 x 5 1/4″.  Acquired at Rachel Davis Fine Arts – Paintings, Prints, and Sculpture at Auction, March 21, 2009, Lot 202.]

Stuyvesant Van Veen

Sunday, March 15th, 2009

First of all, what a great name.  He could be a character in a novel by Thomas Pynchon or T. Coraghessan Boyle. But instead Stuyvesant Van Veen (1910-1988) is the name of  a vital American artist of social conscience, and one who deserves greater attention. A painter, muralist, satirist, and illustrator, he employed his well-honed graphic talents most powerfully during the 1930s.

Searching Google uncovers only bits and pieces of his legacy: a cursory NY Times obit found here; his 1932 depiction of the folly of war here; a 1937 photo of Van Veen working on a U.S. Courthouse mural in Pittsburgh here; a profile of his work during World War II (Van Veen served as Sgt. in the Army) creating a mural at what is now Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, here (second photo of 24).

Recently I won an eBay auction of a drawing Van Veen created in 1937 for publication in the radical monthly, The New Masses. (I was the only bidder.)  The image of looming military threat — literally from over the horizon — was common in political cartoons of that era:

.

stuyvesant-van-veen-1937-new-masses-drawing2

.

Now comes the fun part — researching the history and meaning of the piece. I’ve got to find a set of New Masses from 1937 to see if in fact the drawing was reproduced there. Was it used to illustrate an article?  On what subject?  What’s the meaning of the title, “Silk Stockings are Bayonets”? Does the image depict a specific episode of fascist aggression — somewhere in Europe or Asia?  Why did Van Veen make the drawing so large (it’s 29 x 20 inches)? Was that the standard size New Masses required its illustrators to submit for purposes of reproduction? Or did Van Veen intend the drawing for public display separate and apart from its magazine appearance?

I will update this post when answers are found.

UPDATE (09-26-2010). Adam McIntosh posted a comment explaining the title and historical context: “The title “Silk Stockings are Bayonets” is a reference to the fact that the silk used in the making of stockings in the 1930s was imported from Japan. Thus implying the buying of silk stockings was funding the Japanese war of aggression in China. Besides the title, if you look at the soldier, despite the dehumanizing vagueness of the depiction, his gear, especially the helmet, is unmistakably that of the Imperial Japanese Army.”  My thanks go to Mr. McIntosh. With his information about the Second Sino-Japanese War that broke out in 1937, and with a little help from Google, I found a photograph in which”New York ladies parade with non-silk stockings to support the boycott on Japanese goods”:

.

.

Some cell phone photos

Saturday, February 7th, 2009

My prior cell phone, an LG, could store 20 photos.  My iPhone can store, what, tens of thousands?  Here are four from 2008. 

1.  First up, a photo that could be titled “Museum Dog.”  A couple of years ago, while visiting the Getty Museum in LA, I saw a woman on a Segway roaming through the galleries.  From time to time she would pivot and halt in front of a painting that caught her eye.  I said to myself, “Now this is a museum with an enlightened admission policy; they’d never allow that back East.”  Well, here’s evidence that when it comes to disabled visitors, the Corcoran Gallery of Art in DC does “enlightened admissions policies” just as well.

1-museum-dog

 

2.  Although probably not as museum-worthy as a Klee or Miro, the bold, primitive rendering below has, I believe, an equal claim to be trimmed with an explanatory label, like this:

Figure with Small Companion, created 2008, anonymous child artist, colored chalks on concrete, approx. 36 by 36 in. (destroyed 2008, by rain).”

1-a-childs-depiction-of-man-colored-chalk-on-sidewalk-2008

 

3.  Moving on to sculpture, in October I myself took a stab at carving Dick Cheney as a Halloween pumpkin.

1-dick-chaney-as-a-halloween-pumpkin1

The day after his first night on the porch, Cheney suffered a cruel fate: extraordinary rendition into the paws of  ravenous squirrels.  Nibbled beyond repair, he had to be put down.

4.  Lastly, a photo of a parking garage at night.  In the corner rests a seductive red sports car, as if awaiting the start of her starring role in a film noir.

1-night-in-a-parking-garage-with-mystery-car

John Updike: Intimate relations with the world

Friday, February 6th, 2009

John Updike died January 27, 2009, at age 76.  Some thoughts:

It was always easy to acquire Updike’s books on the cheap, especially after Couples became a monster best-seller and his publisher, Knopf, got in the habit of printing each subsequent book in an overly-optimist quantity, large enough to build ample stacks on book stores’  remainder tables.   Also, at used book sales organized by libraries and charities in suburban Philadelphia you usually could find copies of earlier and rarer items (poetry, non-fiction), though sometimes sans book jackets. 

As physical objects, the books Knopf produced for Updike were things of delicate beauty, Shaker-like in the simple dryness of their cloth-and-board bindings and crisp clear print on clean paper.  A long marriage of quality writing and quality presentation ensued.  I’m sure Updike, who had a thing for the “thingness” of objects, must have had something to do with this. 

Also notable was the traditional stitch-sewn binding of the books released in the first half of Updike’s career, a mark of quality whose discontinuance sometime in the 1980s could well be cited as a marker of cultural decline.  Let me stop to go downstairs and see if I can tell when this occurred.   (…)  I’m back to report that Updike’s 30th book, the novel Roger’s Version (1986) is stitch-sewn, while his 31st, a 1987 collection of short stories entitled Trust Me, begins the post-lapsarian glue era.

Every reader of Updike soon learns he is an author who had intimate relations with the world and everything in it.  A fresh reminder of this appears in The New Yorker  this week where you’ll find sixteen pages of excerpts from works that appeared in the magazine from 1954 through 2008.  (Updike made more than eight hundred contributions to The New Yorker !) 

Consider, for example, a man’s visit to a dentist’s chair, described in a 1955 short story, “Dentistry and Doubt”:   

     Burton’s heart beat like a wasp in a jar as the dentist moved across the room, did unseeable things by the sink, and returned with a full hypodermic.  A drop of fluid, by some miracle of adhesion, clung trembling to the needle’s tip.  Burton opened his mouth while the dentist’s back was till turned.  When at last the man pivoted, his instrument tilting up, a tension beneath his mustache indicated surprise and perhaps bemusement at finding things at such readiness.  “Open a little wider, please,” he said.  “Thank you.”  The needle moved closer.  It was under Burton’s nose and out of focus.  “Now, this might hurt a little.”  What a kind thing to say!  The sharp prick and the consequent slow, filling ache drove Burton’s eyes up, and he saw the tops of the bare willow trees, the frightening white sky, and the black birds.  As he watched, one bird joined another on the topmost twig, and then a third joined these two and the twig became radically crescent, and all three birds flapped off to where his eyes could not follow them.

     “There,” the dentist sighed, in a zephyr of candy and cloves.

In most of us a visit to the dentist arouses feelings of trepidation and surrender, a condition you might casually liken to that of a baby strapped into a high chair.  We grown-ups are “reduced to an infantile state.”  But Updike avoids that puerile thought and slyly heads straight  for the provocative, in this passage conjuring up, behind the objective reality experienced by the male patient, the unfolding of a parallel scene:  a bedded woman eyeing the approach of her new lover.  Updike and sex is a subject beyond the limits of this post.  But let it be said that this most knowing writer’s intimate relations with the world did not exclude a close connection to his penis, through which he traces a ritual from Cowper’s fluid (clung trembling to the tip) to penetration (slow, filling ache) to release (sigh).

The democratization of pleasure-giving

Sunday, February 1st, 2009

I’ve always admired and been envious of song writers, especially those who create durable works that become known as “standards” — songs that worm their way into the culture and embed themselves into our memories.  Here is a thought experiment:  In what ways would the world be different — how would we as individuals be different — if Irving Berlin, to take just one example, had not conjured up and let loose upon the world his scores of smile-making songs?  I don’t think No Difference is the correct answer.

Happy is the person who departs this mortal coil full in the knowledge he leaves behind a pleasure-giving song.

Until recently, the list of people who have beqeathed enduring gifts (songs, books, picture, movies) was short, especially when you consider an estimated 100 billion people have tread the earth.  So chalk up another revolution thanks to the Internet:  web hosting and distribution empowers previously-unsung millions to add to the communal body of pleasure-giving. 

A father in Sweden records his laughing infant son.  The video is uploaded to YouTube.  The baby will laugh — and make others laugh — forever.

Hitchens on Lincoln in Newsweek

Friday, January 16th, 2009

I’ve been reading Newsweek  regularly for over four decades.  Nowadays the magazine is a shadow of its best period, the 60’s and 70’s.  In recent years, its editors, when choosing cover subjects, grabbed at any excuse  to resurrect halcyon days.  Even now I half expect to see in the next few weeks a cover nostalgically featuring Twiggy, somehow linking the 60’s waif to our slim new President.  For long-time readers such as myself who prefer a true news weekly, the decline of Newsweek recalls John’s post-breakup put-down of Paul:  The only thing you done was yesterday. 

Did I mention the magazine is getting slimmer and slimmer?  It’s become a combination of poor quality and small portions.  This too is an echo of  what we first heard decades ago.

Sometimes the editors simply defy the weekly news wrapper and give us alternative fare of high readability.  An example is the January 19, 2009 issue, whose otherwise desultory pages contain a small gem of an essay by Christopher Hitchens, entitled, “The Man Who Made Us Whole“.  Whether the title was chosen by the author or a Newsweek editor I know not;  its rightness suggests it’s Hitchens’ design.  The piece is an admiring portrait of Abraham Lincoln, filled with wit, wordplay, and revelatory thinking typical of the author at his best.  When Hitchens pops up on television (usually on cable; the old networks are too cowardly) he ofttimes comes across as dyspeptic,  prone to mumbling, and of ramshackle demeanor.  But the mind, the words:  he remains a man who should be listened to.

As his followers know, Hitchens, in the last year or two, has been a pugnacious defender of  in-your-face atheism, railing against religious belief of any sort.  In all times and places belief in God has worked a baleful effect, and so let’s acknowledge God is Not Great  — such has been his non-stop refrain, and the title of a book he’s hawked.  So it was a bit of a surprise to encounter the following sentiments flowing from the closing paragraph of his Lincoln essay:

“I would myself love to claim Lincoln as an atheist ancestor, but I must confess myself beaten.  He was emphatically not a Christian — the name of Jesus never seems to have escaped his lips in spite of many beseeching requests that he accept the savior — but he referred too often to a supervising and presiding deity for one to be able to allege that he did so only to obtain votes or approval.  … [H]e could not imagine that mere mortals were the sole measure of all things.  We may chose to think that we know better.”

[We may chose to think  we know better??] 

Then comes this tender denouement:

“[H]ow impossible it is to forget this craggy and wretched and haunted man, invoking  of all things our “better angels.”

Is this just Hitchens being respectful (if not sentimental) in the face of the savior-category accomplishments of a great man?  Or is there a shift of perspective, some beginning acceptance on his part that believers may indeed beneficially tread the earth, and do good not in spite of but because of their belief?

[Update: For an analysis of Newsweek and Time‘s current straits, check out this article.]

Here are three reasons

Sunday, January 11th, 2009

Imagine, if you will, a fleet of spacecraft from a distant galaxy hovering with menace over the earth.  Then suppose the space aliens’ commander broadcasts a curt demand: 

“Give us three reasons why earthlings deserve to escape total annihilation!”

Hmmm . . . (I’m thinking) . . .

One – this guy

Two – this woman

Three – this fellow

“West Side Story” – Sober thoughts on the new Broadway-bound production

Thursday, January 1st, 2009

Last Saturday I attended a performance of West Side Story  at the National Theatre in Washington, DC.   This is a new production slated to reach Broadway in February.   By no means am I a student of the theater or even much of a maven, so my observations may appear trite or sentimental to a sophisticate.  Let me say, in few words:  This is a terrific production of a lasting work.

The show is just a few weeks into its tryout period, with the official tryout  “opening night” scheduled for next week.  I’ve not seen any MSM reviews, and a Google search of news and blogs found only a a few bloggers who’ve posted their reactions (examples are here, here (also describing a fire alarm evacuation at one performance) and here (also describing an unfriendly lyricist in attendance) .  The dearth of commentary is somewhat puzzling.  Does theater tradition impose a code of silence during the initial tryout period?

Arthur Laurents, one the four giants who birthed West Side Story  a half-century ago, is hearty at 90, and for this revival, directs the proceedings after first modestly revising the book he originated.  Leonard Bernstein (music) and Jerome Robbins (choreography, original direction) have passed on, while Stephen Sondheim (lyrics) is playing an observer role this go-round (Washington Post gossips spied him taking in a recent performance).  In the 1950s, when the show was gestating, Bernstein kept a diary.   He called the running account of the show’s progress a “log.”  (If he were alive today he’d probably be keeping a joyous blog.)  The log is full of insights, including this prediction:

“Obviously this show can’t depend on stars, being about kids; and so it will have to live or die by the success of its collaborations.”  

The new production is Laurents’ baby, and he ably serves as trustee of the celebrated WSS collaboration.  His interpretation is so respectful of the team’s intentions — and so effective — that I think it will be a bulwark against any future disorderings of the work.   There is something tender about this Theatre Work (as Bernstein labeled it) deserving protection against radical re-interpretation by others.  I don’t fully know why this is so, or why, in other spheres of creative endeauor, I generally accept the notion that a writer or painter, for example, ought to relinquish control once a novel is published or a painting leaves the studio.  The book and painting then belong to the world, and the world may interpret and re-interpret it as it will.   But with West Side Story, I’m glad one pair of surviving creator’s hands is reshaping, fine-tuning, the material one last time.

This production proves Laurents to be an ideal custodian of the quartet’s creative intentions.  His direction keeps the pace swift, the lines clear, and the beauty transparent.  He introduces a select few Pinteresque pauses in the music and/or dialog — caesuras that get you to thinking, why is this happening?  If my memory is correct, the first surprising pause comes after the very first three-note rising musical motif (the orchestral “call”) is heard.  Silence, instead of the expected immediate three-note “response,” follows.  This allows Jet leader Riff to make his presence felt.  After the pause the orchestra re-enters with the three-note response.  The “why” of this and later gaps — their dramatic purpose — may be fully understood only on repeated experiences of the piece.  I think this ought to be accepted in a dense and rich work of art. 

Laurents makes a host of other adjustments, successfully in my view.  In an effort to balance the Jets vs. Sharks conflict, he augments the size of the latter gang.  Notably, he’s had some dialog and lyrics translated into Spanish, bringing authenticity and balancing sympathies, not to mention mercifully masking the icky-poo lyrics of “I Feel Pretty.”  (But not everyone is responding well to this bilingualism: check out the chauvinistic and hateful comments posted here.)  The Second Act’s “Gee, Officer Krupke” number is usually staged in high school productions, and was done in the 1961 movie, as a way-too-cute, prop-driven, mood-disrupting Vaudeville routine.  In contrast, here Laurents’ sure hand makes us believe we’re watching shell-shocked kids who’ve seen for the first time the faces of the dead.  For a broader explanation of all the subtle alterations, in Laurents’ own words, see here.  For insights from Jamie Bernstein, the composer’s daughter, see here.)

As the composer predicted, this is a show that does not depend on stars, although all of the young principals in the new cast are obviously in love with the piece and acquit themselves well.  The performance I saw substituted a standby for Tony (the starring performer had been injured during a performance a few days before, as recounted by this blogger eye-witness); but his good musical voice was no match for the opera-trained Josephina Scaglione, playing Maria.  The audience favorite, and deservedly so, was Karen Olivo.  She acted and sang Anita with warmth and spirit , and in Act Two, Scene 4 (the Drugstore) literally towered over the Jets.

If this production of West Side Story  had one revelation for me it was how much tragedy attaches to a world where the victims are children.  The adults on stage are minor figures, caricatures or stock characters.  They may just as well be consigned to the wings, like Maria’s father’s voice.  I was reminded of the generational divide apparent in the 1950’s fiction of J.D. Salinger (who’s also now 90 years old), or the less anguished neighborhood conjured up in Charles Shultz’  “Peanuts” cartoon (conceived in the 1950s) which, as later animated in TV specials, featured off-screen unintelligable adults whose voices were replaced with the wah-wahhing sound of a muted trombone.  In WSS, the juvenile Jets, we learn from their self-defining first sung number, still play in a tree-house/play fort world, hung with a sign saying “Visiters Prohibited!”  We know that made-up world will not survive the first act.    

The sad, inescapable message of West Side Story — conveyed through deft direction of dance, music, and words — is that once hate enters the heart, only tragedy can follow. 

It is a message this now freshly-minted New Year must do better to heed.

 

Update 1.  Another blogger review is found here.

Update 2 (01-09-2009).  The MSM reviews are arriving, and are very positive overall.  Here’s the Baltimore Sun, DC ExaminerWashington Times, and Washington Post .