| OCR Text |
Show PAINTING IV » REALITY: Did Utah's Early Painters Show Things the Way They Really Were? by R o b e r t S. O l p i n a n d R o g e r R o p er 'istorians are always scrounging for sources to .help them interpret the past. Actual images-old paintings and photographs-are especially valued for the windows they open to the way things were. But how much can they be trusted? Most photographs are quite reliable for their historical accuracy (at least until digital photography came along), but paintings are not as dependable. How much license did artists exercise in the name of art? How accurate were their depictions of overall scenes and the finer details? Should someone who is restoring a building depicted in a period painting trust its colors, architectural details, and setting? What do the omissions and embellishments of the artwork tell us about the built environment, the cultural landscape, and the overall history of nineteenth-century Utah? Most artists today would readily admit to modifying on canvas the scene before them for the sake of better composition, lighting, color, emphasis, and so forth. And that's not a confession, which implies wrongdoing, but simply an acknowledgement that art involves interpretation. After all, most art is not intended to be documentary. The images that follow illustrate some of the issues that should be considered when using paintings as historical documents. These works are all by Utah artists from the nineteenth century. For many of the paintings, matching contemporary photographs provide a comparison. It is tempting to conclude that the photographs are more "accurate" than the paintings. And they probably are in small ways. But perhaps the paintings convey a more authentic emotion, a more accurate feeling for the overall scene. At the very least they portray one person's view of the past, a person who was actually there. 54 U T A H P R E S E R V A T I ON W.W. Major. Parowan Settlement, c.1850, oil on board, 11 x 18". Copyright by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. Courtesy of Museum of Church History and Art. Used by Permission. |hese two paintings are both by William W. Major (1804-1854). Born in Bristol, England, Major was a self-trained or minimally schooled painter when he converted to the LDS Church in London in 1842. After relocating with the church from Nauvoo, Illinois, to the Utah Territory, Major spent five years headquartered in Great Salt Lake City painting provincial images and making visits to various spots in the surrounding area. He painted both landscapes and portraits of other settlers as well as of various leaders among the indigenous tribes. He was, without doubt, the first significant Mormon painter. Major began this formal portrait of Brigham Young and his family in 1845 in Nauvoo but did not finish it until 1851 in Salt Lake City. Young was the most important figure in Mormondom at the time, having succeeded Joseph Smith as church leader following Smith's death in 1844 and attaining the position of territorial governor after relocating the church to Utah. Though Nauvoo's importance and prosperity continued for a time under Young's leadership, Major presented something grander yet. This painting, a type once termed a portrait d'apparat or "portrait in the setting of his daily life," is really presented in a rather fantastical setting. The painting depicts a grandeur that never existed in either Illinois or Utah, but this aristocratic setting expressed a hoped-for calm, prosperity, and well-being in both Nauvoo and then Great Salt Lake City. It also reflects the dignity and respect afforded Utah's first family. The use of elaborate backdrops for portraiture would continue under the new medium of photography in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The second painting depicts the fledgling settlement of Parowan, the "mother colony" of all southern Utah settlements. Major completed the painting c.1850, the same year the town was founded. His view of the place is among the earliest known surviving Utah landscape paintings. It was very likely painted on site and, as opposed to the Brigham Young family portrait, was intended to be more real than ideal in any way. Though at first glance the painting seems rather simple, Major did William W. Major. Brigham and Mary Ann Angell Young and Their Children, 1845-51, oil on board, 25 x 33". Copyright by Intellectual Reserve, Inc. Courtesy of Museum of Church History and Art. Used by Permission. not skimp on detail, depicting the "Greek cross" form of the hewn-log fort and sprinkling the foreground with animal and plant life, which help create points of interest. The eye is then carried toward the settlement by a band of trees marking Center Creek, which diagonally enters the composition from the right and ultimately points with considerable exactitude toward "little Salt Lake" and the mountains beyond. In other words, Major apparently painted what he saw in this instance. His choice of this perspective, however, speaks to another level of reality. By showing the settlement from a distance, set forlornly in the vast, untamed landscape, Major may have been trying to portray the feeling of this vanguard settlement. Had he chosen to paint a close-up view of the fort, we may have gained more details about the architecture and physical conditions therein, but we would have missed both the sense of frailty and the orderly determination that this view of the remote outpost evokes. U T A H P R E S E R V A T I ON George M. Ottinger. Theatre G.S.L. City, N.W. Corner, First South and First East Street, August 1862, oil on canvas, 11 3/4 x 18". Courtesy of Springville Museum of Art. Charles R. Savage. The Mormon Theatre taken before completion, December 1865, Carte-de-visite. Courtesy LDS Church Archives. rchitectural landmarks, such as the 1861-62 Salt Lake Theatre shown here, were common subjects of early paintings and phonographs. Major buildings represented progress and accomplishment, and the urge to record their images proved virtually irresistible to" both painters and photographers. These images usually have more of a documentary than an "artistic" tone, but still the artists couldn't resist interpreting the scene in subtle ways. This remarkable Greek Revival-style theatre is seen here in what would seem to be a very accurate view by pioneer painter George M. Ottinger (1833-1917). Born in Springfield, Pennsylvania, Ottinger arrived in Utah with his mother in 1861 as a handcart pioneer. He later joined in a partnership with photographer Charles R. Savage (1832-1909). Ottinger not only tinted Savage's photographic images but also painted his own views of Utah's people and places. In his 1862 canvas of the new theatre, the structure's surroundings and facade are clearly and simply presented parallel to the picture plane. The same Salt Lake Theatre facade is here seen in an 1865 photograph by Savage. The main difference between the two images is in the immediate sur-roundings- the rough board fence and the unsightly scaffolding in the photograph are conspicuously absent in the painting. The scaffolding was almost certainly up when Ottinger created his painting (other photographs from the period reinforce this assumption), but he apparently chose to "clean up" the scene to present a more finished and artistically appealing image. The nattily dressed gentleman in the foreground of the painting reinforces that image of elegance and urbanity that the artist felt was appropriate to this fine structure. That the theatre had scaffolding around it for several years, and even after it opened, is not surprising. Most construction projects of this scale in pioneer Utah suffered delays due to competing priorities and shortages of both materials and skilled labor. The Salt Lake LDS Temple, for example, took 40 years to complete. While Ottinger's painting conveys the image of a finished architectural masterpiece, the reality was that the structure was a "work in progress" for several years. But in a way, both images are correct: A structure of this quality was indeed a remarkable achievement for the time, even if, technically, it took a while to finish. 56 U T A H P R E S E R V A T I ON [his series of images depicts the elegance of Brigham 'Young's "front yard"-the South Temple facades of his Lion and Beehive houscs-and the rustic reality of his backyard. All date from 1865 to about 1872. They also show the house across the street (foreground), which belonged first to Ezra T. Benson and then to Daniel H. Wells. Both the painting and the photograph of South Temple show this street for what it was: the most elegant of Utah boulevards at the time. The stately architecture and the promenade of street trees are indeed impressive. The painting makes them even more so. The loose rocks and worn dirt path on the sidewalk and the rubble of gutter construction shown in the photo convey a more untidy realism than the painting shows. Of course, by the time the painting was made, 1870-1872, the gutter construction shown in the c.1865 photo was probably complete, so the artist may not have had to paint it out of the scene to create the desired effect. The people depicted in both scenes-genteel couples in the painting and a workman in the photograph- reinforce that subtle contrast. From an architectural standpoint, a roof was added over the second-story porch of Daniel Wells' home between 1865 and 1870. It seems that there would be nothing to gain from an artistic standpoint by altering this detail; therefore, the change is probably historically accurate. Porches tend to be the most changeable feature on houses, often remaining an unbuilt luxury for years, or, once built, modified every few decades as they weathered or to suit changing architectural trends. Wells' house itself reinforces assumptions made by Utah architectural historians. Double-pile houses such as this-ones that are two rooms deep, as indicated by both the width of the house and the paired chimneys-were usually built for more prominent members of the community, those who could afford houses of that scale. In contrast with the South Temple images is the view of "Brigham Young's Backyard," the first of several versions painted by Danquart Anthon Weggeland (1827-1918), a Norwegian convert who arrived in the Salt Lake Valley in October of 1862. The view looks southward down State Street from North Temple Street across City Creek (in the foreground) and finally toward the "Point of the Mountain" in the far distance. The large multi-windowed structure to the right is Brigham Young's barn, and beyond it is the Beehive House, just to the right of Eagle Gate (an 1859-60 addition to the property). The gate spans State Street as the entrance to the place, while the Eighteenth Ward Schoolhouse (or the Young Family School) was the steepled "frontier Georgian" structure to the left of the gate. Dan Weggeland's painting provides a rare glimpse behind the imposing facades of the Beehive and Lion houses and the guardian Eagle Gate. It not only shows the "working" elements of Young's estate, but it also gives us a glimpse of pioneer life behind the grid of orderly blocks and straight streets as shown in the other images. The curving streambed dominates the scene, both literally and figuratively. Back here, Nature has not yet been fully subjugated, and the artist makes no attempt to convince us otherwise. Not only is the streambed untamed; the barn shows signs of weathering, the fencing is imperfect, and the barnyard itself looks a bit unkempt, just as a real barnyard would be. Weggeland seems content to show an image that is less than perfect, and because of that the details seem more believable than those in a more idealized painting. Marsena Cannon. Across Brigham Street northeast to Brigham Young's Estate, c.1865, daguerreotype. Courtesy of LDS Church Historical Department. Anonymous. A View of Brigham Street, Great Salt Lake City, Utah, 1870-1872, oil on [unknown]. Courtesy of LDS Church Historical Department. Danquart A. Weggeland. Worth State Street, 1868, oil on board. Courtesy of Utah Arts Council. U T A H P R E S E R V A T I ON Dan Weggeland. Ontario Mill, Park City, 1877, oil on paper, 16 x 30". Courtesy of Springville Museum of Art *t is safe to say that Nature has inspired far more artists than have mining landscapes. Yet artist Dan Weggeland found in the gritty mining industry a subject worthy of fine .art. One might expect that in 1877, when Weggeland painted this view of the massive Ontario Mill, a painting such as this would be a celebration of Man's domination of Nature. This was, after all, a new territory just beginning to yield its riches of natural resources. And indeed the painting shows the mill as an impressive edifice, an architectural testament of the lucrative Park City mining district. Yet the painting also does a credible job of showing the environmental degradation and the shanty-and-mud living conditions of a mining camp, which is all Park City was at the time (the town was not incorporated until 1884). Weggeland may have added more trees on the horizon and in the foreground than were really there in order to balance the painting and create the forms and visual interest that an artist would tend to favor. But overall, as confirmed in the c.1885 photograph, he was remarkably faithful to the scene. As both a teacher and artist, Weggeland (like Ottinger, who was the first art department chair at the University of Deseret by 1888), had a great influence on younger Utah painters, which lasted for much of the rest of the nineteenth century. The quality of Weggeland's work with oils eventually declined in the late 1880s. Before that, most of his painted work was created for the LDS Church or specific Mormon leaders. On the other hand, privately commissioned paintings such as this one and his c. 1879 Bennion Farm piece not only form a high-quality body of work, but are also very real views of their subjects. Indeed, there were to be others whose influence as pioneer painters would be felt, but just as the decade of the 1860s had begun, C.R. Savage, G.M. Ottinger, and Dan Weggeland developed the beginnings of a regional artistic school based on "the real." But beyond them Utah art would evolve in more romantic directions involving a certain increased "artistic license" taken by younger painters in their works as time went on. C.R. Savage. Ontario Mines, Parley's Park, Utah, c.1885, albumen print Courtesy of the Utah State Historical Society. 58 UTAH P R E S E R V A T I ON amuel Bennion (1818-1889) was in the second pioneer company to arrive in the Salt Lake Valley in September 1847. In England he had been a successful baker. In Utah he also prospered, as a merchant, mill owner, sheep- and cattleman, postmaster, first bishop of West Jordan, and a county commissioner (selectman) as well. It is believed that the painter Weggeland was commissioned by Sam Bennion to do this work in the late 1870s. The Bennion Farm (now demolished) was located behind 5051 South 1130 West in Taylorsville. The house was completed on the 3rd of April 1863, and the wrap-around porch was added later. Legend has it that a trap door beneath the kitchen stove was used to hide Mormon prophet John Taylor during the federal polygamy raids of the 1880s. In the distance can be seen the Jordan River and the lofty Wasatch Mountains. Though speculative birds-eye-view perspectives were used for effect in some paintings and illustrations in the nineteenth century, the flattering elevated view of the Bennion Farm is legitimate; the farm was set below the bluffs bordering the Jordan River plain. The image oozes good fortune and prosperity. The sunlit house sits amid shade trees at the terminus of a lengthy drive, which is flanked by a fruit-laden orchard and lush pastures on one side and a bountiful barnyard on the other. Hay bulges from the barn and overflows to adjacent haystacks. The corral is filled with a variety of livestock-milk cows, cattle, sheep, etc. And off in the distance a train, perhaps the most potent symbol of industrial progress at the time, just happens to be passing by. This is no casual portrait of a Utah farmstead. It is a painting packed with messages about both Bennion and the cause of which he was a part. We have no reason to doubt the accuracy of Weggeland's Bennion Farm painting, but it should be viewed as something of a vanity piece, commissioned by the owner, and perhaps as a testimonial to the "desert blossoming as a rose" prophecy held dear by Mormon settlers. Given the overall intent of the painting, it is no wonder that there wouldn't be anything ramshackle or amiss to tarnish that message. However, the details of the farmstead and its buildings are not necessarily fabrications or embellishments. In fact, this painting is considered one of the most accurate works of its kind, especially given that historical and topographical views of early pioneer establishments are actually quite rare in Utah art. Dan Weggeland. Bishop Samuel Bennion Farm, Taylorsville, c.1879, oil on canvas mounted, 21 x 31 1/8". Courtesy of Springville Museum of Art. U T A H P R E S E R V A T I ON 59 lfred Lambourne's 1880 painting of the Hampton Station in Box Elder County is remarkably faithful to a -c.1867 photograph, but then that is to be expected since he painted the scene from the photograph rather than on location. This painting was commissioned by Adelaide Hampton, who, along with her husband Benjamin, built and operated the hotel and toll bridge. Though the venture was a "money pit" for them, Mrs. Hampton must have felt some affection for the place in order to commission the painting. The Hamptons later did very well in mining. An Englishman, Alfred Lambourne (1850-1926) began painting scenery for the Salt Lake Theatre soon after his arrival to the city in 1866. He received some technical instruction from his fellow scenic artists, but he was, for the most part, self-trained as an easel painter (beginning in 1869). Later called "the Utah master of dawn, twilight and moonlight," Lambourne first developed an early- and mid-career technique that was a thin linear and "colored-in" manner more in keeping with the work of the original pioneer artists. Even so, by the time he was thirty, when he completed this painting, he was equal in technical skill to any landscape painter in Utah. Yet, much more than other creations of his from about the same time, Lambourne's Bear River 'Hampton' Station actually offers an authentic view of an 1860s outpost of civilization on the Utah frontier. There are only three variations of note between the two images. First is the omission, perhaps for the sake of artistic and social delicacy, of the outhouse located to the left of the house in the photograph. This is no small issue with historical archaeologists, however, who often rely on the subtle historical clues gleaned from refuse and "small things forgotten" that ended up in outhouse pits to help interpret the past. The photograph gives them a clear idea of where to dig; the painting leaves them without a clue. The second variation is the inclusion in the painting of laundry hanging out to dry. Perhaps Mrs. Hampton insisted on this detail to document a chore she oversaw. It's a realistic touch that reminds us of the realities of daily housekeeping- something that neither paintings nor photographs usually convey. The omission of the prominent "Bear River Hotel" and "Wells Fargo & Co." signs on the house can perhaps be attributed to either Mrs. Hampton or artist Lambourne, who may have felt that they detracted from the purity of the scene. These signs are meaningful to historians in at least a couple of ways. First, the hotel sign confirms that this was a commercial enterprise and not just a family home. This toll bridge was a much-traveled crossing-and the only bridge for a number of years-over the Bear River for those traveling north, particularly to the rich mines of Montana. The bridge and hotel were clearly business ventures, at least according to the photographs. The Wells Fargo sign reinforces the reality that companies of regional and national scope infiltrated out-of-the-way corners of the seemingly remote, pre-railroad Utah Territory. Corporate interests-whether fur-trapping, mining, railroading, livestock raising, or freighting-had more to do with taming the Old West than the tradition of rugged individualism has led us to believe. Even if artists did take liberties with their paintings, their works may be no more flawed than other historical documents: Oral histories are really just selective recollections, diaries are filtered recordings of events, and written histories inevitably carry the biases of their authors. Paintings are, above all, works of art, aesthetic accomplishments that can be enjoyed regardless of their historical contributions. And who knows, the artist may have perceived an essence of that period and scene that more traditional historical documents simply cannot convey. • ROBERT S. OLPIN HAS BEEN ON THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH'S ART AND ART HISTORY FACULTY SINCE 1967, SERVING AS DEAN OF THE COLLEGE OF FINE ARTS, DEPARTMENT CHAIR, AND ART HISTORY PROGRAM DIRECTOR. HE IS COAUTHOR OF UTAH ART, UTAH PAINTING AND SCULPTURE, AND ARTISTS OF UTAH. ROGER ROPER IS THE HISTORIC PERSERVATION COORDINATOR FOR THE UTAH STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE AND EDITOR OF UTAH PRESERVATION MAGAZINE. Alfred E. Lambourne. Bear River 'Hampton' Station, Utah, 1880. oil on canvas. 20 x 30". Courtesy of Springville Museum of Art. 60 UTAH P R E S E R V A T I ON ARE WE PLANTING ENOUGH TREES IN OUR CITIES? 7reeJ not only improve our quality of air but our quality oj lije as well. To find out how you can help us plant more of them in oui cities and towns, call us at (8oi) 364 2122- TreeUtah |
