Depression-era prints that celebrate work

During the Great Depression, printmakers -- many working for the WPA -- took American labor as their subject SLIDE SHOW

Topics: Five-Minute Museum, Art,

Depression-era prints that celebrate workPaul H. Landacre, "Amateurs," 1937. Wood engraving.(Credit: © Estate of Paul Landacre/Licensed by VAGA, New York, NY)

View the slide show

The bold block figures who inhabit some of  “At Work: Prints From the Great Depression’s” most powerful images could easily illustrate familiar American folk tales — stories of brawny Paul Bunyan and his mythical peers. But the protagonists they celebrate — the working men and women of the Great Depression — are far from fictional.

If pictures could talk, these prints, more than half of which were created under the aegis of the WPA, would preach the testament of the Depression-era workforce with eloquence.

Over the phone, Matthew Basso, director of the University of Utah’s American West Center, spoke to me about the democratic qualities of printmaking, the government’s role in determining the content of WPA-sponsored art, and the artistic glorification of work in the 1930s and ’40s. Click through the accompanying slide show to see some of the exhibition’s highlights.

How did this exhibition come about?

It stems from the discovery of a lost Federal Writers’ Project manuscript titled “Men at Work,” which was edited by Harold Rosenberg, one of the major cultural critics of the postwar era. Rosenberg worked for the WPA — both the Federal Art Project and the Writers’ Project — in the 1930s and the early 1940s. He and others at the national office of the Federal Writers’ Project saw “Men at Work” as the first book of a follow-on series to the American Guide Series. The idea was to focus not on the social world of workers, which had already been discussed in so much of the literature of the 1930s, but on the actual labor done by ordinary working Americans. (By the title, you can, of course, tell that they mainly meant male labor.)

The only instruction potential contributors received was, “You either have to have done the work yourself or seen it done.” The leaders of the Federal Writers’ Project hoped a new genre that would captivate the interests of the mass of working-class Americans might emerge. That didn’t happen, but the 34 short stories they chose from writers who would become major figures in 20th-century American literature (such as Jim Thompson and Chester Himes), and from many others who comprised the rank and file of the Federal Writers’ Project, are simply remarkable. They’re fascinating ethnographic portraits … of workers and the jobs they did during the Great Depression. World War II stymied the plan to publish “Men at Work,” but I’m delighted that 70 years after it was completed, it will finally appear in print from the University of Utah Press under the title “Men at Work: Rediscovering Depression-Era Stories for the Federal Writers’ Project. ”



To honor Rosenberg, who had also chosen 20 prints to illustrate “Men at Work,” and do a full-spectrum look at the Great Depression and at the theme of labor in our lives, both then and today, we decided, in conjunction with the publication of the book, to curate this exhibition. As part of this larger undertaking, we’ve also created, with the wonderful team of book artists at Red Butte Press, a letterpress book called “Wo/Men at Work” … and we’re doing a special edition of the journal Western Humanities Quarterly for which we urged contemporary writers to follow the same instructions Rosenberg gave to the writers in 1940: Write about work today — but you have to either have seen the work or done it yourself.

It seems incredibly timely.

We think so … Besides the fact that (hopefully) we’re coming out of the Great Recession, I think folks are really interested in work, and what they do. There have been a lot of popular nonfiction books lately about manual labor, and about working with our hands, and the question is: Have we made a huge mistake by becoming an information society? Have we robbed ourselves, not just of some economic basis, but of some sort of spiritual basis [for life]? I don’t personally go that far, but there is this sense that we’ve lost the ability to work with our hands. That’s what’s kind of cool about this book, and about these prints: They really focus in on the act of work.

What do these prints tell us about the Great Depression that’s different from what other contemporary works tend to show? You point out in the show’s accompanying materials that much of the well-known Depression-era art isn’t about work, but rather about the lack of it.

That’s exactly right. Our memory of the Great Depression isn’t people at work; it’s people out of work. What’s intriguing here is that if you look at the prints and other art of the Great Depression — especially the work produced by the WPA — it’s as much focused, if not significantly more focused, on people doing labor. And more specifically, on both communities of workers and (especially) individuals. It’s the first time … that the worker is at the heart of popular culture [in America].

Of course, there are examples of workers in art prior to the 1930s. But a scholar at Yale named Michael Denning talks about the birth of the “laboring of American culture” in the 1930s: Everything is about work and workers. And these prints very much reflect that.

What’s equally intriguing is that, while in some instances it’s a celebration of work and workers, in other instances it’s very much an acknowledgment that work can be difficult, dirty, challenging and dispiriting. In that way, it really fits with a larger 1930s imperative — social realist art that’s about documenting the experience of ordinary Americans.

What about the printmaking itself? As opposed to other media like photography, how was printmaking perceived?

It’s certainly not as celebrated as other modes of art at that moment, or prior; what’s celebrated is your classic oil painting or sculpture — things like that. But there is a massive explosion of interest in printmaking in the ’30s, because of its democratic sensibilities. Because prints were made in series of 25 or 50 (or sometimes even more), the federal government in particular … got really excited about prints, because they could put them all across the United States. This was the charge of the Federal Art Project. It was very difficult to do that with oil paintings, or sculpture, obviously. You could also teach print classes — people felt like they could make prints.

The second thing that’s interesting about prints, which I think inspires greater attention to them in the ’30s, is that the process of printmaking really feels akin to the processes of work. It’s artisanal, and it’s technical, and it’s really quite remarkable. What the federal government does in the 1930s is create these separate communities of printmakers in cities across the country; for the first time, they can work together in a community — and there’s an enormous amount of innovation, especially with screen printing and other techniques.

How many of these works were specifically coordinated through federal programs? How many were made independently?

It’s probably something like 70/30 — 70 percent WPA prints and 30 percent non-WPA prints. But these artists crossed back and forth, which is quite interesting, between working as private artists and working for the Federal Art Project.

When they were doing art that was sponsored by the Federal Art Project, was the content of their work dictated? Or could they do what they wanted?

A little bit of both. The content was without question dictated, and so was the approach, to a certain extent. Some of the most famous names associated with the Federal Art Project — Gorky, de Kooning and others — are known for their abstract work, and abstract art is definitely at the forefront of serious art in the 1930s. But what the Federal Art Project wants is work that they think ordinary Americans will appreciate and understand, and that’s social realist work. …

For the prints specifically, what would happen is a printmaker … would propose a print, or a series of prints, which would then be approved by the specific WPA/Federal Art Project board in their area. It would be vetted, almost like in an artistic competition or a peer-review process. Because of that, and because of the general documentary sensibility of the era, the prints are by and large social realist, although there are some important exceptions.

Is there anything else you’d like to add?

[At the time this art was created,] FDR called the ordinary working man the “forgotten man.” But it’s impossible to accurately talk about the 1930s as forgetting about men. Arguably for the first time, working men are not only at the center of culture, but … also at the very core of American values. It’s clear in policy, too: the WPA programs — and the Federal Art Project is a slight exception to this — are all about bolstering men as breadwinners. Indeed, legislatively, some women find themselves removed from jobs, based on the idea that it should be the man who is working and bringing home the bacon.

Another aspect of this, which is of course very much relevant today, is the question of the politics that are in these prints — especially the working-class politics. We see the individual heroic male in this particular set of prints, but just as often you would see the collective heroic male, which was meant to embody unions. So at the heart of all of these images is a question about workers’ power, gender, and about equity in society. By championing the working class, especially the working-class male, [this art] really bolstered FDR’s effort to use legislation for social justice, including by championing the labor movement. But much of it also supported gender inequity in the world of work, and in society more generally. The relationship between work, gender, policy and art is one we need to continue to carefully consider — and, often, fight to change — in our own era.

“At Work: Prints From the Great Depression” will be on display at the Utah Museum of Fine Arts, in Salt Lake City, through May 6, 2012. The prints come from the collection of Marcia and Ambassador John Price.

View the slide show

Emma Mustich is a Salon contributor. Follow her on Twitter: @emustich.

More Related Stories

Featured Slide Shows

  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook
  • 1 of 14
  • Close
  • Fullscreen
  • Thumbnails

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Pilot"

    One of our first exposures to uncomfortable “Girls” sex comes early, in the pilot episode, when Hannah and Adam “get feisty” (a phrase Hannah hates) on the couch. The pair is about to go at it doggy-style when Adam nearly inserts his penis in “the wrong hole,” and after Hannah corrects him, she awkwardly explains her lack of desire to have anal sex in too many words. “Hey, let’s play the quiet game,” Adam says, thrusting. And so the romance begins.

    View the slide show

    View the slide show

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Elijah, "It's About Time"

    In an act of “betrayal” that messes up each of their relationships with Hannah, Marnie and Elijah open Season 2 with some more couch sex, which is almost unbearable to watch. Elijah, who is trying to explore the “hetero side” of his bisexuality, can’t maintain his erection, and the entire affair ends in very uncomfortable silence.

    View the slide show

    View the slide show

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Charlie, "Vagina Panic"

    Poor Charlie. While he and Marnie have their fair share of uncomfortable sex over the course of their relationship, one of the saddest moments (aside from Marnie breaking up with him during intercourse) is when Marnie encourages him to penetrate her from behind so she doesn’t have to look at him. “This feels so good,” Charlie says. “We have to go slow.” Poor sucker.

    View the slide show

    View the slide show

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Shoshanna and camp friend Matt, "Hannah's Diary"

    We’d be remiss not to mention Shoshanna’s effort to lose her virginity to an old camp friend, who tells her how “weird” it is that he “loves to eat pussy” moments before she admits she’s never “done it” before. At least it paves the way for the uncomfortable sex we later get to watch her have with Ray?

    View the slide show

    View the slide show

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Hard Being Easy"

    On the heels of trying (unsuccessfully) to determine the status of her early relationship with Adam, Hannah walks by her future boyfriend’s bedroom to find him masturbating alone, in one of the strangest scenes of the first season. As Adam jerks off and refuses to let Hannah participate beyond telling him how much she likes watching, we see some serious (and odd) character development ... which ends with Hannah taking a hundred-dollar bill from Adam’s wallet, for cab fare and pizza (as well as her services).

    View the slide show

    View the slide show

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Booth Jonathan, "Bad Friend"

    Oh, Booth Jonathan -- the little man who “knows how to do things.” After he turns Marnie on enough to make her masturbate in the bathroom at the gallery where she works, Booth finally seals the deal in a mortifying and nearly painful to watch sex scene that tells us pretty much everything we need to know about how much Marnie is willing to fake it.

    View the slide show

    View the slide show

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Tad and Loreen, "The Return"

    The only sex scene in the series not to feature one of the main characters, Hannah’s parents’ showertime anniversary celebration is easily one of the most cringe-worthy moments of the show’s first season. Even Hannah’s mother, Loreen, observes how embarrassing the situation is, which ends with her husband, Tad, slipping out of the shower and falling naked and unconscious on the bathroom floor.

    View the slide show

    View the slide show

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and the pharmacist, "The Return"

    Tad and Loreen aren’t the only ones to get some during Hannah’s first season trip home to Michigan. The show’s protagonist finds herself in bed with a former high school classmate, who doesn’t exactly enjoy it when Hannah puts one of her fingers near his anus. “I’m tight like a baby, right?” Hannah asks at one point. Time to press pause.

    View the slide show

    View the slide show

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Role-Play"

    While it’s not quite a full-on, all-out sex scene, Hannah and Adam’s attempt at role play in Season 3 is certainly an intimate encounter to behold (or not). Hannah dons a blond wig and gets a little too into her role, giving a melodramatic performance that ends with a passerby punching Adam in the face. So there’s that.

    View the slide show

    View the slide show

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Shoshanna and Ray, "Together"

    As Shoshanna and Ray near the end of their relationship, we can see their sexual chemistry getting worse and worse. It’s no more evident than when Ray is penetrating a clothed and visibly horrified Shoshanna from behind, who ends the encounter by asking if her partner will just “get out of me.”

    View the slide show

    View the slide show

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Frank, "Video Games"

    Hannah, Jessa’s 19-year-old stepbrother, a graveyard and too much chatting. Need we say more about how uncomfortable this sex is to watch?

    View the slide show

    View the slide show

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Marnie and Desi, "Iowa"

    Who gets her butt motorboated? Is this a real thing? Aside from the questionable logistics and reality of Marnie and Desi’s analingus scene, there’s also the awkward moment when Marnie confuses her partner’s declaration of love for licking her butthole with love for her. Oh, Marnie.

    View the slide show

    View the slide show

    13 of "Girls'" most cringeworthy sex scenes

    Hannah and Adam, "Vagina Panic"

    There is too much in this scene to dissect: fantasies of an 11-year-old girl with a Cabbage Patch lunchbox, excessive references to that little girl as a “slut” and Adam ripping off a condom to ejaculate on Hannah’s chest. No wonder it ends with Hannah saying she almost came.

    View the slide show

    View the slide show

  • Recent Slide Shows

Comments

0 Comments

Comment Preview

Your name will appear as username ( settings | log out )

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href=""> <b> <em> <strong> <i> <blockquote>