Rain: Storms Bring More than Three Inches

Storms yesterday and last night brought us 3.15 inches of very welcome new rain. That brings our total for the 2017-2018 rain year to 21.45 inches at my location in northeast Santa Rosa. Average rainfall on by April 7 in Santa Rosa is 32.67 inches. So we are more than 10 inches below normal but yesterday's storm was a significant help. More please.

[Thank you. Heavy rain on April 11 added another 1.95 inches, bringing our total to 23.4 inches. Better, but still well below normal.]

Art I'm Looking At: The Cult of the Machine at the De Young

Charles Sheeler, American Landscape, 1930
Museum of modern Art, New York

The Cult of the Machine, now on view at the De Young Museum in San Francisco, although promoted as a look at Precisionism in general (and it is that), is a veritable Charles Sheeler retrospective. It includes some of his most important works—photographs, paintings, and drawings. It was a pleasure to see in person so many Sheelers I've long admired in reproduction, particularly the paintings he made from some of his well known photographs of Ford's River Rouge plant, and his Upper Deck (1929) and Rolling Power (1939)*.

Installation view:
Shadows cast by Shaker furniture

There is less familiar work here, too—by Sheeler, by other familiar names, and by names new to me. Besides paintings, photographs, and objects of design from the period during which the Precisionist style flourished in the United States (roughly 1915 to 1945), there is a display of Shaker-designed household items that echo in their simplicity the stylized geometries of Precisionism. The venue is also showing the brief 1921 film Sheeler made with Paul Strand, Manhatta, that looks at a day in Manhattan, inspired by Whitman's Leaves of Grass, and a looping clip from Chaplin's Modern Times (1936). The Shaker items are artfully backlit, their shadows projected onto a screen. When viewed from behind, the shadows look like one of Sheeler's cityscapes.

Strand is represented by several well-known images such as Wall Street (1915) and The Court (1924). Several of Sheeler's photographs of the Doylestown Quaker meeting house are here, as are painted and drawn versions of views he photographed there, allowing side-by-side comparisons. There are a couple of good Paul Outerbridge photos and work from photographers less familiar, such as Anton Bruehl. His Untitled, a 1929 shot of part of a Cadillac engine is striking. Some of the photographs of my grandfather, Warren R. Laity, would have been right at home here.

Anton Bruehl, Untitled, 1929
Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco

Warren R. Laity, Mail Plane, circa 1930
(Not in show), Private collection

Gerald Murphy, Razor, 1924
Dallas Museum of Art                               

Also striking is a 1924 painting entitled Razor by Gerald Murphy that immediately brings to mind paintings from the same period by Stuart Davis that draw on advertising imagery and bright colors for their impact, works that anticipate Pop Art. There is nothing by Davis in the show and I was surprised to see only one piece by Charles Demuth—the name, along with Sheeler's, that comes to mind most readily when thinking of Precisonism. But most of the artists associated with Precisionism are here, including Joseph Stella, George Ault, Niles Spencer, Morton Shamberg, and Edmund Lewandowski. George Ault's Bright Light at Russell's Corners (1946, Smithsonian American Art Museum), a moody night scene dominated by eerily lit barns, and Lewandowski's small Furnace No. 5, are particularly attractive.

Francis Criss, Waterfront, c. 1940
Detroit Institute of Art

New to me were the painters Francis Criss, Elsie Driggs, Bumpei Usui, and Peter Blume. Criss's highly stylized Waterfront (c. 1940) reduces a waterfront industrial scene to its geometrical essence, using starkly contrasting saturated colors, a lamppost vestige of an earlier age, and a bold yellow-gold frame to heighten the effect. The frame is one of many in the show that are beautiful in their own right. Usui's 1924 New York cityscape 14th Street is a strong piece, with its cubes, cylinders, and pyramidal forms in a style reminiscent of some of the WPA frescoes of the period (and the show includes a painting by John Langley Howard, among those who contributed to the 1934 Coit Tower murals, a WPA project). There are also a couple of paintings by Georgia O'Keefe likely to seem surprisingly unlike her to most viewers. They differ markedly from the style she's best known for. One is a view of barns at Lake George. Another is a New York cityscape done from an elevated perspective—from the window of a high-rise apartment she shared there with husband Alfred Stieglitz.

Charles Sheeler, Upper Deck, 1929
Harvard Art Museums/Fogg Museum

Precisionism was an extension of cubism in its attention to the underlying geometry of things, in its interest in architectonic form, an extension of Futurism in its obsession with the modern and with machinery, but I'm not sure how coherent it was—if it was recognized at the time as a movement at all. Perhaps underscoring that is the fact that "precisionism" was only one of several contemporary terms used to describe the style. The painters were sometimes known as "the immaculates" or they were referred to as "modern classicists." "Precisionism" is the name that has stuck. Names aside, the work on display is quintessentially of its time.

Bumpei Usui, 14th Street, 1924
Virginia Museum of Fine Arts

"Precisionism" was a label given to the American expression of anxieties common between the world wars in rapidly industrializing societies globally. The paintings and photographs of the period reflect a fascination with machinery, with scale, with industrial might, but they also betray a deep, veiled fear. The clean lines, the simplified forms, and the tendency to eliminate human beings from angular cityscapes all suggest a need to slow things down, to examine reality in an artificial, controlled way, to tame things before they spin out of control. As the Cult of the Machine wall texts point out, these anxieties are familiar today, with technology rapidly outpacing our ability to adjust to it. To express the angst caused by forward leaps of technology, artists of the early twentieth century turned to depicting the physical manifestations of rapid change—to depicting bridges, dams, turbines, factories, propellers, ocean liners—large, tangible objects that overwhelm, things built not on a human scale. Artists of the early twenty-first century perhaps have a right to feel even more overwhelmed and anxious, handicapped as they are by the seemingly insubstantial nature of the technology that today drives so much change. Our technological marvels do not have an oppressive physical presence. They are not built on a grand scale. They are miniaturized and hidden behind sleek, portable steel and glass packages, hidden inside phones and tablets. They are barely visible. There is nothing to see.

The Cult of the Machine is on view at the De Young Museum (50 Hagiwara Tea Garden Dr, San Francisco, CA 94118) through August 12, 2018.

*It's worth noting that, in addition to the River Rouge pieces, both Upper Deck and Rolling Power were originally done as photographs (the Upper Deck photo is in the De Young show). There are many other examples of Sheeler working in a highly realistic style from photographs. I'm not aware of Sheeler being considered anticipatory to Photorealism, but surely he was, even if he usually took stylistic liberties a strict photorealist might not have.

Charles Sheeler, Rolling Power (1939)
Smith College Museum of Art

Books I'm Reading: The Second Amendment: A Biography

It seemed an appropriate time to buy The Second Amendment: A Biography (Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2014) when I picked it up, remaindered, at a local bookstore last year. That was before the Parkland, Florida shooting. It now seems even more appropriate to have acquired it. Having just finished the book, I can say it's an excellent introduction not only to the historical context of the 2nd Amendment's writing but to the transformation it's undergone in the past few decades—its transformation from a clause written by the founders out of fear of a standing army controlled by a tyrannical government into a statement of a fundamental individual right to own guns, a transformation effected by controversial court decisions that have had and will continue to have tragic consequences.

The Amendment, stated in full, seems simple: "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It is one of the shortest amendments to the Constitution. It has engendered disproportionate discord. While its interpretation—notably, whether it guarantees an individual's right to own and use guns—was first challenged long ago, by 1840 the idea was firmly established that the object of the Amendment was public defense not private gun ownership and that the term "bear arms" was understood to have a military meaning. This view was made explicit in a Tennessee Supreme Court ruling in that year stating, in part "A man in pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms...."

The push to subvert these ideas began in the 1950s and gained steam in the 1970s, although the individual rights view long remained a fringe view even then. By 2008, however, District of Columbia v. Heller had overturned about 200 years of precedent. What made that possible, was intense lobbying by the NRA. Author Michael Waldman points to a survey of law review articles on the 2nd Amendment from 1888 to 1959 and notes that not a single one in that period concluded the Amendment says anything about individual gun rights. The first to contradict that idea appeared in 1960, the start of a flood of writing supporting the view. Waldman quotes one Carl Bogus (a real historian, despite his name) who points out "From 1970 to 1989, twenty-five articles adhering to the collective rights view were published [in law reviews] (nothing unusual there), but so were twenty-seven articles endorsing the individual rights model. However, at least sixteen of these articles—about 60 percent—were written by lawyers who had been directly employed by or represented the NRA or other gun rights organizations." Thus, through strategic long-term planning, the NRA and its supporters were well on their way to success in changing the legal meaning of the Amendment already by 1989. Still, Waldman argues, historians had not at that time (and largely still haven't) changed their view of the meaning of the Amendment—despite subsequent legal developments—which is to say that current law, underpinned by Heller, defies logic and the majority view, reflecting a minority viewpoint vociferously defended by the NRA and other lobbyists for gun manufacturers.

It would take almost 20 more years to get us to the Heller decision, and a willingness to toss aside the 2nd Amendment's initial clause "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...." Waldman points out that Justice Scalia, in his majority opinion in Heller, essentially ignored that clause, as does the abridged quote of the Amendment on the wall of the lobby of NRA headquarters, which reads only "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" as if the prefatory clause does not exist. What allowed the Heller decision to, as Waldman puts it, use "pages of highly selective historical readings from two hundred years ago that ignore the history of the past hundred years" to essentially rewrite the Constitution was a shift in public opinion among a disproportionately vocal minority, coached and underwritten by the NRA. Essentially, the Heller decision became possible because of NRA influence on public opinion. The 2nd Amendment doesn't and never did mean what Heller proclaims it to mean, but Heller has established a new basis for interpreting the Constitution.

Waldman's book is well worth the time it takes to read for the deep context it gives to the current difference of opinion about gun law in the United States. The essential conclusion I have drawn from reading the book is that I have been right in my conviction that the 2nd Amendment's meaning has been perverted, that District of Columbia v. Heller, like Citizens United, was a disastrously misguided decision, but that we are stuck with it. We are forced to live with it and to die with it, for the time being, at least.

Art I'm Making: Untitled Collage No. 198 (Santa Rosa)

The first successful collage I've done in too many weeks. Sometimes they are a struggle. I'm now quite pleased with this—a much-simplified remnant of a larger piece that stubbornly refused to come alive.

This is Untitled Collage No. 198 (Santa Rosa). April 2, 2018. Acrylic on paper, acrylic monotype, graphite, archival marker (fragment of a doodling robot drawing), collage. Image size: 13.5 x 12.3cm (5.3 x 4.8 inches). Matted to 11 x 14 inches. Signed on the mat. Signed and dated on the reverse.

For more of my collage (and other) work, visit my website at http://ctalcroft.wixsite.com/collage-site.