The best thing about San Diego is the climate. I left a sweltering June Philadelphia expecting worse heat in that “desert by the sea”; instead, it was a breezy seventy-six degrees for most mornings and nights while I was there. Locals regretted that conference attendees missed “June bloom”—this Easterner couldn’t imagine more blooms even if every bit of jewel-tone color was a reminder of the maharaja ransom in water needed to create the smallest patch of emerald green, ruby red, or sapphire blue. After battling black spot and green Japanese beetles in humid Pennsylvania, I had almost given up on roses. The roses in San Diego are testament to why they’re worth fighting for—there the blossoms seem to preen in the sun, their scent lying heavy on the dense, warm air. I know it’s not politically correct to like them because they’re not indigenous to Southern California, but conservationists and Ruskin be damned. I’m going to take a cue from Bertram Goodhue and think of Spain, where I saw ancient rose trees with trunks the size of an athlete’s leg.
There is a grand rose garden in Balboa Park near the fantastic California Building, which Goodhue dreamt up for the “Magic Mission City.” Goodhue’s bridge and secular cathedral anchor one corner of the remaining 1915 Panama-California Exposition buildings where Lisa Koenigsberg’s ninth Arts and Crafts conference, Regionalism and Modernity: The Arts and Crafts Movement in San Diego and Environs began. (With a change in city name, the all-inclusive title might be maintained for any future conferences. Regionalism and Modernity: The Arts and Crafts Movement in Cincinnati and Environs for 2008?) Lisa and many other scholars interpret Arts and Crafts as a type of modernity perhaps because so many museum curators and art historians conflate Arts and Crafts progressive social reform with progressive design. As his conference opener showed, Robert Judson Clark has been able to move on beyond his seminal efforts to define American Arts and Crafts. Most of the rest of the speakers used his 1972 parameters as the foundation for their talks—perhaps to honor his presence at the conference, more likely because it is easier and faster than thinking for one’s self. Cheryl Robertson extolled the virtues of “reinforcement,” “recapitulation,” and “reiteration.” If the audience had been a callow class of freshman college students, perhaps, but the few there who were not parts of the program were either consorts of the program’s parts or rich, longtime lovers of Arts and Crafts with nothing better to do than spend a week in the dark with the object of their affection. To pound them with her three Rs was condescending at best. For some reason, scholars other than Clark are still unwilling to let Arts and Crafts be whatever it was wherever it was. They seem to need to validate the movement with trumped-up proof that it was not only what its practitioners said it was (honest, sincere, democratic, indigenous, and beautiful for meeting the preceding qualifications) but also better because, with hindsight, it can be seen to be distinctively regional, new, original, progressive, modern, and innovative. In San Diego, most of the “proof” of regionalism presented convinced me that Eastern ideas got to San Diego (and environs) and merely donned sequined sombreros. We were shown images of A. Page Brown and A.C. Schweinfurth West Coast buildings that would be indistinguishable from east-of-the-Mississippi buildings by Stanford White, Frank Lloyd Wright, or Will Price were it not for the imported palms.
For me, Clark’s most striking image was a pre-restoration photograph of the Sonoma Mission—it had a stumpy Greek Revival steeple that made it look just like the early nineteenth-century wooden churchs and town halls strewn around New England.
San Diego’s most precious art icon is Irving Gill, who was so much discussed during the conference that I couldn’t bear to think of or speak his name for several days after I returned home. Gill provides a fine example of the kind of Arts and Crafts navel-gazing that happens at these conferences. His international-modern, machine-for-living ideas were pigeonholed as Arts and Crafts simple living. For me, Frank Lloyd Wright became “modern” when he turned the fake Tudor half-timbering he used on the Nathan Moore House into the horizontal lathe strips he stuck onto the sides of his Prairie houses. Similarly, Gill designs didn’t become “modern” until he transformed the soft brown edges of pueblo adobe into the harder, whiter edges of Bauhaus.
His much-touted use of light and central cleaning systems had been in use for more than a decade before in houses like the monster Richardsonian stone pile that is the 1888 James Hill House in St. Paul, Minnesota,which had the same conveniences and many more. I suppose Hill House was also modern in its day, but not in a way Arts and Crafts devotees understand and admire.
Robert Winter was not well enough to present his forty-minute talk about Goodhue and the fair scheduled for the first day and Phoebe Kropp copped out on her forty-five-minute talk, but all that added time didn’t keep the schedule from lagging as it has year after year. Opportunities for questions and answers were reinstated as time permitted. It usually didn’t permit, so I had to gamble that I’d be able to sound off after a lecture whose very title had me in a tizzy. I use the word tizzy because I know nothing in the conference or about the Arts and Crafts movement is worth getting seriously riled up about. The movement was and remains fatally out of this world. I held my tongue while we were invited to:
Correcting the Record: The American Arts and Crafts Traveled West to East, Not Vice Versa was excused by its author Leslie Freudenheim as being a “work in progress.” In fact it was less than half-baked. Many of the lecturers were august, published authors who had the grace not to promote their own books. Freudenheim was as shameless in flogging her frothy lifestyle books as she was naively delighted in fancying how her west-to-east theory would provoke. Provoke she did, but not as I suspect she intended—I was provoked, not by her theory, but her airy disregard for earlier scholarship on the subject and her faulty, obviously cursory research. She used secondary, if not tertiary, sources. She began with a preemptory new name for the American Arts and Crafts movement by pronouncing that it could “aptly” be rechristened the “Craftsman movement.” How presidential to rewrite history to make it fit your premise. To be fair, Freudenheim’s view of the movement is limited to what she can see through the lens of Gustav Stickley’s writings as they appear in anthologies and in reproductions of his Craftsman magazine—had she stuck with that narrow field of vision, she might have been able to demonstrate how some Western interpretations of Eastern ideas ended up as a part of Stickley’s populist, commercial spin on the movement, thereby gaining a national audience. She wouldn’t be correcting any record, but at least she would be correct. Freudenheim cut the Aesthetic movement away from the Arts and Crafts movement by showing a slide of a late nineteenth-century room with few Aesthetic movement pretensions and discussing why it was not Arts and Crafts. I’m guessing she would as confidently use a dull scalpel to separate conjoined twins who share a single heart. Accepting her notion that there was a clear distinction between the Aesthetic movement’s cult of beauty and the Arts and Crafts movement’s cult of the simple life requires rejecting much about William Morris, but that’s okay because Morris was British—the influence of his ideas stopped on the eastern shore of the Mississippi, where a 2,320-mile-long fence had been built to keep ideas from crossing. The American or “Craftsman” movement sprang up (perforce a virgin birth!) in the fertile, if necessarily sterile, soil of California with the completion of Joseph Worcester’s 1876 Piedmont camp and his later Russian Hill House, which formed the “the basis for the American simple home.” She claimed such California simple homes were “affordable” and “rejected costly goods.”
Using Worcester’s 1876 camp as the starting point for the simple life’s west-to-east journey would be dramatic if it could be supported with facts. But the author’s charming insouciance couldn’t get her trip started any further west than the Adirondacks. Joel Headley published the first edition of The Adirondack: or, Life in the Woods in 1849. He wasn’t writing just about hunting or logging, but also about the health benefits of mountain air and the soul-restoring power of mountain views where the “thronged city” and “strifes of men” were nowhere to be seen—if this is not the mountain-high version of Worcester’s simple life on the down low of the Piedmont, Freudenheim (and Robertson, who blazed the west-to-east trail in 1993) have yet to adequately explain why. Closer to the “thronged city” of Philadelphia, Frank Furness built a retreat into his house, which he started in 1873—it had all the accoutrements of the romantic, rustic, natural, native simple life that Freudenheim claims started in California.
Freudenheim went beyond asserting Worcester invented the simple lifestyle to claim that his camp was the first identifiable architectural expression of her “Craftsman movement.” The only known image of the camp is in a small painting, which shows one side of the building in the middle ground of a vast sunset panorama. Still, the few small brushstrokes the artist used to render the house provide enough information to determine that the roof at least followed the shape of bungalows built in British-Colonial India, where the form is supposed to have originated. Similar bungalows were built in the eastern United States, particularly in the South—many postdate Worcester’s, but I doubt any were inspired by it. There is an important link from Worcester’s camp to the generic “Craftsman bungalow” that was ignored by Freudenheim and everyone else at the conference, even though it still exists almost within sight of the museum where the lectures were held. The Brockton Villa (after Brockton, Massachusetts) was built in 1894 for Dr. Joseph Rhodes on the edge of the steep hillside that descends to the rock cliffs of La Jolla Cove. It is now somewhat buried within the recent porch additions of a restaurant where one can still see the original interior structure under layers of shiny white paint and the wondrous abalone-shell-encrusted fireplace. The Red Roost and The Red Rest stand just down Coast Boulevard. These 1894 bungalows are on the National Register, but if nothing is done they will soon be gone from La Jolla. The owner of the high-rise hotel next door wants the very valuable land for the income its views of the Pacific could generate, so the cottages have been swaddled in black plastic and flake board and left to disintegrate. The Save Our Heritage Organisation facilitated many events for the conference. The Red Roost and Red Rest are #12 on the organization’s 2007 “Most Endangered” list. It would be grand if the conference took an active rather than passive role in the cities it visits. What might the effect have been if the attendees picketed the very visible site while waiting for the little shuttle bus to take them seven at a time to the Gill-designed Bailey House? Would local newspapers have taken photos? The conference visited #2 on the list, the tightly guarded Salk Institute. Would they have been arrested if, after studying Philadelphian Louis Kahn’s work, they marched to the bus with an unfurled plaza-long banner protesting a master plan, which will seriously compromise the globally acclaimed design?
In the end, I did get to ask my question, which was more a statement suggesting that the ideas she thought were specific to the West were at least current at the same time in the East. Not until the Standard Time Law was enacted in 1918 would California get the worm, after that the West Coast would always be the early bird. She responded appropriately with reiteration, redundancy, reinforcement, and recapitulation when she reminded me that she had said her theory was a work in progress at the start of her talk. I have to admit she unwittingly added at least a couple more Rs (wrong and revelation) when she showed a van Gogh ink drawing of a French village of thatch-roofed cottages. Earlier in the conference Bruce Smith said Japan was the source of the Greenes’ use of exposed rafter tails, but, he said, the brothers were the first to extend rafter tails beyond the roofline. Au contraire, there in southern France were revealed rustic rafters sticking way out beyond the thatch! Lisa does not publish the conference lectures, so their useful life pretty much ends as soon as they are presented. Therefore I found myself valuing the quality of presentation over content. Some lecturers couldn’t be bothered with learning newer presentation methods, so they tested audience endurance with the same faded, out-of-focus, out-of order, upside down, jammed slides they’ve been struggling with for the past thirty years. Others made up for having nothing to say with well-designed, powerful graphics and large, crisp, colorful photographs presented in smooth-running computer programs. Best of all were those like Bruce Smith and Heidi Nasstrom Evans, who were in full control of their medium and their message so they were able not just to inform, but also to entertain—I appreciated their evident respect for their audience! Bruce’s presentation about how Japan was envisioned in Southern California woke me up and delighted me with the sprightly pace and humorous tone of a Gilbert and Sullivan operetta. The conference lectures ended with Heidi’s short, sweet, and poetic description of the time Jane and Ralph Radcliffe-Whitehead spent in California, which was carried by the exquisite, melancholy imagery she chose.
Passionate commitment combined with subjective, insufficient information and a narrow perspective leads to wars of proving points. On the other hand, creative thinking needn’t be combative because it has nothing to prove—it can combine credible references with objective insight to explain the big picture. The Arts and Crafts movement came to the United States at a time when the flow of ideas from one coast to the other ran fast and easy both ways. But, certainly, regional characteristics in our arts and minds existed before Eastern Asians came west and before Western Europeans came east and continue to exist. The way pre-Columbian artisans made and used things was probably dictated in a large part by religion. So, too, the Arts and Crafts movement may be seen as a religion that attempted to prescribe how things ought to be made as well as how they ought to be used. There’s not much difference between casting a bat into a gold bell amulet and chasing an oak leaf onto a silver wedding ring. For me, the bell or the ring is the big picture. Who, what, when, why, and how are useful focusing mechanisms. Characterizations like modern, progressive, prototypical, or mimetic seem like framing devices, which can enhance appreciation unless they are the only meaning an object has. If the first cubist painting could be identified and it turned out to be an ugly, poorly executed portrait painted on black velvet by Leonardo da Vinci in 1869 when the artist was four years old, it would end up at MoMA or the Met, but not at my museum! |