I was sitting with Annie Poor, daughter of Henry Varnum Poor, in the living room of her father’s home, Crow House, sipping tea from one of his mugs when at the top of the stone fireplace a large black snake emerged from a crack in the masonry and writhed in the air above us. Annie stopped speaking, stood up, grabbed the fire tongs, plucked the snake from the ceiling, and threw it outside. Then, without any comment about what had just transpired she continued with what she had being saying.
Above image: Henry Varnum Poor’s home. Photograph by Benjamin Norman for the New York Times.
I visited often as we represented the Poor Estate in our New York Gallery from the 1980’s, having first encountered Henry’s work and home in 1978 when I was curating the exhibition, A Century of Ceramics in the United States, with Margie Hughto.
Henry Varnum Poor, Self Portrait Paris. Photograph courtesy of Pennsylvania State University.
Poor was a skilled painter who fell in love with design and ceramics and became an important maker of applied art between the two World Wars as his painting career slowed down. He wrote a fine book, From Mud to Immortality, which even Bernard Leach approved of. After 1947 his ceramics, charming but never groundbreaking, were eclipsed by other more contemporary developments but he continued working.
A recent article in the New York Times, “Efforts to Preserve Henry Varnum Poor’s House and Its History Have Stalled” prompted me to reconsider whether the long effort to save Crow House was still valid:
“The rambling stone cottage where the artist Henry Varnum Poor created his ceramics and his paintings and other artworks now held at major museums around the country is called Crow House, perhaps because of the birds that circled overhead when Poor designed and built it, by hand, nearly 100 years ago.
“Seven years ago, town leaders in nearby Ramapo decided to pay $1.3 million for the property, with plans to create a cultural center to honor Poor and maintain the two-story house as it was when the artist lived and worked there. That plan has stalled, however, and the physical condition of the house has deteriorated, along with the relationship between Ramapo town officials and preservationists, who fear that a significant structure may be compromised beyond repair. Some of the house’s admirers say the lack of upkeep violates an agreement the town signed with the state, which put up some of the purchase price.
“The project’s future darkened further last month, when Mr. Poor’s son, Peter Poor, told the town he was no longer planning to donate some of the artworks and possessions that filled the house because of its “virtual abandonment.” He had removed ceramics, paintings and furniture last year at the town’s request to facilitate repairs.”
Photograph courtesy of the Friends of Crow House.
Photograph courtesy of Friends of Crow House.
Now town officials say they do not have enough money to fix the building’s myriad problems, at least not yet and not for the past seven years. They are trying to place the blame on Peter Poor to distract from their own inaction and their other historic home projects are also in trouble.
The city has proven to be a poor steward of this project and the buildings have continued to rot. For nearly four decades I have witnessed Poor have to deal with wave after wave of H.V. evangelists, intent on saving the house, high on idealism and low on funding. Peter has never felt that keeping the house as a shrine was a good idea but he went along with the last proposal. Now he has run out of patience as the Times reports:
“’They have delayed and delayed,’ he said. ‘I think they have bitten off more than they can chew.’ Mr. Poor said he had been prepared to donate 30 to 40 artworks and all of the furniture that had been in the house, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. That furniture collection, appraised at roughly $100,000, includes tables and chairs that his father built. He said it was difficult to estimate the value of the artworks because they are of varying quality. But he said that he now planned on disposing of the items within the near future.”
Courtesy of Friends of Crow House.
This fracas raises important issues about the future of historic house museums. There are already more than 15,000 in the United States and most are struggling financially. Boston Globe correspondent Ruth Graham dealt with this issue recently in an article, “The great historic house museum debate”:
“House museums can seem like the sleepiest corner of the museum world: They tend to be small spaces with small budgets, elderly volunteers, and even older furnishings. But recently they have become the center of a live, even contentious debate. Although some well-known house museums are thriving, many smaller and more obscure places are struggling. Their plight is so drastic that some preservationists are now making an argument that sounds downright blasphemous to defenders of these charming repositories of local history: There are simply too many house museums, and many of them would be better off closing.”
Graham argues that they can be rescued but I disagree. It’s time for attrition. However, this is never easy, closing a museum raises overly emotional responses akin to book burning. It seems obscene to let culture and history die. Yet we have too many underfunded, under-performing institutions and some culling of this herd would benefit those museums who do excellent work but also struggle to survive. Ultimately they all drink from the same shrinking pool of philanthropic largesse.
Courtesy Friends of Crow House.
Historic house museums are a special case. They are often opened in a wave of sentimental fervor to preserve the legacy of a writer, artist, actor, or politician often at a time when their star is beginning to dim in order to keep their legacy alive. They often are founded with limited private money at first but most end up as wards of the state.
At a time when reports show that the role of the museum is beginning to peak (the National Endowment for Arts released figures showing that American visits to museums and historic sites has dropped 21% since its last peak) there is still a frenzy to build new ones or extend existing institutions. This museum bubble has been going on for two decades and is probably close to bursting.
ARTnews, in their recent annual listing of the top 50 art collectors, noted that twenty of them (40%) have either opened their own museums or are about to. This competition from vanity kunsthalle weakens the traffic and role of the public museums, which are generally far superior.
Courtesy Friends of Crow House.
Bernard Howell Leach in his pottery, St Ives. Photograph by Ida Kar, vintage bromide print, 1961. Courtesy of National Portrait Gallery.
A few house and studio museums for potters have done well enough; Bernard Leach in St Ives and Kanjiro Kawai in Japan are examples. But let’s place this in context. Leach is the most famous potter of the 20th century and his studio is now a museum as well as an apprentice center. On top of that St. Ives is a popular tourist destination and a storied town in the history of British modern art.
The Kanjiro Kawai Musuem Musuem, Kyoto. Photograph courtesy of the museum.
Kawai is a national treasure in Japan, an internationally revered figure in ceramic art and his house is in historic Kyoto, not Clarkstown, N.Y. I must confess that spending an afternoon in the Kawai’s home and studio was one of the most remarkable experiences I have had.
Henry Varnum Poor does deserve better but his place in the art canon is not likely to improve. And the city has already proved that funding is going to be problematic. He will remain a fascinating B figure but never an A. I cannot imagine that the annual traffic to visit his home will be large. Furthermore single artist museums have the built-in problem that they get mainly one-visit traffic.
Arman told me shortly before he died that he had turned down three fully funded offers to build a museum dedicated to his career. “That will not be a living art space”, he said, “but a mausoleum in which to bury my art. Over time visitors will reduce to a trickle. I suggested the Arman Museum for Emerging Artists but no one wanted to support that.”
In 1940 Anne Poor assisted her step-father, Henry Varnum Poor, with a mural commissioned by the Pennsylvania State University. (Source: Penn State University, CC BY-NC 2.0)
Should Crow House then submit to the wrecker’s ball? Better that than investing $3-4 million in fixing an interesting but ultimately unimportant building. If it is razed in a couple of years few will remember that it ever existed. The Friends of Crow House will no doubt disagree but I have an alternative plan to suggest.
The best way to save a historical house is to invest it with actual vigor, not as a dust gathering shine, but as home to a research library, a think tank, an arts foundation, a craft school with an existing parent that has the funds to keep up the maintenance costs. That way the house serves a contemporary purpose. There can be mini-shrines within the house, glassed in niches for his pots, so the artist is not forgotten. Short of that, the Crow House campaign is a fool’s errand.
Garth Clark is the Chief Editor of CFile.
Any thoughts about this post? Share yours in the comment box below.
I first met Henry Varnum Poor in the late 60s as he was a friend of my first wife’s parents. She and I purchased a small plate of his from what I believe may have been his last show in NYC. In the early 1980s as Art Director of Studio Potter magazine when an issue of the magazine featured potters of the Hudson Valley I suggested that Gerry Williams should visit the house and interview Ann Poor. A several page article about the house and Henry’s ceramics was the result. Having been in the house and experienced it when it was still a functioning entity, I am saddened to hear of its current status. That said, I was pleased to see it featured in “Artists’ Handmade Houses” a wonderful book by Michael Gotkin and Don Freeman published by Abrams in 2011. Placing HVP in a select group of thirteen artist/craftsmen in America is a testament to the import of the house exclusive of his ceramic and painting legacy.
This is an interesting article. As a film director researching a project that has led me to discover H.V. Poor and his house, it is something that is inspiring and interesting. Every place that can be saved, should be saved as testament to the human spirit of creativity. There is so much bad in the world, these places are like tiny shining lights in the darkness, lighting the path for other artists.
TG Jamroz
Director “The Murals”
I am currently working for the Town of Ramapo Supervisor in Program development and Crow House in top of the agenda. What I have not read in any of the articles or posts is that it was Orange and Rockland Utilities who shut off the electricity and gas to the building once they inspected the condition of wiring and gas lines. Water lines were freezing so I believe water was shut off in order to keep them from freezing up and bursting. I love the work of H. V. Poor and I find the buildings on his property charming and really quite unique. I am a long time resident of the Town of Ramapo and have myself worked on a number of the South Mountain Road buildings along with my family of contractors over the years. All the buildings are beautifully situated and terribly designed. Artist make poor engineers. Sadly the Crow House is just such an example of engineering that has not lasted the test of time. This does not mean the Town is deserting it. We are currently planning a gallery show of some of his work (ceramics originally commissioned by Burgess Meredith for spring 2016. This will be held in the studio building, a cinder block structure on the property once it’s issues have been dealt with. I would remind the critics of the Town that the Town was asked to purchase the property in order to save it and weathered and worn it still stands this day. I will do my best to manifest the idea of a research/artist retreat sort of place but what constitutes a public place must confirm to public code and that will take a good deal of funding.
One of the best recent films on this exact subject–fictional–but completely relevant, is the Olivier Assayas film from 2008, L’Heure d’été (Summer Hours), which traces out the legacy of a minor Impressionist in the French countryside in the 3rd generation. And a good performance by Juliette Binoche to boot. Completely amazing textured reverie on objects, time, loss, materiality, stewardship, generational discord. I teach from it all time.
Shame on the son for selfishly helping to facilitate robbing the public of his father’s valuable history.
Dear Michelle – It would be irresponsible for Peter Poor to leave the artifacts to an entity that has shown that it is not a competent caretaker of the building.
OMG!
Garth’s final paragraph is exactly right, and is what we all dreamed Crow House could become at the large first meeting after the Town of Ramapo took it over. Town officials, the Friends of Crow House, people from the Art Students League, and others agreed that we did not want it to be a static shrine, but a living nucleus of artistic effort which radiated out to the community and fed it. The property had living and working quarters for three artists-in-residence. Space for exhibitions and classes. Room for groups to come from schools, and small groups to meet in the evenings. As organizations and individuals we all were eager to help achieve that. I volunteered to furnish and decorate the house as it was in my father’s time. But the Town then refused any aid or even consultation with any outside group, and beyond some emergency measures refused to spend even the small amount for routine maintenance, finally cutting off water, light, and heat, which is directly responsible for the present precarious condition of the house. In December 2011 I was promised a detailed plan for the future use and development of Crow House in six weeks. It has never arrived. Even when urged by the co-owners, the State Parks Department, Ramapo failed to reach out to the people who stood ready to raise money and find professional assistance. The situation of Crow House today is not failure of imagination, but failure of resolve by a group of politicians
Too often historic houses are seen as just a shell containing the ghosts of the past. In this case the house itself is a remarkable, rare artifact that deserves just as much care as the artwork and pottery it once saw born within it. It is one of a kind, a mid-20th century Arts and Crafts gem. It has its own, unique palette of materials – log beams, wide board floors, stone walls and fireplace, and astonishing integrated ceramic tiles on sills and in bathrooms, plumbing fixtures, and lights. You can’t find anything like it anywhere. There are very few of residential buildings with integrated artwork from the period, and certainly fewer with work by an artist of Henry Poor’s stature.
This is not an ‘historic house’. This is an IMPORTANT house.
There is never an excuse for not preserving something of historical significance if people really want it. But once the naysayers and developers get involved, anything and everything of historical significance, like the HVP house, are threatened of being destroyed. I am dismayed by the lack of stewardship the Town of Ramapo has shown in the handling of this situation. It’s shameful and embarrassing and should be taken out of their hands and given to the experts who believe that historical preservation is not only imperative but essential to contemporary society. Find some wealthy donors, fix up the house, and build an artists’ center nearby if you think that is necessary. Stop the excuses, delaying tactics, political wrangling, and get the job done, because once it’s gone, it’s gone forever.
Dear Garth,
Thank you for drawing attention to the plight of Henry Varnum Poor’s Crow House in the wake of the August 15, 2015 article in the New York Times. Your editorial raises many valid points and I would like to try to address some of them here.
While it’s true that historic houses are woefully underfunded in the United States, a historic house is only one of many possible outcomes for Crow House and has never been the exclusive goal of Friends of Crow House or Poor’s heir, Peter Varnum Poor. While we do wish to preserve the architectural fabric and as many of the artworks and artifacts as possible, no one wants a mausoleum to Poor. We recognize that the house could not survive as a traditional house museum and have long lobbied for alternative uses for the property that would bring it new “vigor,” as you say, and also reflect the vitality of the South Mountain Road “Colony” of which Poor was a central figure but also, as you know, included significant writers, composers, designers, as well as artists. As such, any workable plan for the property must reflect this rich history and connect with the present. It could, potentially, include artists-in-residency, workshops, performances and installations, a cultural and research center, and other, yet to be envisioned, uses.
The Times did not report the full arc of the Friends’ attempts to establish a private-public partnership with the Town of Ramapo, the owner, but many of these alternative uses have been on the table. In the meantime, the Town has let the house fall into neglect. One of the worst problems is that the Town shut the water off two years ago and cannot have it turned back on without upgrading the sewage, a major expense. Without water, there is no heat. Without heat, mold creeps in. It is a bad situation but not an unresolvable one.
Is it worth it to fix it? That is a difficult question to answer. Crow House’s hold on people, as with the work of any artist, is highly subjective and its long-term relevance is one that time will bear out. I do know that when I have taken young ceramic students through and they’ve seen for themselves a way of living as an artist and a craftsperson and have been inspired by it, that there is something worth saving. The significance or market value of his pottery matters little to them. I have seen similar responses from folks from many walks of life—involved in the arts and not.
Friends of Crow House welcomes members of the CFile community to join the conversation and help bring new life to Crow House, which was in Henry Poor’s time, a very lively place—yes, with the occasional wildlife, invited and otherwise. It will take a consolidated group effort as well as resources to make it once again a vital part of the community in New York and beyond. It does not deserve a wrecking ball.
Sincerely yours,
Caroline Hannah
Design Historian
Founding member, Friends of Crow House (Henry Varnum Poor Foundation)