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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
