Chelsea: The Process
In December of 1936, the official memo declaring the Section’s intention to commission a $560 mural for the new post office in Chelsea, Michigan, circulated in the Treasury Department. Almost a year later in November 1937, another official memo declared the Section’s official choice of artist, George Fisher of Detroit, who had submitted designs to the 1936 Decatur, Illinois, competition open to artists in the Midwest.
On November 22, 1937, Section administrator Edward Rowan wrote personally to Fisher with the official invitation included. The enclosed letter outlined the basic details: $560 dollars paid in three stages, the dimensions of the space, the required submissions (pencil sketches and a 2” scale design in color), a suggestion to visit Chelsea, and the final deadline of May 31, 1938. In his personal note, Rowan suggested that Fisher might repurpose his submission for Decatur by including details more specific to Chelsea. Rowan described the original entry as “a large central figure surrounded by nude figures in smaller scale” but he warned Fisher to reconsider including nudity, writing: “I am confident there would be considerable objection to such an approach on the part of the citizens of Chelsea.” Undoubtedly, Rowan was thinking of the controversy around the nude figures in Frank Mechau’s 1937 mural, Dangers of the Mail, for what was then the Post Office Department Building.
Fisher wrote back quickly, accepting the invitation on November 26 and promising to visit Chelsea, in addition to acknowledging Rowan’s suggestions concerning the nude figures. Fisher next wrote to the Section on January 3, 1938, apologizing for the delay due to an illness and confirming that he had visited Chelsea unofficially to research subject matter. Along with his letter, Fisher submitted several preliminary mural sketches for the Section to consider. Unfortunately, we only know the subject of the chosen sketch, titled “Way of Life.” In a response on January 12, Rowan praised the design for its “interesting treatment in the flow of composition.” Fisher himself described the scene and his aims in writing on the sketch: “symbolizing needs and ideals of the founders. Would make beautiful nature group. Safer in time limit because fewer figures. Not likely to be controversial.” (Image 1) Though the scene includes only a mother, father, and child in the foreground, it is dynamic with the child reaching for the fruit tree and the parents dramatically reclining. (See Mural) Fisher was also careful to include symbols relating to Chelsea, the spinning wheel, and the grindstone, which the Section praised. (See Location) However, in addition to suggesting the omission of the visually confusing carpenter square, Rowan criticized the flowering tree, describing it as “over decorative and possibly somewhat saccharine.” Perhaps the Section worried that Fisher had gone too far in his efforts to avoid controversy.
On February 24, Fisher submitted his signed contract, confirming the title (“Way of Life”), size (13’2”x4’9”), and the medium (oil on canvas), along with his required 2” scale color sketch. A few days later, on March 2, Rowan responded to Fisher’s sketch with familiar concerns. Describing the meeting of Section members, he wrote, “all of us feel that the color is entirely too sweet and weak.” Rowan did praise the drawing itself, however, along with the changes to the tree. We don’t have a color version of the originally submitted color sketch but, fortunately, the revised color sketch that Fisher submitted on April 2 is now in the Smithsonian American Art Museum. (Image 2) Though the soft blues, greens, and pinks may still appear muted to viewers, Fisher likely changed their strength in this submission. He explained to Rowan that he “further developed” the contrast and “carried it [colors] to a greater degree of finish than I ordinarily do in a sketch.” Fisher continued by explaining that, in his typical working method, he brings colors “to their zenith” in the final work as opposed to copying a sketch. In this letter, Fisher also noted that he used no models or photographs in creating the design—giving us another interesting insight into his process.
And yet, even with the changes Fisher made to the color sketch, Rowan was still not satisfied. Though he approved the sketch for Fisher to progress with the full-size mural cartoon, Rowan wrote again on April 9: “You have a good design and it is a shame to have it devitalized by saccharin color. I would like you to give the color vitality and significance to counteract the pale blue, deep pink combination. I feel that this would greatly improve your mural.” After some unfortunate confusion around payments, Fisher next shared his progress via a photograph of the full-size mural cartoon in June. (Image 3) This black and white image, plotted over a grid on the canvas, does not convey the color that so concerned Rowan but Fisher assured the Section that he would “proceed with a development of the color movement.” On June 24, Rowan approved the mural’s progress but his critiques were not finished. When Fisher forwarded the required photograph of his completed mural in August, Rowan responded with concerns over the figure of the mother. “In the photograph which inidicates that the work has been carried forward most satisfactorily, the right arm of the mother seems slightly dwarfed as though the foreshortening were not completely realized. Will you kindly check this on the original.” Despite the note of concern, Rowan approved the mural’s installation and he wrote to the Chelsea postmaster on August 19 to advise that Fisher would be arriving soon. On September 15, Fisher submitted a photograph of the finished mural installed in the Chelsea post office. While this snapshot is missing from the National Archives files, they do hold a black and white photograph of the completed oil on canvas painting. (Image 4) In the letter, the artist acknowledged the requested changes to the mother’s arm, which he credited with improving the mural, and expressed his desire to be considered for future projects.
In late September, Chelsea postmaster H.O. Witherell wrote to Rowan confirming the mural’s installation and its positive reception. “We are very pleased,” he explained. “It has received many very fine compliments, especially from several who know something about that class of work.” He also lavished praise on the “finely finished” new post office building and included a clipping from the local newspaper, The Chelsea Standard, which similarly praised the “beautiful mural.” (Though the Standard misstated the title as “Progress.”)
Like many post office murals, the work was not finished with installation, as Witherell had to arrange for the lighting fixture to be raised in May 1939 so that it would no longer impede the view of the painting. After the mural’s installation, Fisher also wrote to the Section again with suggestions for cleaning the mural, including “with fresh bread (crust removed) moistened with kerosene.” (Image 5)
Sources
- “Chelsea.” Box 49, Case Files Concerning Embellishments of Public Buildings, 1934-1943, Entry 133, Records of the Public Buildings Service, Record Group 121, National Archives II, College Park, Maryland.
