Panama Canal: corruption or poor science?

Europeans dreamed of a Central American canal for ages; even Pres. Ulysses Grant sent 7 feasibility expeditions. As tra­v­­el and trade in the Western hemisphere increased, a canal became essential. To sail from the At­l­­an­tic to Pacific, ships went around treacherous Cape Horn taking c21,000 ks (New York-San Francisco)

The isthmus separating Gulf of Panama

from the Caribbean Sea

     

In Feb 1881, driven by patriotism and capitalised by mainly small in­vestors, the Panama Company began work on a canal that would cross the Col­ombian isthmus of Panama and unite the Atlantic & Pacific Oceans. This can­al would make its stockholders rich, just as the Suez did for its investors. Ferdinand de Lesseps (1805-94) showed the tiny cross-Panama rail­way had made $7+ million in 6 years although building that rail­road HAD cost 6,000+ lives.

Even though he had little financial expertise, De Lesseps handled prom­oting and money-raising for the canal project. His enthusiasm for the pro­ject, and his faith in technology, att­racted many stockholders. Frenchmen keenly invested because public loans were backed by the French gov­ernment, thus a patriotic public service.  

French share certificates

signed by de Lesseps

When work started in 1881, digging progressed slowly but st­ead­ily. The French contr­ol­led modern equipment, from locom­ot­ives to tug­boats & dredges, while their crew was made mostly of West Indian & Indian lab­ourers. De Lesseps, who’d visited Pa­nama only in the dry season, disregarded the rain warnings of men who knew Pa­nama in­tim­ately. Now his crew discovered imp­as­sable jungle, tor­r­ential rain, ins­ects, sn­akes, swamps, hell­ish heat and smallpox. In 1881 the Fr­ench recorded 60 deaths from disease. In 1882 deaths doub­led. In 1883 420 died mainly from malaria and yellow fever, but the Co. of­ten fired sick labourers to reduce medical costs. Doctors at the French hos­p­ital at An­con worked hard but 3 out of 4 men hospitalised there died.

Ch­agres River crossed the canal route 14 times! De Lesseps' decid­ed to dam and divert the river, ignoring eng­in­eers’ advice re the impossible task. But in the rainy season, this River rose to a monst­rous torrent that swept everything aw­ay. Chest deep in mud, the Fr­en­­ch force contin­ued. The rain and Chag­res often de­st­royed what en­g­ineering and hard labour won; mudslides buried men, sup­p­lies, mach­ines.

In 1887 Gustave Eiffel agreed to build Panama Canal's locks. This was his biggest contract AND the riskiest. So he was gr­ant­ed major financial advantages and solid guarantees, all­owing him to collect his profit as soon as the work began.

When the Canal Co failed in Dec 1888, French investments were lost and Panama meant fraud; c$287 m had been sp­ent, 50 million cubic ms of rock were moved, 11 miles of canal dug & 20,000 men killed. The money end­­ed and shareholders voted to dis­s­ol­ve the Co, placing it in legal re­ceiv­er­ship.

The wor­th­less Canal Co. stock made investors fur­ious, demanding the Fr­en­ch government conduct an 1893 Inquiry which named many individuals and in­stitutions. The br­ibes, slush funds and in­fl­uence ped­dling also pr­oved that many legis­l­ators were involved!! Key fin­an­ciers Baron de Reinach and Cornelius Herz allegedly gave bribes to targets. The public claimed that the VERY REA­SON for their con­fid­en­ce, government back­ing of loans, was the key factor in the crisis. And although some culprits were impr­is­oned or fined, de Rein­ach died before he was sen­tenced. Ferdinand & Charles de Lesseps, and Gust­ave Ei­f­fel, were sentenced to (non-enforced) prison terms. Herz fled to Eng­land. Eventually the burden was born ONLY the c800,000 French citizens who saw their investments eliminated.

So President Roosevelt took up the cause. In 1901, Roos­evelt passionately spoke of the Panama Canal to Congr­ess. In 1902 the U.S agreed to buy rights to the French canal property and equipment for c$40 mill and U.S Dept of War began negotiating a Panama treaty with Colombia.

When Colombia slowed negotiations, Roosevelt & Panam­an­ian bus­iness int­er­ests collaborated on a revolution las­ting br­ief­ly. Colombian soldiers in Colón were each brib­ed $50 to down arms; USS Nashville cruised off the Panaman­ian coast in supp­ort. In Nov 1903, the nation of Panama was born.

The U.S took control. Americans had written the Pan­amanian Constit­ut­ion in advance, after a payment of $10 million se­cured a canal zone and rights to build. The pro-canal lobbyist Phil­lipe Bunau-Varilla, instal­l­ed as Pan­amanian minister to the U.S., signed a treaty favourable to US in­t­erests. The $40 million given to J.P Morgan for distribution to French stockholders faded amid rumours of larceny.

The Americans' first year in Panama (1904) replicated the French disast­er. The chief engineer, John F Wallace, developed no action plan; the food was putrid and living conditions abysmal. Disease struck, 3 out of 4 Am­ericans went home, and Wallace soon followed. The Americans had poured $128 useless millions into the swamps of Panama.

Clever John Stevens took over, he who’d built the Great Nor­thern Railroad across the Pacific NW. He ultimately saved the troubled canal with a new plan i.e a well-housed, well-fed, disease-free labour force. Dr William Gorgas, who’d earlier eradicated yellow fever in Havana by killing mosq­uitoes & sanit­ation. Workers drained swamps, swept ditches, pav­ed roads, instal­led plumbing and sp­rayed pesticides. Towns rose with housing, schools, churches, shops and halls.

Pres. Roosevelt visiting the Canal

1906, PBS

After 9 months of Capitol Hill lob­bying, the push for Roosevelt’s fav­oured Lake and Lock Canal succeed­ed and the canal's engineering was ch­ang­ed. Stevens planned to dam the Chagres to create the vast Gat­un Lake in Panama's interior where a series of locks could raise ships from the Atl­antic side to the level of the lake. The boats could cross the lake, then de­scend by another set of locks to the Pacific. This plan was near­ly iden­tical to one proposed by French engineer Godin de Lépinay in 1879 when M de Lesseps promoted his sea-level plan. With sanitat­ion complete, gig­an­tic steam shovels scooped tons of earth, and railroad cars ran on double tracks, dumping tailings on the Chagres dam.

By Dec 1905 yellow fever had been eradicated. In Nov 1906 Roosevelt happily visited the canal. In Feb 1907, Chief Engineer Stevens resigned and Col. George Goethals, an Army engin­eer who built lock-type canals, quickly took over.

First ships ready to test the Canal, 1913

At Gatun Locks on the Atlantic side, workers poured concrete for a wall 8' wide, 12' high and 133 miles long. They built cul­v­erts/rail­­road tunnels to channel water from Gatun Lake into the locks. Pitt­sburgh's furnaces roared as 50+ mills, foundries and mac­hine shops chur­ned out the metalwork. There were lost equip­ment and deaths, but progress!

In May 1913, steam shovels broke through the Culebra Cut and the last cement was poured at Gatun locks. The Chagres filled Gatun Lake, and en­g­ineers prepared for the canal's first trial run in Sept. The  end was near! The Panama Canal opened officially on Aug 1914. Sadly just as German troops were driving across Belgium to Paris.

A cruise ship sails down the completed Canal

Many thanks to PBS 

Heysen art, new Museum, The Cedars

The original house, now called The Cedars in Hahndorf, was built in the late 1870s by Alfred Wheelwright, then he sold the property to a North Adelaide gent and onto other moneyed families. Lastly the house and its 36 acres were sold to artist Hans Heysen (1877-1968) in 1912. Hans, his wife and eight children lived in the house, the original studios of both Hans and daughter Nora Heysen. Hans’ studio was finished in 1913, designed by Adelaide architect Albert Conrad and was a unique example of C19th German Arts and Crafts influence 

   The Cedars house and gardens, Hahndorf

I have examined Hans and Nora’s art works a number of times in this blog eg bushland images and war paintings. But I have never seen their house or studios, and have never included any photos of the architecture and gardens in my posts. Clearly it is one of Adelaide’s best preserved historic homes. The famous chalet style studio has recently been identified as the Nation’s oldest surviving purpose-built artist’s studio while the homestead has a charm that speaks of a bygone era's style. The house and studios have carefully retained their original furniture, collections and artwork of the Heysen family. Many of the two artists’ works were displayed in the original home at the top of the garden. Now c200 original works are on display in changing exhibitions in the studios and the house.

Entrance Hall

Original furniture in the original dining room

  

Hans' studio

12 years in the making, Hahndorf’s anticipated $9 million Heysen Gallery at The Cedars opened in July 2026. We already know that the rolling Adelaide Hills landscape inspired some of Australia’s most iconic artworks, so the gallery featured its inaugural exhibition called Heysen: A Shared Legacy. The Gallery is clearly located on one of SA’s most significant heritage sites, sitting alongside the historic home and studios of landscape painter Sir Hans Heysen & daughter Nora. Note she was the first Australian woman to win the Archibald Prize and was Australia’s first credited female war artist. This will be the first time in Sth Australia that there a father and daughter team have been displayed in any gallery, said Chair of Heysen Heritage Foundation. And although it took years to make it a reality, the first idea for the gallery dated much further back. Hans discussed with his family the desire to have a gallery at The Cedars, describing his vision as a place of observation and education.

When Hans died in 1968, son David continued those plans with his grandson, Peter Heysen. Now 60 years later that vision has come to life, exactly where Hans himself originally saw it. Designed by Hahndorf-based Fore Design, the gallery is connected by walking paths connecting the two original art studios and the surrounding bushland.

He emigrated from Germany as a child, an erly European artist to capture the distinct light and character of the Australian outback. A committed conservationist ahead of his time, he spent much of his life fighting land clearing and quietly purchasing and protecting native trees, incl much of the land surrounding The Cedars. That legacy has shaped the Gallery’s design, which prioritises sustainability, natural light, timber tones and a low-impact footprint that sits within the environment, not competing with it. Go Hans!!

Heysen Gallery at The Cedars, opened 2026

facebook

Inside the  exhibition, Heysen: A Shared Legacy brings together 120+ works by Hans and Nora, many of them rarely publicly displayed before or have been lent. A lot of these paintings may never have been seen before, including very rare ones. There’s a one that the famous ballerina Anna Pavlova wanted to buy, Zinnias and Autumn Fruit. Hans had already given it to his wife, so he said he would paint Pavlova another one. He DID paint another and sent it off to London, but Anna rejected it. The gallery has both those two paintings, plus the letter of rejection. 

Visitors are able to walk through the original house, studios and surrounding site, including guided artist walks that map the exact vantage points where Heysen painted some of his most recognisable works. It’s a rare Australian experience. So see Heysen Gallery in The Cedars, which itself has been a hidden gem for a long time. Thank you Helena Snelling.

 

Eastbourne UK bandstand and pleasure pier

entertainment facilities on Eastbourne Pier

Like other coastal towns, Eastbourne began to grow rapidly as the medicinal and leisure benefits of sea air and sea bathing became well known. Locals scrambled to provide a wide variety of facilities and amusements for the thousands who flocked to Eastbourne each summer. My favourite would have been Devonshire Park which was first designed in 1874 with terraces, walks and a cricket ground. As the money flowed in, the owners added tennis courts and a roller skating rink. Very sensibly they located Devonshire Park next to the baths, the Winter Gardens and the Theatre. 

In this post, I am interested in publicly funded facilities. There were many pleasure piers built around the coastal resort towns of Britain, and then in other countries. The earliest was probably Ryde’s on the Isle of Wight (1813) although the majority did not start until the late C19th. Early pleasure piers were made of wood; iron structures only became more popular with the construction in 1855 of Margate Jetty. The National Piers Society suggests that only 55 seaside piers survive today in England and Wales, the oldest extant iron pier being in Southport (1860).

Eastbourne's pier was designed by Eugenius Birch in 1865 and built by the Eastbourne Pier Company for £15,000. Originally a landing stage for steamers, it soon became a "pleasure pier" because it enabled the gentry to walk over the water and to participate in the social life there.

Spouse and I loved the pier when we first lived in Britain. But decades later it was starting to look just a little bit old fashioned. The only innovation that I remember was The Victorian Tea Rooms which  specialised in Sussex Cream Tea and attractive table settings.

Agatha Christie's story, The Jewel Robbery at the Grand Metropolitan, was set in Brighton but partially filmed in Eastbourne. Just as well the film was finished in 1993. Firstly the owners put Eastbourne Pier up for sale in 2009; included were Victorian tea rooms, an amusement arcade, bars and a nightclub. Secondly Eastbourne Pier experienced a fire in July 2014 that burned through a large amount of the central domed building. The two-thirds of the 305-metre pier that were not destroyed ...were quickly reopened.

Even more popular than pleasure piers, re leisure time activities, were the bandstands built in the UK, Australia and other countries in the world. Presumably they too resulted from changing social life in late Victorian & Edwardian years.

Normally bandstands were built in the centre of a public park, surrounded by lawns & gardens where families strolled or sat on portable chairs. The old practice of military bands marching through built up areas in town, surrounded by scruffy children and hangers-on, was no longer acceptable.

Each coastal town sought to unify the pleasure activities in the centre of the town’s beach area. Many towns liked to choose from amusement arcades, theatres, restaurants, tea rooms, striped deck chairs, slot machines, lunar park rides, fishing sites, fairground stalls and walking areas. What was less common was a bandstand being located right next to a beach, very close to that coastal town’s pleasure pier.

Eastbourne bandstand, pleasure pier and beach

This East Sussex town had its bandstand by 1893, standing on cast iron stilts right on the seafront. Decades later, as a part of the town’s plan to improve its resort facilities, a newer Eastbourne Band stand went up. The 2nd bandstand, built in 1935, had a rather special semi-circular design, Orientalist blue domed roof and silver finial. Still today, see its main arena with middle and upper balconies seating 3,500 people.

Ten thousand people attended the three concerts given in that special summer of 1935.

For many years Eastbourne bandstand ran a daily programme of military bands, at least until the end of each summer season. But new audiences don’t necessarily love what their grandparents loved. So in 2010, the 75th anniversary of the new bandstand, big band nights, rock 'n' roll and Last Night of the Proms were added to the programme. The concert music ended triumphantly with Tchaikovsky’s 1812 overture, accompanied by a spectacular firework display.

Clearly the organisers are making the programme more relevant for modern audiences and the bandstand is having a new lease on life. Some 150 concerts are now held per year in Eastbourne (pop 90,000).

Eastbourne bandstand and concert

One last thought that I have raised before - a connection between bandstands and the Titanic. See a commemorative plaque at the rear of the original Eastbourne bandstand, in memory of a local  bands-man who was playing on the Titanic when it sank in April 1912. That plaque was transferred to the newer, 1935 bandstand.

Grand Hotel, Eastbourne

I hope you enjoy Eastbourne History Tour by Kevin Gordon, Amberley Publishing, 2019.

Triangle Shirt Fact­ory NY fire tragedy 1911.

Shirtwaist designs, The Modern Priscilla Needlework Magazine, 1906

5 Minute History

Russians Max Blanck and Isaac Harris immigrated to the U.S in the early 1890s and, like hundreds of thousands of other impoverish­ed Jew­ish im­migrants, they began working in the garment industry in sweat­shops. Har­ris became familiar with popular fashion designs while Blanck became a garment contractor. They made a partner­ship, founding the Triangle Waist Co in 1900. In time, The Triangle Shirt­waist Fact­ory was located in the top 3 floors of the Asch Building in Manhattan. They hired 500 work­ers, mostly female Jewish and Italian immigrants, half of them teens. It was a true sweat­shop; the immigrants worked in a cramped space at lines of sewing machines for 12 hours a day. These young women worked 6-7 days a week for tiny wages and little ventilation. The male owners gave male workers the higher-paid jobs, ass­uming women were less skilled.

In 1909, the USA was advancing towards greater mass production and in­creasingly dangerous working conditions. That year the Uprising of 20,000 Strike was organised mainly by Yiddish-speaking garment workers female due to their horrid conditions, long hours and low wages. Their primary motive was to get attention paid to the mist­r­eat­­ment of imm­igrant work­ers. While there were short term agreements to meet their dem­ands, the strike ultimately failed. How­ever it DID succeed some­what in exposing poor working conditions. Progressives and unionists cal­l­ed for different reforms, but Tammany Hall opposed them; the polit­ical machine stalled any legislation that might have benefitted the workers.

Fire danger in factories was common, but corruption in both the industry and city government generally ensured that few useful precautions were taken. The Triangle factory was burned in 1907 and in 1910, the owners appar­ently torching their own work­places before business hours in order to collect on the large fire-insurance policies they purchased, a not unknown practice in the early C20th. While this did not cause the 1911 fire, it contr­ibuted to the tragedy, as Blanck & Harris refused to install sprinkler systems.

Women workers pre-fire

Barbara's Bookstore

 

In 1911 Triangle Shirt­waist Fact­ory had 4 elevators accessing the fact­ory floors, but only one was fully operational and the workers had to go along a narrow corridor to reach it. There were two stairways down to the street, but they were locked from the outside to prevent the workers steal­ing.

The fire escape was so narrow, it would have taken hours for all the workers to use it, even if it had not burned down.

In Mar 1911, there were 600 workers at the Triangle Shirtwaist Fact­ory when a fire began in a material bin. The manager tried using the fire hose to extin­guish it, but the hose was rotted and its valve rust­ed shut. The fire spread and panic ensued. The young workers tried to exit the building by the elevator but it only held 12 people and the operator could only make four trips before it stopped in flames. Young women bec­ame trapped by bulky equipment as flames enveloped the 8th, 9th and 10th floors of the Asch Building. As people struggled to escape, sev­eral fell into the flames, their bodies piling by blocked exits. In a desper­ate at­tempt to escape, the girls still waiting for the elev­ator plunged down the shaft to their deaths. The girls who fled via the stairwells found the locked door at the bottom of the stairs, and were burned alive.

Fire­fighters arrived & saw their lad­ders reached only 7 floors high but the fire was on the 8th floor. So the girls who did not make it to the stairwells or elevator were trapped by the fire inside the fact­ory; they began jumping from the wind­ows to es­cape and died on the conc­rete below. Within 20 mins they found 49 workers burned to death, 36 died in the elevator shaft, 58 died from jumping from the 8th floor and 3 more died in hospital. 146 people were killed altogether.

The International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union had fought for better working con­dit­ions for all sweatshop workers. The union didn’t gain real attention until after the Triangle Waist Co owners were indicted for first degree manslaughter, but were found to be not guilty by the grand jury. To settle lawsuits against them, the owners DID pay $75 in compen­sat­ion to each victim’s family, a frac­t­ion of the $400 per death that they were paid by their insurer.

Nonetheless the tragedy led to the growth of a series of laws and regu­l­ations that better protected work-ers’ safety. The fire unified organised labour and reforming polit­icians like NY Gov Alfred Smith  and Sen Ro­b­­ert Wagner, a le­g­isl­ator in Pres Franklin D Roosevelt’s (1933–45) New Deal  agenda. And the Factory Investig­ating Comm­ission in N.Y was set up af­t­er the fire. The workers union set up a march on 5th Ave NY to prot­est the conditions that had led to the fire, attended by 80,000 people.

The huge death toll for which they were responsible DID finally compel the city to enact reform. The Fire Prevention Law passed, and N.Y Democrats took up the workers’ cause; both were crucial in lim­iting similar disasters in the future.

Desperate women threw themselves down from the 8th storey to death

New York Herald

March 1911

Conclusion 

In this era, progressive movements sought to red­uce the impacts of the deplorable working conditions brought by industr­ial­­is­ation and inequality between rich and poor. The 1911 day became the deadliest indust­rial disas­ter in Manhattan history, when 123 women and 23 men died. Workers, union leaders, progressive reformers and political lead­ers all begged for higher environmental standards fitting for US. The Triangle Factory fire DID help create laws for a better workplace to keep employ­ees safer, but at an unthinkable cost for the immigrant families.

Edgar Degas, impressionist or modernist?

Edgar Degas (1834-1917) was born in Paris, son of banker Augustin De Gas. At 11 Degas enrolled in Lycée Louis-le-Grand, graduating in 1853. He was painting seriously and by 18, his bedroom became an artist's studio. He began making copies in the Louvre, but his father wanted him to study. So Degas enrolled in Law at Paris Uni in Nov 1853 but was bored. In 1855, Degas met Jean Auguste Ingres whom he revered. In Ap that year, Degas enrolled at Ecole des Beaux-Arts, where he studied drawing & flourished. In Jul 1856 Degas moved to Italy for 3 years, copying Renaissance art.

After returning home, Degas continued copying paintings at the Louvre, still remained a keen copyist. He first exhibited at the Salon in 1865, when the jury accepted his painting Scene of War in the Middle Ages, attracting little attention. Although he exhibited annually in the Salon for 4 years, he submitted no more history paintings; his Steeplechase: The Fallen Jockey (1866 Salon) signalled a new commitment to modernity. The change in his art was influenced by Édouard Manet who he met in the Louvre.

Degas, Cotton Office in New Orleans, 

1873, Wiki

`

When the Franco-Prussian War erupted in 1870, Degas enlisted in the National Guard, defending Paris. During rifle training, his eyes were damaged. Post-war Degas enjoyed a long stay (from 1872) in New Orleans LA where his brother René and other relatives lived. One of Degas' New Orleans works, Cotton Exchange at New Orleans, won positive notice in France. Note it was his only work purchased by a museum during his lifetime!

Impressionism emerged in the 1860s, and grew in part from the realism of men like Courbet and Corot. The Impressionists painted the world's realities using notable colours, concentrating mainly on light effects. Degas hurt the Impressionists when he constantly belittled their en plein air art. He was anti-Impressionism, just like the critics who reviewed their shows, saying: What I do is the result of reflection and of the study of the great masters; I know nothing of spontaneity. See his Parisian scenes, off-centre compositions, experiments with colour & form, and friendship with key Impressionists.

Degas returned to Paris in 1873. Alas his father died and in settling the estate, it was found that brother René had amassed huge business debts. To preserve the family name, Degas had to sell his house and a collection of art he’d inherited. He suddenly found himself dependent on his own art sales for income. By now very unhappy with the Salon, Degas joined forces with young artists who were organising an Independent Art Society. Their first Impressionist Exhibitions started in 1874,  and they later held 7 additional shows until 1886.

Degas’ distinct style showed his respect for the old masters and his admiration for Ingres and Eugène Delacroix. And he liked the vigorous realism of popular illustrators. When he became famous for horses and dancers, his treatment of traditional historical subjects became less idealised. Degas already showed the mature style that he would later develop more, by cropping subjects awkwardly and by choosing unusual views. By late 1860s, Degas had shifted from his initial history paintings to contemporary life.

 
The artist organised the shows and displayed his style in all of them, despite conflicting with other group members. He had little in common with Monet & other landscape artists whom he mocked for painting outside. Conservative socially, he disliked the scandal created by the shows, plus the publicity that his colleagues sought. He rejected the name Impressionist that the press popularised, and his insistence on having traditional artists in the shows annoyed the group, disbanding in 1886. As his financial situation improved via selling his own works, he was keen to collect works by old masters eg El Greco, and moderns eg Manet, Pissarro, Cézanne, Gauguin and Van Gogh. Loved artists, Ingres & Delacroix, were well represented.

The Ballet Class, c1875

Wiki

The Dancing Class, 1870s

The French Desk

Degas became isolated, due partly to his belief that an artist could have no personal life. The Dreyfus Affair (1894->) brought his anti-Semitism to the fore and he separated from all his Jewish friends. His interest in portraiture led him to study the ways in which peoples’ social stature and employment type were revealed in their features, posture & dress. In Portraits At the Stock Exchange 1879, he anti-Semitically showed a group of Jewish businessmen. With his athletic dancers and solid laundresses painting, he revealed their occupations by their dress, activities and body type.

His subject matter & his technique changed. The dark palette displaying Dutch art’s influence gave way to colour use and bold brush strokes. Place de la Concorde 1875 “froze” to portray them accurately, seeing movement. The changes to his palette, brushwork & composition displayed the influence that both Impressionism’s & photography’s natural images had.

Jockeys, 1881

all that's good

Race horses, 1884

While visiting a childhood friend in Normandy, Degas made his first studies of horses. Then his treatment of traditional historical subjects became idealised. Degas did racing scenes throughout his career, using his horses and jockeys from one picture to the next. All the figures had been in earlier works and some of the poses were quite distinguished. The prancing mount and rider derived from Benozzo Gozzoli's Journey in the Palazzo Medici-Riccardi Florence, which Degas copied earlier. Yet this picture was unusual for its medium—pastel, colouring the sky and landscape, & giving a warm undertone in front. Race course scenes allowed Degas to depict horses and riders in a modern context.

Laundry Girls Ironing, 1884

WikiArt

When he painted working women eg milliners & laundresses, his treatment of traditional historical subjects became less idealised. Portrait of Mlle Fiocre in Ballet La Source, in the 1868 Salon, was his first major work to introduce his favourite models: dancers. In many later paintings, dancers were shown backstage or rehearsing, focusing on their status as working professionals. Degas also began to paint café life. He urged other artists to paint real life instead of traditional mythological or historical art, and his few literary scenes were modern. By the later 1870s Degas had mastered not only the traditional oils, but also pastels. The dry medium enabled him to reconcile his interest in line and in expressive colour. In the mid-1870s he returned to etching and less traditional printmaking.

These changes in media engendered the paintings that Degas produced in later life. Degas drew and painted women drying themselves with towels, combing their hair and bathing. The backgrounds were simplified.

Except for his skilled draftsmanship and obsession with figures, his later work bore little resemblance to his early era. Ironically the works created after the heyday of the Impressionist movement that most obviously used the colouristic techniques of Impressionism. Certain features of Degas's work remained for life. He always painted indoors, working IN his studio using models. The figure remained his primary subject; his landscapes were produced from memory or imagination. His works were prepared, calculated, practised and developed in stages.

Public reception of Degas' work included both admiration to contempt. As a promising artist in the conventional mode, Degas had a few works accepted in the Salon in the early years. These works received praise from some French critics. But Degas soon joined forces with the Impressionists and rejected the rigid rules, judgements, and elitism of the Salon. The Salon initially rejected the experimentalism of the Impressionists!

Degas' work was controversial, but in time it was admired for its draftsmanship. The nudes Degas exhibited in the 8th Impressionist Exhibition in 1886 produced "the most concentrated body of critical writing on the artist in his lifetime. ... The overall reaction was positive and laudatory." Little Dancer of Fourteen Years was probably his most controversial piece, with some critics said they saw ugliness.

He was a key artist late in life, esp by his great admirer Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec; it was his lively creation of daily activities and his bold colours that urged him into late Impressionism. But his paintings, pastels, drawings & sculptures weren’t intended for exhibition. Degas had no formal pupils, although he did influence painters like Mary Cassatt & Walter Sickert. He was working more, only ceasing his art in 1912. With demolition of his home, he spent the last years of his life, single and nearly blind, wandering Paris streets. Degas died in 1917. His paintings were discovered only after post-death, now prominently displayed in important museums.

Images of death in the Victorian era

The idea of photographing the dead might be seen as morbid today but it made perfect sense to Victorians. Readers might like to find Audrey Linkman's book Photography and Death, published by Reaktion Books in 2011.

Most photographs of a recently deceased person were taken by professionals, and were kept at home in the same way as all other family photographs were kept – mounted on the wall or inserted into family photo albums. But why did they have the deceased photos taken at all? Ordinary Victorian families could not have afforded dozens of photographs. So the post-mortem photograph was often the only image the family would ever have of their loved parent, sibling or child. There was little choice - if families did not record the person’s image just before he/she was buried, how would they properly memorialise their loved one?

A little girl in mourning clothes standing close to her younger, deceased sibling.

Norwich, N.Y.

Photo credit: Etsy

In the examples I've seen, the portraits were posed peacefully. The person may have suffered terrible pain for months or years, but appeared as peaceful as he/she had before the suffering set in. Linkman noted that at least for people who died within a familial context, the picture reminded the family that their loved one was truly at rest.

With high mortality rates in childhood, the photos filled a painful void. They honoured the loved relative and seemed to have been part of the healing process for the survivors.

Postmortem photography of the dead, esp children, was also an obsession for late C19th Americans. Bereaved families wanting to keep a memory of a lost child would have a photo made of the child lying in its coffin. Some of these photos were given to family members and friends, or appeared on memorial cards announcing the child’s death. Or these photos could be on one side of memento mori lockets and brooches, with the other side containing a lock of hair. These lockets were emotional keepsakes post death.

Photography and Death is important as it revealed the significance of images that might make modern families queasy. We may respond with equanimity when the deceased person lay on a bed with the eyes closed, as if asleep. But often the formally dressed body was seated erect on a couch, playing with toys, surrounded by flowers or propped up between live people. Daily Oddities noted that the dead eyes were "open"; this was done either by propping the subject’s eyes open or painting pupils onto the photo-graphic print. And many early images had a rosy tint added to the corpse's cheeks. The book’s strength was that it placed these rather uncomfortable images within the context of changing cultural attitudes towards death and loss.

Mourning locket, 

photo from Carter's

Why did many of these photos look as if they were taken in the family’s front parlour? An interesting aside to the familial context came from mental_floss. The parlour/death room was an important part of funerary rituals for the Victorian era, the place where deceased family members were laid out before the burial. In the Victorian and Edwardian eras, many funerals were still taking place at home until slowly, by WW1, most funerals started to take place in funeral homes. As the professional funeral parlour came into vogue, the home parlour was quickly rebranded a “living room”. A 1910 issue of Ladies Home Journal declared that for Americans at least, the death room would become a term of the past.

For Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders,  WW1 also brought an end to elaborate Victorian-style mourning rituals. The huge numbers of soldiers who died and were buried overseas, as well as the resultant collective grief, made individual displays of mourning at home seem inappropriate.

Linkman acknowledged that for violent deaths, the situation was very different. In Western Europe, young men were clearly sent off to war whenever their nation required it. In Eastern Europe, pogrom massacres were a constant feature of life. I am assuming that families would not have been comforted by images of massacred brothers and sons, even assuming they could retrieve the bodies distant from home.

Millais, portrait of the late Cecil Webb, 

1887, NGV

One last thought about the momentos that provided a kind of therapy and a physical remembrance. Ordinary working families might have relied on a locket containing hair of the deceased or a ring. The National Gallery of Victoria has a portrait of an Australian child who died in 1886, painted by the British artist John Everett Millais in 1887. This beautiful and sombre memorial was presumably painted from a photo, sent to Britain by the grieving parents. It was expensive.

Photos may have made the death images more lifelike, but examine a funerary monument from the mid C18th. The wax head and body of Sarah Hare (1689-1744)  was placed in a mahogany box in Stow Bardolph church, Norfolk. She had instructed her family as follows: "I desire to have my face and hands made in wax with a piece of crimson satin thrown like a garment in a picture, hair upon my head and put in a case of mahogany with a glass before." So it may be assumed that the fabrics were taken from Hare's own clothing and the corset was the one she wore in life.

Although wax memorials like this were rare, it seemed to function for the mid C18th Hare family just as the Victorian death photos did 100+ years later.

Sarah Hare funerary monument, 1744

Hare Chapel, Stow Bardolph Church, Norfolk

Excellent photos can be found in Victorian History,  History and traditions of England,  Daily Oddities, Histatic and Mental Floss. Thank you to William Clements Library.

Latvian shoot-up London 1910-1

Few places in the world were as infamous for murders as the East End of London. Jack the Ripper, The Krays and 1811 Ratcliffe Highway murders were all frightening. But the Latvians threatening London’s East End were UNexpected. They arrived from the Russian Empire against an intense debate about the large numbers of struggling immigrants from Eastern Europe.

Matching the earlier horrors were 2 events in Dec 1910-Jan 1911. Houndsditch is a mainroad running from Bishopsgate to Aldgate High St. Located at 120 Houndsditch was an import business run by Max Weil. In mid Dec 1910 Weil arrived at #120 to find his sister and housemaid in a state of agitation. They heard noises coming from the jeweller’s shop next door, as if someone was breaking at the rear.

Latvian revolutionaries aka Leesma weren't revolutionaries; later research found the c13 members carried out robberies to fund Lenin and his Bolsheviks.

Home Secretary Churchill, watching the Siege close up

Wiki

#119 backed onto a flat at 11 Exchange Buildings. Weil alerted the police of a likely break-in to the Exchange Buildings jewellers. He returned with Constable Piper who knocked on #11’s door. Piper had a brief talk with the man who answered the door and then left to summon help. Fritz Svaars & Josef Sokoloff were from Latvia in the Russian Empire. They’d fled the country after a failed attempt to overthrow the Tsar in 1905. Robbing jewellers was to raise funds for their cause.

Cons. Piper returned with 3 sergeants and 5 constables. Sgt Bentley hit on the door which was answered by the same man who had spoken to Piper. After another brief talk, the man tried to shut the door in Bentley’s face. However the sergeant pushed his way into #11 and chaos erupted. Bentley received two gunshots in the neck. He staggered back through the doorway and died. Standing behind him, Sgt Bryant now saw the gun being turned on him, hitting him in the chest. Constable Woodhams ran to his assistance only to fall to a bullet in the thigh. Both Bryant and Woodhams survived their wounds but were invalided out of the police force. Sgt Tucker was shot in the heart by a man in doorway #11 and died. The killer ran from the building, followed by other men and a woman. As they fled, Cons. Walter Choat jumped out of the darkness at them, grabbing an escapee who fired bullets into his leg. A gang-member came behind Choat and shot 2 bullets in his back. Choat fell.

Murdered police officers, 

London Museum

The gangster who’d been shot by his own cohorts was found dead in his room a day later. George Gardstein had been the de facto leader of the gang of Latvian revolutionaries in Leesma! After Russia’s revolution, one Leesma member Jacob Peters was 2nd in command of Cheka, the feared Bolshevik secret police. Perhaps Latvian Peters had killed Englishmen Bentley, Tucker & Choat, and injured Bryant.

Metropolitan & City Police launched an operation to hunt down the surviving revolutionaries and by that year Peters & others were caught. In Jan 1911 a figure slipped at night into London City’s police headquarters in Old Jewry. Although not officially identified he was perhaps Charles Perelman, former landlord to some Leesma members. Perelman had important information: Svaars & Sokoloff were hiding in a 2nd floor room in Sidney St, armed with Mauser pistols.

On 3rd Jan a file of police officers wound through the silent East End to Sidney St, from Commercial Rd to the northern junction of Whitechapel and Mile End Rds. The officers hadn’t been told about the mission, but they knew that it was dangerous; married policemen were excluded! Some were armed but their weapons were antique, as compared to the powerful hand-guns the Latvians carried. On getting to Sidney St, the police evacuated the first two floors of #100 and by daybreak the stage was set.

Svaara & Sokoloff were soon alerted to their danger. The front door was banged and stones were hurled at the revolutionaries’ window. They answered with some shots. Det Sarg Leeson fell gravely wounded but like Bryant & Woodhams, he survived. Battle commenced, and despite being so heavily outnumbered, it was Svaars and Sokoloff who won the firefight. Equipped with rugged handguns, they easily beat the police’s inferior weapons.

Hours passed, so the police appealed to Scotland Yard for assistance and they in turn sought help. Home Secretary Winston Churchill permitted the army to respond and soon 20 Scots Guards arrived, changing the situation. And the fire brigade arrived, to prevent fire from spreading.

Firing line of Scots Guards. Sidney Street Siege

gravelroots

Now the soldiers elevated their efforts, shooting into #100’s windows. Sokoloff peered at the maelstrom but the burning house collapsed. The ceiling killed him, ending Sidney St’s siege. And one more death. On entering #100 District Fire Officer Charles Pearson was hit by falling masonry, severing his spine and dying 6 months later. A honour plaque to the dead first responders was unveiled there much later.

Detectives inspect the 100 Sidney St house, post-siege

Gravelroots

Other Latvian anarchists, Jacob Peters, Yourka Dubof, John Rosen & Nina Vassileve were tried for the Houndsditch murders in the East End but 3 of them were acquitted. Only Vassileve was found guilty of a minor offence, later quashed. Gardstein, Svaars and Sokoloff were “probably guilty”.

The police soon tracked other revolutionaries, offering rewards for the capture of named suspects. Well covered by the press and captured on newsreels, the Siege also had lasting impacts for the scared communities living in the East End’s early C20th: political refugees, socialists & ex-Eastern European Jews, including my Russian Jewish grandmother.

Read Devilish Kind of Courage: Anarchists, Aliens and the Siege of Sidney St, 2024, by Andrew Whitehead 

history of British public telephone boxes

Before 1876, communication over distance was often by telegraphy. The General Post Office/GPO, governmental till 1969, had the monopoly on UK’s telegraphic communication. The telephone was a marvellous technical innovation but very costly; use was limited to wealthy homeowners and businesses. And there wasn’t a single unified system; it was owned and operated by private companies operating local exchanges to which homes and businesses subscribed. In 1884 the GPO relaxed the rules that limited exchanges, meaning that the first public telephone network began with only 13,000 phones nationwide.

As technology improved, more services emerged. The GPO started with Jubilee Concession, installing a kiosk in all c8,000 towns with a Post Office. Acts of Parliament unified National Telephone Company/NTC and GPO services.

A UK telephone network division came pre-WW1 when NTC assets were acquired by the GPO, effectively nationalising the telephone network. With the combined staff and assets of two separate organisations, the GPO looked at equipment regulation, but WW1 put kiosk development on hold.

London’s First Telephone Box K1, 1921 
Instagram

In 1921 Britain's standard kiosk K1 was introduced by Post Office. Its design was conservative so many of the phone box designs were protected by trademark registrations, held by British Telecommunications. K1, made of concrete, was not initially well-received. 14 K1 boxes remain, 7 registered by Historic England.

In 1923, two independent schemes were established to test design alternatives to K1. The Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Committee ran a competition to design a new national kiosk. And Birmingham Civic Society produced independent proposals for a new national kiosk, which they submitted to the GPO. This caused the newly established Parliamentary Royal Fine Art Commission (1924) to examine questions of public service and art value. The red telephone box emerged from a design competition.

 

K6

The public telephone box was designed by noted architect Sir Giles Gilbert Scott was in cast iron. Their distinctive red colour made them easily recognisable. From 1926, the kiosks displayed a prominent crown symbolising the government.

8 kiosk types were introduced by the GPO between 1926-83. The K6 was designed by Scott to mark the Silver Jubilee of King George V coronation in 1935. c60,000 examples were installed across Britain, explaining why the K6 became THE red Telephone Box. 11,000+ K6s remain. More stream-lined than the K2, the K6 was deployed widely by 1940, despite initial resistance to its red colour.

Scott’s design was like the K2, but smaller and cheaper to produce. The K6 was made of cast-iron sections, bolted together, standing on a concrete base. Its general design was a 4-sided rectangular box with a domed roof. The door was of teak, with a metal cup handle. Set into the slot was an illuminated telephone sign, with serif capital lettering on opaque glass. The pediments had a moulded Royal crown. 

Motoring organisations, Automobile Association/AA and Royal Automobile Club/RAC, enjoyed the benefits of a telephone network for members in a network of sentry boxes. Because cars were expensive and were prone to breakdowns, the motoring clubs employed patrolmen men to shelter in the boxes and to provide motorists with roadside aid. The Police Service also grew a network of kiosks, allowing officers to keep contact with their station. Metropolitan Police Service introduced Police boxes in 1929.

Scott’s winning design, chosen by the Royal Fine Art Commission, featured a classical style with a dome like John Soane’s. Scott was Director of the Sir John Soane Museum at the same time he was working on the telephone box design. The kiosk was ideally to be constructed from cast-iron with a per-unit price c£40. Three kiosks were installed behind London’s National Gallery in 1925.

Without a cost-effective kiosk used nationwide, GPO reverted to K1 with larger windows and revised signage. This was an interim solution, and by 1928 the GPO commissioned Scott to produce a cheaper kiosk made of pre-cast concrete. The GPO was not content with the K2 they had been working on, so they planned a new kiosk which could incorporate a stamp machine and post box; a mini-Post Office. 

Telephone and post office facilities

Atlas Obscura

In 1929 Scott introduced K3, a similar design to the K2 but made from reinforced concrete for nation-wide use. The K3 was cheaper than the K2 but still more expensive than the K1. See a rare surviving K3 kiosk at the London Zoo.

The K4 was an enlarged version of K2, designed by GPO’s Engineering Dept. In 1927 the K4 model included a post box and stamp vending machines. But only 50 K4 kiosks were produced. The GPO planned for a low cost kiosk. Introduced in 1934, K5 was a metal-faced plywood work, designed to be portable and used at exhibitions, but never completed.

In 1937 the Tercentenary Concession celebrated GPO's 300th anniversary and 1,000 more kiosks were installed for local authorities paying low subscriptions. In 1939 a tougher version was introduced. In 1949 Royal Fine Arts Commission got re-involved, allowing rural examples in different colours. Post-war c60,000 examples lived, and of the 8 kiosk types introduced by the GPO, the K6 heritage legacy remains best.

Post-war, the 1951 Festival of Britain was held on London’s South Bank. The Festival was a tonic to Britain then, showing the recovery from austerity. It demonstrated skills in the arts, architecture, industrial design, science and technology. And a crown motif with Queen Elizabeth II.

Lending library in unused kiosk

In 1959 the GPO invited submissions for a new kiosk from leading architects. After considering 6 experimental designs, K7 kiosks were designed by Neville Conder and installed in 1962. Ahead of its time, the K7’s use of aluminium was only adopted much later. So the GPO opted for a design by Bruce Martin; he proposed aluminium, not the trusted cast-iron. K8 kiosk arrived July 1968. 1969 predicted the end of GPOs kiosks. Since its inception, the GPO was nationalised, but as a Government Dept. By 1981 the Post Office was split into two businesses, privatising telecommunications Ap 1984.

In a year British Telecom announced a £160 mill modernisation scheme: installing modern kiosks in the public network. But historical groups & progressive London boroughs highlighted the kiosks’ plight. Statutory protection was given to 2,000 key kiosks by English Heritage.

AA and RAC kiosks also worsened. Reliable vehicles allowed patrolmen to travel in their own vans and telephone equipment could be housed in smaller pedestals. And the Police kept in touch via personal radios. As British Telecom was left with unprofitable kiosks to maintain, the company created an Adopt a Kiosk Scheme, demonstrated the strength of local communities in preserving and maintaining their heritage. Local authorities adopted unused kiosks for £1, with the community accepting responsibility for maintenance. Organisations took these boxes for other uses eg some counties’ K6s became a community libraries after their mobile library services discontinued. Or a defibrillator.

Defibrillator in unused kiosk

The iconic design of the red telephone box found a place in parts of the world, eg U.S, Australia, New Zealand, where they have been preserved in historic sites. But the red telephone box is a beloved symbol of British heritage and their cultural significance endures. The red telephone box is an artwork, history and national identity, one of UK's favourite design icons in 2006!

Thank you to The Historic England Blog which you may enjoy reading.

Gustav Stickley: arts & crafts furniture

Writing desk by Harvey Ellis and Gustav Stickley, 1903
Sheffield

Gustav Stickley (1858-1942) was 1st son of German migrants Barbara & Leopold Stoeckel Wisconsin. When his parents separ­at­ed in 1869, formal education ended and Gustave worked as a stone mason. They moved to Penn. in c1875 and the teen began working at an unc­le’s chair factory.

With brothers Albert & Charles Stickley, Gustav founded Stickley Bros in Susquehanna Penn in 1883. And he married Eda Simmons and they all moved to Binghamton NY.

In 1895 he travelled to Europe and saw the products of the English Arts & Crafts Move­ment and the French Art Nouveau. Twice! Arts & Crafts in Europe was prom­ot­ing well built, purely hand crafted and honest work, and in opposition to the poor treatment of workers in urban factories. Gustav warmly embraced many of the ideas of this new Movement, including for his own furniture business.

Stickley magazine stand, 1900

At home Stickley int­roduced new oak furniture: simple, funct­ional, sturdy and unVictorian. Working with architect-designer Hen­­ry Wilk­inson and de­signer LaMont Warner, he created his first Arts & Crafts products, exhib­iting them in the 1900 Grand Rapids Trade Show

The designs reflected Arts & Crafts ideals of simplicity, hon­es­ty in construction and truth to materials. Unadorned, plain surf­ac­es were enlivened by applied colours to reveal the wood grain. Expos­ed joinery emphasised the struc­tural qualities & hammered met­al hardware emphasised the furniture’s hand­made qualit­ies. Or machinery-made.

Stickley rented Crouse stables in Syracuse, renaming the showrooms as Craftsman Building. There he of­f­ered middle­­ class consumers prog­ressive furniture designs in quarter-sawn white oak. Perhaps because his firm did not receive the recog­nit­i­on he craved, Gustav changed the name of his firm to United Cr­afts. That year (1900) he launch­ed The Crafts­man Magaz­ine, focusing on the early British work of William Morris and John Ruskin. 

The Craftsman Magazine, 1910

He soon covered homes and crafts, literat­ure, music, ar­ch­itecture and city plan­ning. His equalitarian commitments led to exp­ressions of democratic values: social condit­ions, prog­ress­ive pol­it­ics, con­servation, Women’s movement and fair treatment of employees.

Stickley began pub­lishing house designs by different architects in 1902 and answering reader questions on Arts & Crafts style homes. His architectural ideas were delineated by his talented employees including Wilkinson, Warner and architect Harvey Ellis. Ellis had an immediate and profound effect upon the design of The Crafts­man magazine and the furnishings Gustav produc­ed, rein­forcing the conn­ections between Stickley’s work and that of En­g­lish and European de­signers. In 1903 Gus­tav’s furniture ev­olved from so­lid, monumental forms to some lighter shapes, softened by arches, tapering legs and decorative inlay. That year he marketed his product to 100+ retailers across the U.S.

Stickley moved his headquarters from Syracuse to NY, buying 650 ac­r­es along Morris Plains NJ to est­ab­l­ish a farm school. The focus was a large house made of round, hewn chest­nut logs that were cut from local woods and stone.        

Crafts­man Farms 

Houses had to be constructed in harmony with its landscape, using natural mat­er­ials and simp­lif­ied designs. Soft earth-toned colours predominated and inter­iors included simplified mouldings, stained wood, built-in cabinets and fireplaces with ingle­nooks. Although these homes weren’t always innov­ative, note his current approaches to open floor plans, economy of func­tion and use of novel materials for walls, roofs and surface treatments.

Stickley announced the Home Builders Club 1903 where each magazine subscriber was eligible to receive a free set of house plans, based on those designed and publish­ed in the magazine. By the time Crafts­man ended pub­lication in WW1, there were 222+ different home plans for the subscribers.

In 1905 brothers Leopold & John George began the firm of L & J. Stick­l­ey in Fayetteville NY and had become quite successful, mak­ing quality products that rivalled Gustav’s. Albert estab­lished St­ickley Brothers Co in Grand Rapids Mich, also off­er­ing Arts & Crafts furniture. Lastly brother Char­les also sold furn­iture from his Bing­ham­ton factory.

As a believer of the Arts & Crafts as a way of life, Gus­tav leas­ed a VERY expensive 12-storey Craft­sman Building Man­hattan from 1913. But then 3 difficult events occurred. 1] competition was increasing, 2] Gustav’s company began to lose money, and 3] interest in the Arts & Crafts movement was waning in WW1. Gus­t­av only lived at Crafts­man Farms until 1915, forced to file for bankruptcy. He stop­ped publish­ing his mag­az­ine in 1915 and he gave his workshops to two younger broth­ers, who cont­in­ued as L & JG Stickley in order to prod­uce Gust­av’s designs. Whereas 15 years earlier, people had embraced Crafts­man furn­it­ure’s clean strong lines, by WW1 tastes had changed again, this time towards the revival of early American style.

Gustav moved back to Syracuse, where his wife died in 1919, and stayed in Syracuse until his own death in 1942.

After Stickley left Craftsman Farms NJ, the Farny family maintained the farm as it was. When the property was threatened with develop­ment, Parsippany-Troy Hills township obtained the property and form­ed a partnership with the Stickley Museum at Craft­sman Farms for pr­eserv­ation and interp­ret­ation. It was honoured as a National Hist­oric Land­mark, as the photos show.

Stickley Museum at Craft­sman Farms, living room 

with copper hooded fireplace; Grueby lamp, hexagonal leather top table, Morris chair.

Summary
The country estate Craftsman Farms was a major display of Arts & Crafts decorative arts, home building and furn­ishing styles. Stick­ley combined the roles of designer and manuf­ac­turer, architect, pub­lish­er, philosopher and social critic. He was best known for his st­raightforward furniture aka mission or Craftsman furniture, made of sawn white oak in subtle, plain designs. In the late C20th there was a resurgence of interest in Stickley’s ouevre. Some of his furniture catalogues were reprinted, and ill­us­trated books of his works and monographs were published.