Saturday, December 23, 2023

Nedrock 2

This post originated as an email to Julie Unruh. She had plans to jam with some friends and asked me to recommend a song or two that she could take with her, preferably post-2000.

Here's the thing about me and new music. Since the collapse of radio, I haven't really listened to new music much. I've never had a subscription to Sirius, and the times I've been on Spotify there's just been too much to sift through. I really miss the days of shared cultural experiences. As I've written about before, the last great heyday of rock music was the nineties, and in Charleston we had one of the best rock stations in the country. Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Screaming Trees, Counting Crows, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Soundgarden, Smashing Pumpkins, Green Day, Radiohead, U2, R.E.M., Kristin Hersh, Natalie Merchant, Matthew Sweet, Hole, Beck, Indigo Girls, Elliott Smith, the list goes on and on, were "alternative" artists who broke through on the national level. (Eddie Vedder was on the cover of Time magazine.) I mean, if you look at the pop charts from those days, very few of these artists appear, and yet they were well-known by the broader culture. And this is the reason many of them are still able to tour to this day, because they still have a sizeable fan base. Today, I can't name a single rock band, much less a song by one. 

A few years ago I had to work at the local Food Lion as a side hustle. The satellite radio they played was mostly pop—every once in a while you'd hear a song by Dave Matthews or Edwin McCain or Muse or even U2—but mostly it was pop music that I had never heard. In fact, some of it was so bad, so generic sounding, that I seriously thought that it was the modern-day equivalent of Muzak: pop-sounding music that was created by studio musicians. Then I heard a song that I thought might be by Katy Perry, and when I got home and Googled the lyrics I found that I was right. Gradually I began to recognize that these were all top pop songs of the day. (Thank god the manager chose this "station"; other stores played the country station, or the oldies station.) There began to be a few songs that I really liked, and when I asked one of the kids working at the store who they were by, they looked at me like I was from Mars (not really; they all liked me, they just knew I was old); most of these songs that I found I liked turned out to be by the same artist, Taylor Swift. "Trouble When You Walked In"; "22"; "Love Story"; "You Belong With Me"; "Red"; "Shake It Off"; and "Blank Space," which is my favorite TS song and one of the best songs of the decade. There's a version of her playing it on acoustic guitar at a Grammy event. For those who might think Swift doesn't have a real singing voice, this performance puts that to rest. Also, there's a D chord in the chorus that she left out of the studio recording, and the first time I heard it it knocked me out.

Of course, my favorite songs from the last couple of decades are my own! A good one for you and your mates to jam on might be "You Know What?" The verse is just two chords. The first chord is A. The second chord is the D confinguration (see what I did there!) on the seventh fret (the second dot on the neck; the note is actually something on the G scale). The chorus is D and A, finishing on E. Then back to A. I'll give you the lyrics in a Word document attached. Sorry, the video cuts off at the very end, but that's the end of the song anyway. As you'll see in the lyrics, I substitute "but it's too late" for "a little sooner." There's a live version with this ending, but I like my home version better; there's an extra couple of bars between the verses in the live version that I don't care for.

Monday, October 23, 2023

Sketch group 2

This post originated as an email to Kieran Kramer.

When I first heard about the sketch group and decided to join, I went all in! First I went to llbean.com to find just the right chair. My first thought was a straight-back camp chair, mainly because I figured this was the only kind they made, but I thought I'd never be able to sit upright like that for two hours. I figured I'd have to set it against a wall, but I knew there wouldn't always be a wall. But then I saw this reclining chair and it is perfect. It's funny. Most everybody either uses the straight-back chair or even just a stool, but I have broken the paradigm, and I think it's just one of the reasons they think I'm cool (if I may say so myself). 

Then I started thinking about my wardrobe. I haven't done anything socially for a while, so I thought maybe I could spruce up my look a little bit. You've seen my new T-shirts. I also bought another pair of Adidases, white leather with black stripes, and some new jeans to go with them. When I got the first notification of the week's location, they said to bring your own seating, water and hat. The only hats I had were baseball-type caps. There's an outdoor outfitters-type place just a couple of blocks from my apartment, so I walked down there and found a hat. It's a Tilley, which evidently is a well-known hat among outdoorsmen and hat aficionados. They had about thirty, all different styles and sizes, and I feel like I got a good one. I know it's rude to talk about money, but this hat cost a hundred dollars. The hat cost more than the chair!

One of the ladies in the group recently took my picture and I didn't even realize it until she sent it to me in an email:




Monday, October 9, 2023

Sketch group

This post originated as an email to David Summers.

Hi, David. I just wanted to share a couple of things with you. I recently joined a sketch group. It happened completely fortuitously. I was in the waiting room at the auto mechanic's when another person waiting on her car walked in and started sketching. I struck up a conversation with her and she said she was a member of a sketch group here in Staunton that meets once a week around town for two hours to sketch. The more she told me about it, the more I thought to myself, "Yes, this is what I need." I've been wanting to sketch for years but never got up the gumption to do it. Having a group to do it with at a set time makes it easier to commit.

I took a drawing class in college (at the College of Charleston), and I was kind of the "artist" in my family as a kid, working mainly in felt pen and copying MAD magazine covers! I don't have any innate talent, I'm mainly doing it for the therapeutic benefits, and for the fellowship. It's nice to get out and meet some new, like-minded people!

Like Vincent, I have to "wrestle with nature," looking closely at my subject and focusing on drawing what I see (not what I think I see). My basic method is to draw one small element at a time, making sure that each next element is in proportion to the last. The fun part is seeing if things match up when I get back around near my starting point!

I hope you and yours are doing well.



View looking south from the corner of N. Washington and W. Frederick streets.


The view from Bluestone Vineyards outside of Bridgewater.


Along Church Street. I'm obviously not real pleased with the way I drew the power lines!


Looking south down New Street, from E. Beverley St. Here's an example where things don't quite match up. The two front buildings, left and right, are on the same plane in reality.


Cars, for some reason, are a challenge! Fortunately, that's not what this picture is about.

Thanks for looking!

Click on images to enlarge them.






Monday, December 27, 2021

Bicentennial tour

This post originated as a series of postcards to my nieces.

In the summers of 1975 and 1976, my mom and her then boyfriend, Phil Porter, took my brothers and me on a couple of road trips, first to St. Augustine, Cape Canaveral, and Disney World, then on a two-week bicentennial tour of the Northeast. In August of 2020, I sent my nieces a picture of their father (my brother, Charlie, who died of cancer in 2013) and me feeding pigeons in a park in St. Augustine. I told them about that road trip, about how we'd stayed at campgrounds, and I sent them on a scavenger hunt to find a particularly memorable photograph of Charlie in our tent, which they found! I told them that the next year we went on the bicentennial tour, but that that was another story.

At that point I didn't have a plan as to how I would tell them that story. Then, earlier this month, I was hunting for vintage postcards for a potential future project when I found a postcard depicting "The Little Church Around the Corner" in Manhattan, which I'd always remembered from that trip. After a couple of days, my brain told me that I should send this postcard to the girls, and then it occurred to me that I could relate to them the story of the road trip through a series of postcards. What follows are the texts I wrote on each of these cards, verbatim, which I mailed to them at roughly three-day intervals from December 4 to December 27.

The Little Church Around the Corner

"On our bicentennial tour of the Northeast, we took a bus tour of Manhattan, where the tour guide pointed out to us 'The Little Church Around the Corner'. I've never forgotten it! I found this vintage postcard at a flea market recently. Ask Uncle John if he remembers it next time you see him. Love, Uncle Ned"

Colonial Williamsburg

"Our first stop on the bicentennial tour was Colonial Williamsburg. This was the first time I heard the term 'book', as in 'to leave'. We were chatting up some girls from Boston. At one point Mr. Porter walked down to where we were, to say it was time to come back to the tent. The girls said they needed to book as well. We told Mr. Porter we'd be there anon. When we didn't return anon, he came back to get us in his car, screeching to a halt and yelling, 'Now!' Before that, we had thought he was soft."


Washington, D.C.

"Our next stop was D.C., where we stayed with some friends of Mr. Porter's, in Maryland, I think, possibly Northern Virginia. One of the boys in the family who was about my age taught me how to spit properly. We went to the White House, the Capitol, the Washington Monument, the Lincoln Memorial, but my favorite was the Smithsonian, especially the Air and Space Museum (not pictured)."

Philadelphia

"I honestly don't remember much about Philly. Independence Hall. Liberty Bell. We stayed in a hotel there. We had also booked a hotel for two nights in New York City, but it was out by one of the airports, so Mom + Mr. Porter canceled that one and booked two nights in Manhattan, at the Times Square Hotel."


New York City

"You have to understand, Times Square in the '70s was a seedy, dangerous place. If I had known what they were, I would have seen prostitutes. Craning my neck to look up at the skyscrapers, I got turned around and walked backwards into a cop, who bopped me on the back of the head and told me to watch where I was going. Mom thanked him. Our last night there, a woman jumped to her death from our hotel, which seemed apt."


Niagara Falls

"Mr. Porter's parents lived in Buffalo, so we went there instead of going on to Boston. When we got there, his mother showed us where our bedrooms and bathroom were, telling us we could 'wash up' if we wished. So I took a shower! Right then! I thought that's what she wanted us to do. I don't think we were dirty, I think she was just being hospitable, and I took her literally. I was twelve. We went to Niagara Falls the next day."


Gettysburg

"We came home through Gettysburg, Harper's Ferry and Monticello. Of course, we listened to the radio in the car the entire trip. It was a great summer for music: Shower the People, 50 Ways to Leave Your Lover, Magic Man, Silly Love Songs, Oh, What a Night, Crazy on You, You'll Never Find Another Love Like Mine, Kiss and Say Goodbye, and many more. Love, Uncle Ned"


Friday, March 19, 2021

Re: Beeple

This post originated as an email to my friend Maura Hogan, in response to her email asking my thoughts concerning the Beeple affair. Maura currently serves as the arts critic for the Charleston Post and Courier newspaper.

I'll start by reiterating my general theory of art, which is that all man-made objects are works of art. We currently live in a culture that privileges "art world" objects as the only "art," but this is an anomaly of history. Before the nineteenth century, there was no separate category for "art." "Art" comes from the Latin ars, meaning "skill," and even great masters like Michelangelo and Raphael were considered skilled craftsmen whom you would not have allowed your daughters to marry. The vast preponderance of all artifacts created over the course of human history were created by craftsmen, usually working in large workshops. The twenty-first century equivalent of premodern painting is not modern painting (or "contemporary art" in general) but film and television. The twenty-first century equivalent of a Renaissance altarpiece, for example, is the video screen behind the musicians at a rock concert. The twenty-first century equivalent of a Neoclassical history painting by Jacques-Louis David is not an NFT but a cable news broadcast, a documentary, or even a feature film. The art history textbook of the future will end with painting sometime around 1970 and double back to pick up the history of film and television. It is simply impossible to give a credible history of the visual arts in the twentieth century without acknowledging the significance of The Wizard of Oz, Citizen Kane, The Godfather, Jaws, etc. 

Beeple's work, and the sale of it, should be regarded within the narrow context of the "contemporary art world." I've seen a few of his images, but I haven't observed them very closely or given them a lot of thought. From a historical perspective, they do not appear to be having any kind of meaningful impact on the culture at large, nowhere near as impactful, for instance, as Donald Trump's performance art and the media outlets that aid and abet him. Beeple is working within the narrative of contemporary art, exploiting the art-world apparatus of trading certain types of artifacts as commodities. Another recent example of this is “Comedian” by Maurizio Cattelan (the banana taped to the wall). Cattelan knew that there was a certain cohort that would gladly play into his cynical ploy, and he made some money off of it. More power to him. The art world can do whatever it wants, of course, but it is high time we stopped considering "contemporary art" as the only example of what art is.  

So, I agree with your comment that "the whole enterprise [is] an exercise in cynicism, vis a vis commodification, bidding wars, pandemic vagaries." I'll push back a little on your statement that "it is shining so much light on the art world and inspiring such raging debate that makes art relevant in uneasy times" and that you "welcome any art in Charleston that does a smashy-smashy to the increasingly problematic 'moonlight and magnolias' connotations of Charleston arts." I definitely agree that the whole "moonlight and magnolias" theme has to go. But, as you also note, Beeple's work appears to have very little to do with Charleston. And, again, whenever anybody uses the term "art," I have to ask, "What is art?" As far as I'm concerned, the most prominent artist from Charleston today is Stephen Colbert, whose work is much more relevant and has a much greater impact than Beeple's "art."

Portions of this post have been redacted at Maura's request, for privacy concerns.




Wednesday, December 2, 2020

Nedrock

This post originated as a letter to my younger brother, Gus. It was accompanied by a list that I had drawn up for him of my favorite albums from my childhood. Gus was born in 1989, so I wanted to make him aware of what I felt were some of the milestones of music from before his time, as well as clue him in to some of our family's history.

It is an axiom of human behavior that we regard the things we learned and the artifacts we encountered in our youth as the best of their type. The language spoken by our family seems proper. The morals that are modeled for us become our morals. The culture that we are raised in becomes second nature. And, of course, the music that we grew up with will always sound to us like the best music there ever was.

But the music that I grew up with really was the best music of all time! I’m only halfway kidding. Obviously, as I’ve just stated, most people who were young during the Big Band era or the early stages of rock and roll will regard these periods as the best, and probably regard the later stages with disdain. But the music produced in the wake of the Beatles and Bob Dylan after 1964 is definitely a high-water mark in rock music. The latter half of the Sixties saw a succession of bands trying to outdo one another, which is a classic recipe for greatness. The Beatles, the Rolling Stones, the Who, Cream, Led Zeppelin and so many more contributed to this golden age of classic rock. Then the singer/songwriter era of the early Seventies, exemplified by such greats as James Taylor, Joni Mitchell, Jackson Browne, and Warren Zevon, influenced such bands as Fleetwood Mac and the Eagles. 

I got most of my early musical tastes from my mom, who had a beautiful soprano voice and was totally into the Sixties music revolution. [Gus is my half brother; we share a common father.] Like most kids, my first record collection was basically my parents’. The first of Mom’s albums that became one of my favorites was Abbey Road, by the Beatles. There is no room here to go into the overall greatness of this album, generally considered one of the greatest, if not the greatest, rock albums of all time. The quality of the songs is top-notch from beginning to end. Side One opens and closes with two of John Lennon’s greatest songs, “Come Together” and “I Want You (She’s So Heavy).” There are two classic Paul McCartney confections, “Oh! Darling” and “Maxwell’s Silver Hammer.” Ringo chimes in with one of his few Beatles songs, the classic “Octopus’s Garden.” And the album contains two of George Harrison’s greatest songs, “Something” and “Here Comes the Sun.” The latter opens Side Two, but this side of the album is best known for its medley of unfinished Lennon/McCartney songs that McCartney mashed together in a most amazing way. The album ends with the famous line, “And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.” The album was the second to last released by the Beatles—Let It Be was their last release before breaking up in 1970—but Abbey Road was the last album they recorded. I listened to Side Two of Abbey Road every day after school during my junior and senior years in high school. Every. Single. Day.

My second favorite album from Mom’s collection was Janis Ian’s Between the Lines. This was Mom’s favorite album too, with its songs about divorce, one-night stands, etc. (Mom was the only prominent divorcée in Barnwell throughout the Seventies. Mom and Dad divorced in 1968, when I was four.) Beautiful melodies and awesome arrangements. Still one of my favorite albums. 

One single that stands out from this period is “Bohemian Rhapsody”; I didn’t buy the album it was on. When I finally started buying my own records, Goodbye Yellow Brick Road and Captain Fantastic and the Brown Dirt Cowboy, by Elton John, were favorites that I listened to over and over. I should mention that I was the only brother who had his own record player. Mom had a nice sound system in her bedroom that I listened to before I got my own. Dad also had a nice sound system in his house on Manville Drive. (We spent half the week at Mom’s and half the week at Dad’s.) Dad wasn’t really into music, but somehow he had a pretty good record collection. Maybe he was a member of the Columbia Record Club, because he inexplicably had some of the best records of the Seventies at his house, including American Pie, Sweet Baby James, Me and Bobby McGee, Don Quixote, etc. He never listened to them, but we wore them out. In retrospect I feel like maybe he got them for us.

I’m leaving out a lot of stuff for brevity. Everything on the list is an absolute gem. Frampton Comes Alive. Jesus Christ Superstar. Beggar’s Banquet. Who’s Next. Blood on the Tracks. I moved to Hilton Head with Dad in 1980 when Mom moved to New York to marry Bill Kolb. One of my best friends there turned me on to Hunky Dory, by David Bowie, still one of my favorite albums of all time. The Eighties was a weird time for music. I loved the singles from that period. We had a great radio station in Charleston throughout my college years and beyond, 96 Wave. They played all the funky Eighties singles, from “Tainted Love” by Soft Cell to “Girls Just Want to Have Fun,” by Cyndi Lauper, and everything in between. This is a whole nother story. Suffice it to say, I loved the singles but didn’t buy any of the albums. I basically continued to listen to all my favorite albums from childhood all through college. I might be exaggerating a little, but it wasn’t until I went to graduate school in 1987 that I finally fully turned on to R.E.M. and U2. In my defense, their big breakthroughs both came out that year, Document and The Joshua Tree.

I’ve always considered myself lucky to have grown up during not one but two great periods of Anglo-American rock music. After the Eighties descended into the depths of hair metal, there came the great renaissance of rock music in the early Nineties. One of the harbingers of what became known as Alternative Rock was R.E.M.’s “Losing My Religion,” which became a most improbable hit in the spring of 1991, even in the South. I had just spent a year in New York working my first stint at ------------. I decided I wanted to move back to South Carolina and I secured a position teaching summer school at the College of Charleston. Since Charlie and Missy were getting married that spring, I convinced Dad to let me come down early and live with him between the wedding and summer school. The plan was to attend Charlie and Missy’s wedding and then spend a month or so prepping for my teaching gig. Well, as everyone knows, I chickened out of teaching and convinced Dad to let me spend the summer at Banksia Hall pursuing a career as a painter. This didn’t really work out either, but I did spend the summer hanging out with ---------, whom you called Jen-Jen.

That fall was when Bob opened the Sports Pub, and I went to Charleston to take up my position behind the bar in basically the same place I had tended bar at San Miguel’s. Perry went with me, and we shared an apartment in Mt. Pleasant. I didn’t have a car at the time, so I either rode in to work with Perry if we shared a shift, or I borrowed his car to go in when I was working and he had the night off. One day on the way in to work we heard “Alive,” by Pearl Jam on 96 Wave. I had heard snippets of this song, which had just come out, but I wasn’t quite sure what it was or who Pearl Jam were, because we were listening to 98 Rock (the “classic rock” station that didn’t play new music) at the Sports Pub, due to some putz of a manager whose name I forget. That day, after hearing “Alive” on the way in to work, I strode into the bar and announced that we were listening to the wrong radio station. I don’t know how I had the balls to declare this. The putz manager could easily have overruled me, but thankfully he didn’t. I’d been gone from the downtown Charleston scene for four years, and I felt like I was defending 96 Wave’s place as the cool radio station in Charleston. 

That fall was fucking amazing. Aside from the fact that we opened a sports bar at the exact same time that the Braves decided not to suck anymore and went on a two-year World Series run, the music was awesome too. The Sports Pub was a phenomenal success, packed every night, and I just have to imagine that part of it was due to the fact that we played the best radio station (this was in the days before satellite radio, much less the internet). It is difficult to describe the impact that Pearl Jam and Nirvana had that fall. “Smells Like Teen Spirit” was simply one of the coolest songs ever written, and it and “Alive” and “Black” and “Jeremy” by Pearl Jam just opened up the floodgates. Achtung Baby came out that fall as well. U2’s Joshua Tree was great, but it cemented U2’s and Bono’s reputation for bombast and melodrama, for lack of better terms. Grandiosity, not to mention egomania. (There was an old joke about a person who was in a car crash, then in a coma, then dead and in heaven. When he walks through the Pearly Gates, he sees Bono running around, ranting and raving about world peace. He can’t believe that Bono has died. Saint Peter says, “Oh, that’s not Bono. That’s God. He just thinks he’s Bono.”) But Achtung Baby had a grittier, industrial edge that U2’s earlier albums did not, and it transformed them from a great band to a band in a class all by themselves. The fact that U2 pivoted to an alternative sound right before Pearl Jam and Nirvana hit the scene attests to their sense of the zeitgeist.

And then, like I said, the floodgates opened. I might not have the order right, but over the next few years came such classic songs as “Creep,” by Radiohead, “Plush,” by Stone Temple Pilots, “Round Here,” by Counting Crows, “Girlfriend,” by Matthew Sweet, “Longview,” by Green Day, “Today,” by Smashing Pumpkins, “Linger,” by Cranberries, “Jealous Again,” by Black Crowes, “Hey Jealousy,” by Gin Blossoms. A slew of hits by Pearl Jam: “Better Man,” “Rearviewmirror,” “Daughter,” “Animal,” “Corduroy.” I mean, I’m not even scratching the surface. And 96 Wave would play deep cuts that would become hits, like Kristin Hersh’s “Your Ghost.” We sang all these songs when they came on the radio, I mean me and the customers at the Sports Pub. I was known as the Singing Bartender. Between midnight and two a.m., when there was no sports on, we would put the T.V.s on MTV. I remember when “Creep” came on we all just went crazy. I did, anyway.

This was also when I laid claim to my nickname “Nedrock.” There was this old dude who drove a candy truck in our neighborhood on Colonial Drive in Barnwell who gave all the kids nicknames. Perry was “Pericho” (as in Jericho); Charlie was “Charlie over the River” (as in I have no idea); John was “John Henry”; and I was “Nedrock,” which rhymes with “bedrock.” Clearly mine was the only one that was any good. (He called one of the girls in the neighborhood “Mud Puddle.”) Still, nobody in Barnwell ever really called me Nedrock—that would have made me too cool. Dad called me “Crud.” And I never used it in college. But it was always in my back pocket, and when people at the Sports Pub started to call me “Nedly” (a common variation on “Ned” that I despise) I again had the balls to say, “It’s Nedrock,” and it stuck. Everybody who knew me during that Sports Pub period—I worked there from fall of '91 to fall of '94—knows me as Nedrock. 

Anyway, between Nedrock and the Braves and the renaissance of rock music, the stars aligned for me in the early Nineties. I’m not even scratching the surface of all the great songs and bands that came out during this time. I’m just saying how lucky I was to have experienced the two great periods of rock music in the last third of the twentieth century. And we went to many great concerts during this time. Black Crowes played the Gaillard. Lollapalooza came through Charlotte in 1992, featuring Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Ministry. U2 played Williams-Brice Stadium that same summer on their Achtung Baby tour (officially the Zoo TV Tour). The whole period culminated with the twenty-fifth anniversary of Woodstock in August of 1994, which featured many of the bands of this renaissance. I went to all of these concerts. And it was in the spring of '94 that I finally learned how to play guitar. Many of the first songs I learned were from this second renaissance. When I decided to play music in clubs in the late Nineties, I was determined to establish a new canon of cover songs for the nightclub scene. 

Going to Hilton Head for the Heritage every year in the Seventies, then going to high school there in the early Eighties, then living in Charleston for most of the Eighties, I was exposed to the “guy with the guitar” in nightclubs and tiki bars from early on. I would often get up and sing with these people, and I always said that one day I would learn how to play the guitar. It wasn’t until I went to Paris in the summer of 1993 that I finally made the decision to actually do it. I saw many buskers on the streets of Paris. I flew back through NYC on my way home and spent a weekend in the Hamptons with an old friend from college. Also there that weekend was some dude that I barely knew in college. There was a guitar in the rental and this dude picked it up and started playing a Bob Dylan song. I loathed this guy, and now he was the one who was serenading the women when it should have been me, just because he could play the guitar. I figured, “If this asshole can play the guitar, so can I.” Still, it took me until the following spring to fully knock the Coke machine over. I borrowed a friend’s acoustic guitar, bought an instruction book that came with a cassette and taught myself how to play the guitar. Our greatest fears lie in anticipation, and honestly when I started out I really didn’t know if I would be able to play the guitar or not. In reality, it probably didn’t take much more than a month. 

A lot of the early songs I learned were favorites from childhood, like “Behind Blue Eyes” (from Who’s Next) and “She Came in through the Bathroom Window” (from Abbey Road), but I also determined early on to learn many of the songs that I had just fallen in love with during the previous three years at the Sports Pub. Ironically, when I started playing out four years later, back in Charleston after my second stint at ------------ from '95 to '97, the kids in Charleston all came up to me and asked me to play songs by Creedence Clearwater Revival, James Taylor, Jimmy Buffett, Van Morrison, etc. Basically, the old canon. I figured they’d want to hear the new canon, but they really just wanted to hear the songs that they’d grown up with in their parents’ record collections.


Nedrock, Houston Street, NYC, 1997



Tuesday, March 17, 2020

The view from the asylum

This post originated as a letter, with an accompanying folder of images, to my friend Laurie Israel.


(Click on images to enlarge them.)


I thought you might find this fun. Vincent painted fifteen pictures of the view from his bedroom window in the asylum at Saint-Rémy (sixteen if you count The Starry Night). In addition to being painted from two slightly different vantage points, they are also all painted from a slightly different perspective, sometimes looking toward the left (north), sometimes looking directly east, sometimes skewing more toward the south. I thought it would be fun to superimpose an outline of all the paintings on top of each other to illustrate the range of Vincent’s perspective over the fifteen paintings. I ordered an LED tracing light box from Amazon and bought a ten-pack of my favorite pen, the Pilot G-2, in assorted colors.

Vincent’s second-story cell in the asylum looked out over a field enclosed by a stone wall. Beyond the wall was a rolling countryside of fields and woodlands, with the Alpilles mountains on the horizon. The Alpilles are a subrange of the Alps situated south and east of Saint-Rémy. There were four buildings on the other side of the wall, at least one of which Vincent included in every painting of the view. Two of the buildings are nondescript, but the other two are fairly distinctive. The two nondescript buildings are to the left and right of the view (I have christened them “left” and “right”). In the distance is a building comprised of two sections: a larger section in the rear and a smaller section in the front, which I picture as an anteroom to the larger structure. In the foreground of the area just beyond the wall is a building with an asymmetrical roofline and gable. I have christened these buildings “anteroom” and “asymmetrical.” 

The noted Impressionist and Postimpressionist scholar John Rewald visited the asylum at Saint-Rémy in the 1950s and took photographs of the view from Vincent’s cell. In 2015 I requested and was granted access to Rewald’s slides in the archives department of the National Gallery of Art in Washington. When Rewald took his photos, “anteroom” and “asymmetrical” were still there, which was cool in and of itself, but it also confirmed that Vincent was painting what he saw, which will turn out to be integral to my interpretation of The Starry Night.


Rewald's photo of the view

I started with an outline in black ink of the major elements visible in the Rewald slide. It’s hard to make out in the picture in the folder, but “anteroom” is situated directly above “asymmetrical,” and “left” is also there. “Right” may also have still existed when this photograph was taken, but it would have been hidden by the foliage that had grown up on the south side of the enclosed wheat field and the row of cypress trees that appear to have grown up just beyond the south wall of the field. The one element that appears in all the paintings, besides the mountains, is the stone wall, so I used this as the anchor for tracing all the paintings, specifically the crook in the wall where the south wall turns inward from the east wall at a roughly ninety-degree angle. 

At the upper left of my superimposition you will see each painting identified by its current location and its de la Faille and Hulsker numbers. Jacob-Baart de la Faille was the first to catalogue Vincent’s works and give them numbers (The Starry Night is F612). Jan Hulsker later compiled his own catalogue raisonné; his numbers are preceded by the initials “JH.” You will count eleven paintings. I did not trace the other four pictures for a couple of reasons. First, two of them are exact copies (“repetitions,” as Vincent called them) of an earlier version, namely the one commonly called Reaper. The original version (F617/JH1753) is in the Kröller-Müller Museum in Otterlo, the Netherlands. They call it Korenveld met maaier en zon; Wheat Field with Reaper and Sun—their translation, not mine! (Many of Vincent’s paintings are known by differing titles. He rarely gave them titles, per se. Rather, he gave them descriptions, which themselves often varied from letter to letter.) The two repetitions of Reaper are in the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam and the Folkwang Museum in Essen, Germany. The original includes all four buildings; the two repetitions leave out “right.”

The other two pictures that I didn’t trace are only very loosely based on the view. One (variously titled Wheat Field with Plowman or Laborer in a Field; F625/JH1768), formerly in the collection of Nancy Lee and Perry R. Bass of Fort Worth, Texas, and which was sold to an anonymous bidder at Christie’s in 2017 (for $81 million), includes the wall, a rather flattened depiction of the mountains, and the rising sun, but otherwise contains imaginative elements, including a building that doesn’t resemble any of the actual buildings and what appear to be weeping willow trees. A similar picture in the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (F706/JH1794) is even more fanciful, with Dutch windmills in the background. 

All of the pictures except for the one in Amsterdam are painted horizontally in what we would now call “landscape” view. The Amsterdam picture and the one in Richmond are quite small, roughly nine by thirteen inches. Of the remaining thirteen, nine are painted on Vincent’s preferred Size 30 canvas, roughly twenty-eight by thirty-six inches, the remaining four being only slightly smaller.

I don’t know that my superimposition image teaches us much more than what we learn by simply looking at the paintings. I just thought it would look cool, you know, as a work of art (What is art?). One thing it does highlight is that in addition to painting the view from the different perspectives identified above, Vincent also depicted the view from two slightly different vantage points. Six of the paintings show the view from his room, where “anteroom” is pretty much directly behind “asymmetrical.” In seven the vantage point is from slightly to the north of Vincent’s cell, so that “anteroom” appears to the left of “asymmetrical.” This occurs in one of the first paintings he made of the view, the dramatically skewed perspective depicted in Wheat Field with Rising Sun (F720/JH1728), currently in Otterlo. 


Wheat Field with Rising Sun

It also occurs in all three versions of Reaper. And it occurs in one of the last versions Vincent painted of the view, Green Wheatfield (F718/JH1727), currently in a private collection in Zurich. It is unclear whether Vincent based this angle on the view from another room in the asylum or if it was taken from a position within the enclosed wheat field itself. He never mentions where this second vantage point came from, and even when he refers to one of the paintings from this position, he still calls it the view from his window. This makes sense since it is still the general view. It’s also possible that he simply skewed the view for compositional effect.

Another element you will notice in some of the pictures is the rising sun (and in one case the rising moon). Shortly after checking into the asylum, Vincent now famously wrote to his brother, Theo, "Through the iron-barred window I can make out a square of wheat in an enclosure . . . above which in the morning I see the sun rise in its glory." You see the sun in the skewed image above. It is in all three versions of Reaper. It’s in the one from the Bass collection. And it is in the painting that must be considered the masterpiece of the series, also usually called Wheat Field with Rising Sun (F737/JH1862), formerly in the collection of none other than Robert Oppenheimer—yes, the father of the atomic bomb! (Oppenheimer actually inherited the painting from his parents. He sold it in 1965 to Florence J. Gould, daughter-in-law of nineteenth-century robber baron Jay Gould. Florence Gould auctioned the painting off through Sotheby’s in 1985, where it was sold to a private collector for just under ten million dollars. I would give anything to know where it is today.)


Wheat Field with Rising Sun

I call this picture the masterpiece—in the classical sense of the term—because Vincent painted it specifically for inclusion in a public exhibition. In November, 1889, Vincent was invited to participate in the annual exhibition of Les Vingt (stylized as Les XX [The Twenty]; Vincent called them les Vingtistes) in Brussels. Vincent exhibited six paintings in this exhibition, held in January and February of 1890. Five of these pictures, including the two original versions of his iconic Sunflowers (now in London and Munich) and The Red Vineyard (the only painting he sold during his lifetime, as a result of this exhibition), were already finished and were in Paris with Theo. But he clearly had the desire to include an example from the series of paintings of the view from the asylum window, and instead of choosing one of the already completed views, he created a new version, a true showpiece.

With apologies to Sanford Gifford, this might be the most amazing picture of the sun ever painted. Brushstrokes of light radiate out from the yellow-white disc, filling nearly half the sky. Anyone who has ever even momentarily looked at the sun knows that it is not just the disc one sees but the aureola surrounding it. The darker shadows just inside the wall are a virtuoso example of Impressionist coloration. And the furrows that fill fully two-thirds of the canvas rush toward the viewer, giving the picture a dynamism which places it squarely at the transition from Impressionism, which Vincent generally considered himself to be a practitioner of (depending on his mood), to Postimpressionism, the tag which later scholars gave to painters like Van Gogh and Gauguin, who were seen to have infused emotion into the more dispassionately naturalistic works of Monet, Pissarro, et al.

Vincent described this painting in a letter to Emile Bernard: “Another canvas depicts a sun rising over a field of new wheat. Receding lines of the furrows run high up on the canvas, towards a wall and a range of lilac hills. The field is violet and green-yellow. The white sun is surrounded by a large yellow aureole. In it . . . I have tried to express calm, a great peace.”

Vincent also showed this picture in the Spring 1890 exhibition of the Salon des Indépendants, along with nine other works, including a vertical painting of cypresses now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (which I will discuss below), one of the two iconic Sunflowers, and one of the other iterations of the view from the asylum window, Landscape after a Storm (F611/JH1723), now in Copenhagen. (This is generally considered to be the first iteration of the view.) Vincent received favorable press coverage for his pictures in this show, and Theo wrote to him that none other than Claude Monet, whom Theo represented in his gallery, had said Vincent’s paintings “were the best in the exhibition.” Gauguin said they were the feature attraction.


Landscape after a Storm

Another element you’ll notice that turns up in two of the paintings is a lone cypress tree atop one of the distant hills. 


=//=

The standard interpretation of The Starry Night, not to overstate it too much, is that it is the hallucinatory vision of a madman. Even with the knowledge that Vincent could not work during his epileptic fits or the days following them, pretty much everyone from Meyer Schapiro to the Van Gogh biographers Steven Naifeh and Gregory White Smith have sought a way to interpret the picture in this way. A classic example is Ronald Pickvance’s interpretation in his catalogue for the monumental Van Gogh exhibition (the second of a tandem of exhibitions, actually) presented by the Metropolitan Museum of Art in the winter of 1986-87. Pickvance interprets The Starry Night as being a composite of two other pictures from that same June of 1889: the first iteration of the view, Landscape after a Storm (mentioned just above), and a painting of cypress trees and a farmhouse in a field of wheat painted around the same time (now in the National Gallery in Prague) which Pickvance suggests is taken from a different area in the vicinity of the asylum.

Vincent checked into the asylum at Saint-Remy on May 8, 1889. He was given a second-story room to live in and a ground-floor room to paint in. Even though he had voluntarily committed himself, he was not allowed to leave the grounds of the former monastery for about a month. His studio was near the entrance to the former cloister, now simply an enclosed courtyard garden. In his first letter from the asylum, written on May 9 to Theo and his new bride Jo, Vincent wrote, “I have two [paintings] on the go—violet irises and a lilac bush. Two subjects taken from the garden.” The Irises are the famous ones currently in the J. Paul Getty Museum in Los Angeles. 

The usually prolific correspondent didn’t write again for two weeks. In his second letter from the asylum he reported that he now had two more paintings “on the go” (as he liked to say). “Since I’ve been here, the neglected garden planted with tall pines under which grows tall and badly tended grass intermingled with various weeds, has provided me with enough work, and I haven’t yet gone outside” of the asylum grounds. This is also the letter where he said he can see the morning sun rise in all its glory. (Vincent had been sober for a few months now, so he was probably waking up early for the first time in a long time.) His next letter is from yet another two weeks later. Now he was evidently waking up even earlier because it is in this letter that he reported that he could see Venus: “This morning I saw the countryside from my window a long time before sunrise with nothing but the morning star, which looked very big.” Still, he had yet to leave the asylum grounds: “[W]hat a beautiful land and what beautiful blue and what a sun. And yet I’ve only seen the garden and what I can make out through the window.”

Then, three days later, on June 9, he reported that he had finally gone off the grounds of the asylum. “Thanks very much for the consignment of canvases, colors, brushes, tobacco and chocolate, which reached me in good order. I was very glad of it, for I was pining for work a little. Also, for a few days now I’ve been going outside to work in the neighborhood. . . . What can I tell you that’s new, not much. I have two landscapes on the go (no. 30 canvases) of views taken in the hills.” He immediately describes Landscape after a Storm: “One is the countryside that I glimpse from the window of my bedroom. In the foreground a field of wheat, ravaged and knocked to the ground after a storm. A boundary wall and beyond, grey foliage of a few olive trees, huts and hills. Finally, at the top of the painting a large white and grey cloud swamped by the azure.” He then loses his train of thought and never identifies or describes what the second picture is of.  

Vincent’s next letter is a week later to his sister Willemien (sic), whom he calls Wil. In this letter he describes his three latest paintings: “I’ve just finished a landscape of an olive grove with grey foliage more or less like that of the willows, their cast shadows violet on the sun-drenched sand. Then yet another that depicts a field of yellowing wheat surrounded by brambles and green bushes. At the end of the field a little pink house with a tall and dark cypress tree that stands out against the distant purplish and bluish hills, and against a forget-me-not blue sky streaked with pink whose pure tones contrast with the already heavy, scorched ears, whose tones are as warm as the crust of a loaf of bread. I have yet another in which a field of wheat on the slope of the hills is completely ravaged and knocked to the ground by a downpour, and which is drenched by the torrential shower.” The first picture is of nearby olive groves that Vincent would do two series of over the next few months. The third picture he describes is the one he described in the previous letter to Theo, before he lost his train of thought. The middle picture is Wheat Field (F719/JH1725), currently in the National Gallery in Prague. Given its proximity to the depiction of Landscape after a Storm in this letter, along with the fact that it was clearly “taken in the hills,” this is most likely the second painting that Vincent meant to describe in the previous letter to Theo. 


Wheat Field

This is the picture that Pickvance wants to say is one of the two paintings that Vincent incorporated elements of to compose The Starry Night. “At the asylum,” Pickvance writes, “he had been given a room overlooking the garden to use as a studio. But from the studio, unlike the bedroom, he had no view of the Alpilles. In that studio in mid-June, several recently painted canvases were drying. From two of them, Mountainous Landscape Behind the Asylum (F611 [this is the title Pickvance uses for Landscape after a Storm]) and the Wheat Field now in Prague, van Gogh extracted elements that he then used in his new painting [The Starry Night]. From the one he took the outline of the Alpilles, and from the other he took the cypresses.” Aside from the fact that it is immaterial that there is no view of the Alpilles from the ground-floor studio, since Vincent would have used sketches made from his second-story cell to paint all images of the view, Pickvance is suggesting that the Prague Wheat Field actually depicts a field with cypresses in another area of the countryside. “The Prague landscape cannot be identified as the second view ‘taken in the hills’. Rather, it is the very opposite. Van Gogh turned his back to the Alpilles.” This doesn’t make any sense. First of all, there are other hills in the distance in this picture. And secondly, if he turned his back on the Alpilles, he must necessarily be in the vicinity of the Alpilles. 

Pickvance pushes this theory in order to characterize The Starry Night as a product of Vincent’s imagination. He writes: “[W]ith its mixed genesis, its composite procedures, and its arbitrary collage of separate motifs, it is overtly stamped as an ‘abstraction’ of the kind he painted in Arles under the tutelage of Gauguin.” Gauguin (and Bernard) actually used the term "abstraction" in two different ways. They used it to refer to paintings composed from the imagination—in other words, compositions that they basically made up, composites of different ideas, rather than images taken directly from nature. They also used it to refer to a style of painting using broad, perhaps even arbitrary colors and/or infusing personal expression into the picture. Pickvance seizes on Vincent’s comparison of The Starry Night to another painting of his from the same time, Olive Trees with the Alpilles in the Background, now in the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA just calls this painting The Olive Trees; F712/JH1740. This is the first of the three paintings Vincent refers to in his letter to Wil, quoted above). To support his argument, Pickvance quotes Vincent writing to his brother, “Though I have not seen either Gauguin’s or Bernard’s last canvases, I am pretty well convinced that these two studies I’ve spoken of are parallel in feeling.” The problem is, this second painting is not an abstraction of the composite variety; it is a plein air view of olive trees with the Alpilles in the background. Vincent is linking these two pictures based on painting style, not arbitrary, composite composition. 

Pickvance’s assertion that the Prague painting depicts a separate parcel of the vicinity seems to suggest that there were no cypresses in the countryside visible from Vincent’s bedroom window, which is kind of like saying that there are sections of Parris Island where there are no sand gnats, or indeed that there are parts of the night sky where there are no stars. (Another art historian by the name of Vojtech Jirat-Wasiutynski, in a paper based on a lecture given at the Metropolitan Museum of Art on the occasion of the second Pickvance exhibition, basically parrots Pickvance’s assumption, stating unequivocally that there were no cypresses visible from Vincent’s bedroom and giving as “proof” just one of the fifteen paintings Vincent made of the view, Landscape after a Storm.)

But Provence is lousy with cypress trees, as Vincent noted on several occasions in letters to his brother. In June 1889, a week or so after painting The Starry Night, he wrote, “The cypresses still preoccupy me, I’d like to do something with them like the canvases of the sunflowers because it astonishes me that no one has yet done them as I see them. It’s beautiful as regards lines and proportions, like an Egyptian obelisk. And the green has such a distinguished quality. It’s the dark patch in a sun-drenched landscape, but it’s one of the most interesting dark notes, the most difficult to hit off exactly that I can imagine. Now they must be seen here against the blue, in the blue, rather.” Elsewhere he referred to the color of the cypresses as being “that difficult shade of bottle green.” 

In a letter from November, 1889, he wrote, “I still have the great desire to do for the mountains and for the cypresses what I’ve just done for the olive trees, have a really good go at them. The thing is, the olive tree and the cypress have rarely been painted.” The next month he reiterated this plan: “I have a great desire to do more of both the cypresses and the Alpilles.” He had earlier stated that these pictures would “form a kind of ensemble, ‘Impressions of Provence’.” And in January, 1890, he was still talking about it: “To give an idea of Provence it’s vital to do a few more canvases of cypresses and mountains.” “The cypress is so characteristic of the landscape of Provence,” he wrote to the critic Albert Aurier. “[B]efore leaving here, I am planning to return to the fray to attack the cypresses.” (All of these quotes come from the invaluable online resource provided by the Van Gogh Museum Foundation, the Van Gogh Letters Project.) 

Vincent actually started his attack on the cypresses in June of 1889. Around June 18 he wrote to Theo that he had “a new study of a starry sky.” (The Starry Night is actually Vincent’s third nocturnal painting, following two he had executed in Arles the previous summer: Café Terrace at Night and Starry Night over the Rhone. Vincent referred to most of his paintings as “studies,” works that he intended to utilize at a later time to produce what he considered finished works. But except for a few notable repetitions of some paintings, the majority of the paintings that we consider Vincent’s greatest are “studies.” He did not sign his “studies”; The Starry Night, for example, is not signed.) A week later he wrote, “We’ve had some fine hot days and I’ve got some more canvases on the go, so that there are 12 no. 30 canvases on the stocks.” Included among these canvases were three new pictures of cypresses, in addition to The Starry Night and the Prague Wheat Field. Two of these pictures are in the Metropolitan Museum of Art.


Cypresses


Wheat Field with Cypresses

The cypresses in each of these two paintings are very similar. They both appear to be a pair of cypresses growing right next to each other. There might be a technical term for this in botany. Anyway, they are clearly the same pair of trees in each picture, and in each picture the blue slope of the Alpilles is visible in the background. (One of them also has a stylized crescent moon.) These also appear to be the same two trees depicted in the Prague Wheat Field, only from the opposite side, as the smaller of the two trees is now on the right rather than on the left. And, of course, The Starry Night depicts two companion cypresses, a big one and a little one. 


The Starry Night 

According to Hulsker’s catalogue, there are at least nine extant sketches of the view that Vincent would have based his paintings on. Most of these sketches actually show the view from the slightly skewed northern vantage point, but one is a preliminary drawing for the one vertical version of the view, in Amsterdam.


Preliminary drawing for F723/JH1722

This drawing shows what appears to be a lone cypress on a little hill just beyond “anteroom.” Although this cypress does not show up in the finished painting based on this sketch, it does appear in two of the horizontal versions of the view. It is visible in the skewed view in Otterlo shown above. And it is visible in the version in the Indianapolis Museum of Art, which I was able to view in person two years ago on my way back from visiting my stepfather in Memphis. 


Enclosed Field with Peasant or
Plowed Field with a Man Carrying a Bundle of Straw

The romantic in me likes to think that Vincent identified with this solitary cypress (or what looked like a solitary cypress) on a distant hill, and that on one windy day that June when he was finally allowed off the grounds of the asylum he trekked up into the hills to find his kindred spirit. Once he got there he saw that it was actually two cypresses, but no matter. They don’t show up in all of his paintings of the view, just as a lot of particulars are left out of the various versions, but they do show up in the two I’ve identified (in addition to the preliminary sketch). And I believe these are the cypresses that famously dominate the foreground of The Starry Night. 

My theory is that while the fifteen iconic versions of the view are all basically panoramic views, for The Starry Night Vincent telescoped the view to focus on the cypresses on the distant hill. From the earliest days of his painting career, Vincent relied on a perspective frame whose construction he had specially commissioned from a carpenter in The Hague (he had a couple of them made). The use of such a technical implement runs contrary to our perception of Vincent as an expressionist artist, but the fact of the matter is that Vincent was not a very good freehand draftsman. This is one of the reasons he was always pining for models. And it’s one of the reasons that he bristled at painting “abstractions.” He needed to have something in front of him to draw or paint. And he made extensive use of the perspective frame to paint his landscapes. He probably didn’t have the perspective frame with him in the asylum, but the window itself would have served the purpose. After all, a window is essentially what a perspective frame is, an analogy that goes all the way back to the invention of linear perspective in the fifteenth century by Brunelleschi, as chronicled by Alberti in his seminal On Painting. All Vincent would have had to do was stand back in his bedroom in order to telescope the view of the cypresses on the hill, not to mention the bright morning star, Venus. 

But Pickvance doesn’t mention Venus, beyond quoting Vincent’s now famous statement to Theo about seeing the morning star, “which looked very big.” Maybe it’s the post-Enlightenment separation of the so-called “fine arts” from all other arts and sciences that accounts for Pickvance’s failure to recognize Venus as an integral part of The Starry Night. Arty people are not supposed to know anything about science, and Pickvance allowed Vincent’s mention of Venus and his inclusion of it in this painting to fly right past him. (Albert Boime, longtime UCLA art historian, did not. He and Harvard astrophysicist Charles A. Whitney, working independently, have conclusively established that Venus was visible from Vincent’s bedroom window that Summer.) Venus is one of the key indicators that The Starry Night, so often characterized as a product of Vincent’s imagination, is in fact a fairly literal depiction of the view from his cell in the asylum. 

I say “fairly literal” because there are definitely some imaginary elements in the painting. First and foremost among them is the village, which everyone agrees is made-up. (Pickvance argues that the church in the picture is in more of a Dutch style than Provençal, but this is immaterial, since, Dutch or Provençal, it’s imaginary anyway.) And, except for Venus, the positions of the stars (and the phase of the moon) are imaginary. Vincent painted the picture during the day in his ground-floor studio. He would have known where Venus was, but otherwise there were no distinctive constellations visible in that part of the sky on those mornings, so he just randomly filled the sky with stars. The moon was waxing gibbous when he painted The Starry Night, meaning it would have been visible in the east in the early evening, not in the early morning. So for compositional effect, Vincent just put a stylized crescent moon in the upper right-hand corner. At least he got the orientation right if the moon had been there, something that cannot be said of his inclusion of a crescent moon in some of the cypress paintings. The swirls in the sky represent the mistral, and the whitish-blue brushstrokes just above the horizon line represent the first light of morning.

So the score is tied at 2. There are two imaginary features: the village and (collectively) the stars and moon. And there are two features that are definitely not made-up: Venus and the slope of the Alpilles mountains. The tiebreaker hinges, literally, on the cypresses.

There is actually one more element in The Starry Night that comes from the view. In the foreground of the imaginary village is “anteroom.” This is one of the few buildings of the imaginary village that is depicted boldly and large. My theory is that Vincent painted it first as an established element of the telescoped view, and then decided for whatever reason to surround it with imaginary buildings. 

It’s fun to crop the upper left-hand area of the Indianapolis painting of the view, to create a miniature version of The Starry Night (albeit during the daytime). I’ll admit that Vincent moved the cypresses forward in The Starry Night, but I’ll chalk this up to artistic license and stand by my theory.