The Index of American Design

  1.

Yesterday, I fulfilled a long held wish of mine to discover the stories behind several of the artifacts that were documented as watercolors by the Index of American Design. I visited the archives of the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., and spent the day going through boxes of data sheets and photographs, finding the answers to many of my questions. I have to thank the National Gallery archivists who could not have been kinder or more helpful. 

2.

Briefly, the Index of American Design was created in the late 1930s by the United States government as part of the Works Progress Administration. The idea was that during the crisis of the Great Depression, skilled artists should be kept employed by giving them various jobs that not only saved them from abandoning art for any work that would feed them and their families. This also benefited the nation by, in the case of the Index, documenting our shared cultural heritage through recording important examples of America's rich tradition of hand made objects. Many of the pieces documented were in private collections at the time and have, as far as I know, disappeared since. Without these watercolors, data sheets, and sometimes photographs, we would have no record of their existence. 

 

3.

I first learned of the Index of American Design many years ago from friends at California State Parks, who gave me color slides of some of these images. Unfortunately, they either didn't have copies of the data sheets connected with these images, or forgot to give them to me. I knew that the original watercolors were in the National Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., but the curators of these items have cataloged them according to the artists who created them. This system is useless to those of us who want to see, specifically, what images they have, such as iron work, farm utensils, clothing, etc. 

4.

That's where the data sheets come in. One was created for every artifact that was examined by the Index's workers, and these are cataloged by the museum's archive by location, then by material or class (architecture, carving, etc.), and finally by name. These records are digitized and searchable, thank goodness. 

 

5.

The system still has its quirks, including several different numbering systems that don't seen to correspond to one another, vague descriptions (i.e. men's calzoneras are listed as "trousers"), location classifications are divided between "California" and "Southern California," and appear in separate parts of the spreadsheets, and many objects that were described were never photographed or painted. Still, I was able to answer many questions by my visit and now can share a few with you here. I cannot, however, share my copies of photos or data sheets, which are for research purposes only. 

6.

Here is a link to the California section of the Index of American Design: https://www.nga.gov/collection-search-result.html?artobj_credit=Index%20of%20American%20Design&artobj_vbnationality=American&artobj_lifespan=1930_1945&sortOrder=DEFAULT&artobj_imagesonly=Images_online&artobj_location=North%20and%20Central%20America-%3A%3A-United%20States-%3A%3A-California&pageSize=30&pageNumber=1&lastFacet=artobj_location

7.

8.

1.   
In about 1940, when this mochila (called a "saddle cover" in its data sheet) was documented for the Index of American Design, it was described as being 27 inches long. It's owner was Joel R. Fithian, a Santa Barbara real estate developer, who kept it in the tack room of his Carpenteria ranch. I do not know what has happened to it since.

2.   The owner of this cross and chain in the late-1930s was a descendant of Petra de Boronda of Monterey. Again, the current location is unknown.

3.   The data sheet for this silver concha states that it belonged once to Joseph Jesus Velarde of Calabasas (near Los Angeles). Originally, it was four inches in diameter but was cut down by his son, Tomas Velarde, to a two inch diameter, backed with black leather, and attached to a bridle he owned. The date is likely accurate since the original owner, Jospeh Jesus died in 1901, aged about 86, and his son inherited it directly from him.

4.   The data sheet for this baptismal font cover states that its date of 1820 was established by mission records, but then on the revers side of the page was added the note that mission records could not establish the date because they seldom mention specific items of manufacture at the mission. Nevertheless, the photograph in the file, taken from the exact same angle, is even better at showing how superb the tooling was on this piece.

5.   This wooden chandelier was said to date to 1817-1820, and to have been the work of a Native Californian neophyte at Mission Santa Ines. Since the data sheet states that this was based on "tradition," there is no way to confirm the date, but it doesn't seem unlikely. The brass arms with glass pendants were thought at the time the Index of American design compiled data on this chandelier, to be later additions. Originally, it states, this chandelier probably had iron arms ending in spikes to hold the candles. I don't know if this chandelier still exists.

6.   This hat was said to have been made of wheat straw and stitched together. The date given for the hat was 1840-1860, according to the then resident padres at San Luis Rey, and to have been made by someone named Julian Dely. It was in fair condition in 1939, though I don't know if it still survives. The post-mission era date, and the chance that it was made by someone named Dely (possibly a French surname) makes sense, since earlier mission neophytes would have used their fine basket weaving skills to make a hat.

7.   The Index of American Design data sheet states that this scabbard belonged to Jose Maria Varela in circa 1831, and was used by him at the Battle of Cahuenga Pass, which was fought by Californio landowners against the unpopular Mexican governor, Manuel Victoria. The data sheet notes that such scabbards were commonly carried on the saddle, under the rider's left leg. Two points about this piece support those conclusions. The first is that there appears to be only one point of suspension, the four holes at the top, which _may_ have been used to attach a wide leather loop that hung the sword from the saddle horn. Inspection of the original (which luckily still survives) would help to clarify this. The other point is that the embroidery is only at the top and bottom of the scabbard, and not along its full length. This suggests that that space was left bare of ornament because the rider's leg would have worn it down. In other words, this scabbard was carried over the mochila, not beneath it.

8.   This mecha was made up of a tube of purple silk covering a long wick of cotton fiber. The cotton was drawn out through the metal tube and was ignited by sparks from a fire steel and piece of flint. The tube and chain were, by tradition, made from gold that was found in the San Francisquito Canyon years before the Sutter's mill discovery. The records go on to state that this mecha belonged orginally to Antonio Ygnacio Avila, circa 1842, and was donated to the Los Angeles County Museum by members of the del Valle Family. I recall seeing a similar mecha at the Bowers Museum in Santa Ana.