Monday, March 11, 2013

Oh What A Paradise It Could Be



I can't put Oh What A Paradise It Seems back onto our bookshelf, for a second time in my life, without saying something about it, what John Cheever has meant to me, and the catalyst the monumental biography by Blake Bailey, Cheever: A Life, has played in this mix.

It is unusual for us to have two copies of the same book and only one such title resides alongside our two different bedsides, here at our home in Florida and on our boat in Connecticut, The Stories of John Cheever.  Before I retired, I used to carry it on any business trip that involved an airport or a hotel.  It was my "get out of jail free" card. In case of any delay, that book was my reclamation, picking out a short story that was ideal to fill in the time, and as I had read them all before, nonetheless always finding some new meaning or just again enjoying Cheever's charmed lyricism.  Cheever was the master short story writer and that is his genre.  His novels, although a pleasure to read, never seemed to measure up to the "reread test." Until recently.

I had read his last novel Oh What A Paradise It Seems when it was first published in the early 1980s.  At the time I was a forty years old.  I hadn't known of Cheever's illness then but probably thought of him as "old man" and the work seemed to me at the time to be disoriented and sad.  But Bailey's biography led me to reread the work and today, from the prospective being not only an older man myself, even older than Cheever when he died, it seems prophetic and profound.  It is a poignant work, clearly written by a man who knew he was dying and knew he would write little afterwards.  And writing to Cheever was like breathing.

I feel Cheever's pain rereading the work, even his personal pain of being so conflicted over his bisexuality, and his failing sexual powers, and the macro-pain of his knowing he was leaving a planet that at times was such a paradise, but one which also seemed to be slouching towards a hellish environmental ruin.

The story is less important to me than the feeling it leaves me with -- almost one of regret.  It is sad to bear witness, as does Cheever in the novel, to an overpopulated, hyperkinetic, media-obsessed society, seemingly hell-bent on environmental self destruction.  This is a far cry from the suburbia normally associated with Cheever's work.  Yet there is always hope and Cheever leaves us with that sense.

Cheever's favorite image, that of rain, begins the novel...

"This is a story to be read in bed in an old house on a rainy night."
 
The protagonist, Lemuel Sears is skating on the pond in his old village, where his daughter now lives.  (Cheever was separated from his place of boyhood for most of his life, the Quincy, MA area, and he was returned there to be buried.)  The setting of the mythical "sleepy village" of Janice of the novel must be very similar to where he was born. This beautiful passage denotes his "homecoming:" "Swinging down a long stretch of black ice gave Sears a sense of homecoming.  at long last, at the end of a cold, long journey, he was returning to a place where his name was known and loved and lamps burned in the rooms and fires of the hearth.  It seemed to Sears that all the skaters moved over the ice with the happy conviction that they were on their way home. Home might be an empty room and an empty bed to many of them, including Sears, but swinging over the black ice convinced Sears that he was on his way home. Someone more skeptical might point out that this illuminated how ephemeral is our illusion of homecoming."

But the characters seem lost, homeless, nomads in the modern world.  Harold Chisholm is one such character:

"Nothing waited for him in his apartment. There was no woman, no man, no dog, no cat, and his answering tape would likely be empty and the neighborhood where he lived had become so anonymous and transient that there were no waiters or shopkeepers or bartenders who would greet him. He turned on the radio but all the music he seemed able to get was disco music, and disco music from those discos that had been closed the year before the year before last for drug pushing or nonpayment of income tax. He seemed to be searching for the memory of some place, some evidence of the fact that he had once been able to put himself into a supremely creative touch with his world and his kind. He longed for this as if it were some country which he had been forced to leave."

And in its 100 short pages we circle back to water and its primordial symbolism to Cheever:

"Now and then the voice of the brook was louder than Chisholm's voice. A trout stream in a forest, a traverse of potable water, seemed for Sears to be the bridge that spans the mysterious abyss between our spiritual and our carnal selves. How contemptible this made his panic about his own contamination. When he was young, brooks had seemed to speak to him in the tongues of men and angels. Now that he was an old man who spoke five or six languages-all of them poorly-the sound of water seemed to be the language of his nativity, some tongue he had spoken before his birth. Soft and loud, high and low, the sound of water reminded him of eavesdropping in some other room than where the party was."

Cheever died only a few short months after its publication.  Yet, his love of life always shines through as in the lyricism of one of the concluding paragraphs:

"The sky was clear that morning and there might still have been stars although he saw none.  The thought of stars contributed to the power of his feeling, What moved him was a sense of those worlds around us, our knowledge however imperfect of their nature, our sense of their possessing some grain of our past and of our lives to come, It was that most powerful sense of our being alive on the planet. It was that most powerful sense of how singular, in the vastness of creation, is the richness of our opportunity. The sense of that hour was of an exquisite privilege, the great benefice of living here and renewing ourselves with love, What a paradise it seemed!"

I would like to remember Cheever for the beauty he captured in his writings, and as opening day approaches -- with the impending cry of "play ball!" -- I will revisit his short story, "National Pastime," of which I am fortunate enough to have a limited edition, signed by Cheever, something to be cherished. It tells a story, in a small way similar to my boyhood -- when I pursued baseball without much help of my own father who was either bogged down by his troubled marriage or by his photography business.  As Cheever puts it, "the feeling that I could not assume my responsibilities as a baseball player without some help from him was deep, as if parental love and baseball were both national pastimes."
 








Wednesday, March 6, 2013

Data Points



Driving home today I happened to hear some stock market guru on the radio (there are countless numbers nowadays, and I didn't get his name during my brief time in the car) predicting that the "bull market" will steadily march onwards and upwards and he compared it to 1982 (when the S&P 500 Index was around 140 vs. today's 1,500 plus), pointing out that bull market move began when unemployment rate was more than 9% vs. a little under 8% today.  I didn't quite get the connection to the S&P other than the inference that things looked gloomy then on Main Street as they do today. 

He sounded like a youngish man, probably either unborn in 1982 or in diapers.  He's right about the gloomy part, but he failed to cite other relevant data points in the comparison, such as the Price Earnings Ratio (P/E) that was about 7.5 then vs. today's 17.5.  Also, adjusting the 1982 140 S&P for the CPI, it was really about 340 not 140.  So, half the growth of the S&P since then is explained by the expansion of the P/E multiple.

Here are some other interesting data point comparisons (these are approximates -- not exact averages for the years cited):

                                                           1982                2013
3 month T Bill Rate                       12.49%            0.11%
10  year T Note Rate                    13.86%            1.88%
S&P Dividend Yield                       4.93%             2.13%
S&P Earnings Yield                        9.83%             7.18%

Classic asset allocation models dictate that if the earnings yield is less than the yield on a 10 year Treasury Note, stocks are overvalued and conversely, if the earnings yield is more than the 10 year T Note, they are undervalued.  By that measure, stock markets should indeed continue to rise now, but they should have been flatlining in 1982.

The reason the usual asset allocation rules may not apply to either scenario is that both 1982 and 2012 represent extraordinary economic times, almost the mirror images of one another, but with one thing in common: the Federal Reserve is in the pilot's seat.  Remember during the Ford administration we were brandishing "WIN" (Whip Inflation Now) buttons?  The oil embargo of 1973 had ratcheted up crude prices from 1972's $3.60 to more than $30.00 by 1982.  Consumer prices followed and wage demands took off.  Paul Volker's Federal Reserve slammed the breaks on the economy raising interest rates to unheard of levels. 

Today, we have the flip side of the coin.  The economy nearly collapsed five years ago into a depression and the Fed became the purchaser of last resort of mortgage-backed securities and is still buying 90% of new US Treasury securities, creating a scarcity of Treasury debt and ratcheting down rates to unheard of levels, this time to "Whip Deflation Now."

What does it all mean for investing?  I can't imagine it means a "new bull market," but who knows as we've never been in this situation before (and throw a calcified government into the mix). One thing I do know, in extraordinary times markets can behave illogically -- unremittingly postponing a normal reversion to the mean --  or as John Maynard Keynes said, “the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.”

Saturday, March 2, 2013

A Surprise Discovery About the 1913 Avant-garde Armory Art Show



Previously unknown to me, my family's photography business, Hagelstein Brothers Photographers., was the official photographer of the 1913 Armory Show which brought Modern Art to America.  A reader of my blog indirectly led me to this link which documents my family's photographic involvement in this historic event.

I knew that the family business, established in 1866, had progressed from portraiture photography to commercial photography until they finally closed some 120 years later, and I was vaguely aware that they once also specialized in photographic reproductions of paintings, hand coloring the prints, but I did not know that my grandfather, Harry, went on such assignments, indeed, this particularly important one.

A recent issue of the Wall Street Journal reported that while the Armory Show "was widely panned" it nonetheless"sparked a new era" --The show lasted a scant four weeks, but Manhattan went on to become the Florence of modernism. The Museum of Modern Art, founded in 1929, became the first cultural institution in the Western Hemisphere ever to outclass comparable institutions in Europe. New York became the natural home of glass-box Bauhaus modernism at its best and worst (a style that is now re-emerging with new panache). And it became the home of Abstract Expressionism, of de Kooning, Rothko and Pollock—of the ultimate, transcendent achievement of abstract art....It all started at the Armory.


I've written about the family's photography business before, but there may be more curiosity concerning Hagelstein Brothers when the New York Historical Society "The Armory Show at 100" opens in October.

My beloved Uncle Philip was the family historian and regrettably I never had the opportunity to record all of his incredible family and business knowledge before he died.  He and my father (who was known by his middle name, Robert, and not his given one, Harry) were the last Hagelstein brothers to run the business.  I had chosen to go into publishing. 

Uncle Phil had given me some documents and from those I pieced together that my great-grandmother was from the Hamburg, Germany area but most of my family came from Cologne.  Four brothers, Anthony, Carl, Philip, and William came to America between 1853 and 1856.  Philip and Anthony bought a photography business in 1866 at 142 Bowery in New York City and although the two other brothers may had been involved on and off, Philip apparently was the main driving force. (William was drafted into the Union Army and he survived the war, settling in Brooklyn and went into the metal fabrication business. Carl went to California to make his fortune but came back after the war).

My grandfather, Harry, entered the business around 1905 and about 1915 he moved the business from the Bowery to 100 Fifth Avenue where it flourished (completing its transition to a commercial photographic firm from portraiture which it specialized in during the Bowery years) through the depression and two major wars. 

His sons, my father and my Uncle Philip, ran the business after WW II until the late 1980's at which time it was liquidated.  It was moved to Long Island City from 100 5th Avenue just before my father's death in 1984.

I have lamented the fact that the records of Hagelstein Brothers and, more importantly, hundreds and hundreds of Daguerreotypes and prints were destroyed in the early 1990's when my Uncle Philip's home (where they were stored) had to be sold and he went into a nursing home suffering from dementia..  We had sought to donate them but there was no interest at the time either from libraries or museums.  There was just no place to store them. Today, they would have all been digitized.

As an interesting family history aside, my father, who as I mentioned previously used the name, Robert,( my first name), purportedly was named after Anthony's son Robert, who became a well known Botanist. 

Coincidentally, at about the time I learned of the Armory assignment, out of the blue I received an email from another reader, Tom Luzzi, who had come across my blog after searching for information on Hagelstein Brothers as he had some photographs from their studio -- including ones of my grandfather and his sister -- and asked whether I would like to have them, explaining, my mother, who is 93, said the pictures came from her Aunt when they lived in Brooklyn in the early 1900's.  Her Aunt was best friends with a Kate Hagelstein (Harry's sister), who later became Kate McClelland.  The photos are from the Hagelstein studio and are of a Harry Hagelstein as a child while another photo shows Harry and Kate. 

Then he said he had several more, some which might be of the family, so he went to the considerable time and effort to scan and send them all.  This thoughtful, and generous act on his part allows me to incorporate his photographs as well as the few that I have from the Hagelstein Brothers Photography studio when it was in the Bowery and they are interspersed throughout this entry or appended at the end. 

Remarkably, he produced the only photograph I have ever seen on the co-founder of the studio, my great grandfather, Philip. I am profoundly grateful to Tom for making the effort to contact me and then  to scan and email the photographs he had from his mother.

Nonetheless, most of the studio's photographs have been lost to time.  But I was delighted to learn about the studio's work on the Armory exhibit and hope that anyone looking for information on Hagelstein Brothers Photographers will find this summary helpful. Below is the beginning and conclusion of a long article that appeared in the February and March 1942 issues of The Commercial Photographer.  It was about the firm and its innovative work in commercial photography.  (Unfortunately, Blogger does not support PDFs so I can not include it in its entirety, but anyone doing research on the studio can contact me at lacunaemusing@gmail.com and I will send a PDF.)

Creating "Sales Powered Photography"
A Two Part Series (With fourteen illustrations by Hagelstein Brothers)

"SALES Powered Photography"-this phrase which appears in the telephone Red Book advertising of Hagelstein Brothers, 100 Fifth Avenue; New York City, aptly suggests the firm's outstanding accomplishment in the field of merchandising. H. P. Hagelstein has developed an organization which is expert in dramatizing furniture, pianos, radio cabinets, lamps, china, glass, silverware, and other merchandise for the manufacturer who uses photography to sell his product to the wholesale or retail dealer. Associated with him in the management of the business
are his sons Philip and Robert.

This firm was founded by Philip Hagelstein, father of the present owners, and his brothers in 1866. In his studio, on the Bowery, he originally specialized in fine Daguerreotypes and portraits made on wet plates, working with the limited materials available at that time. Examples of his Daguerreotypes dating from 1860 to 1870 were included in the Eastman Kodak exhibit during the recent New York World's Fair. About 1880 he began to pioneer in commercial work for manufacturers in the conservative fashion of the time, and as his sons entered the business this specialty was further developed. Not until 1900, however, was portrait work entirely discontinued and attention focused on two special fields, one dealing with the manufacturer's merchandising needs, the other consisting of reproductions of paintings for artists and publishers.

When this latter specialty was a very important phase of the business, direct negatives from llx14 to 24x30 were made, and reproductions in black-and-white, sepia, and hand colored prints on platinum paper were sold to publishers and art dealers. These were discontinued due to the entry of mechanical printing processes, such as photogravure, photogelatine and color printing. But Hagelstein Brothers still have in their files examples of the exquisite reproductions of noted paintings which were done on platinum papers. And today they still photograph paintings for portrait artists, murals, and frequently sculpture.

Harry P. Hagelstein, who now directs sales contacts and planning, is as creatively minded in adapting photography to effective merchandising as in the technical aspects of camera work. That's an important reason why many customers have been buying photography from this concern for years-one firm, in fact, has been on the books since 1878 when Philip Hagelstein began to be interested in the relation of merchandise and photography.......

The firm's very best advertising, it is safe to say, is to be found in its adherence to the extremely high standards that Philip Hagelstein set for himself when photograph was very young and adventurous in 1866.  The profession has grown considerably older, but reliability and craftsmanship are still "better coin than money"....At any rate, Hagelstein Brothers have built on them for 75 years -- and will continue so in the future.
 
And they did for nearly fifty years more until advertising shifted from producing photographs for salesmen's catalogs to other media, magazines, radio, and television.  









One of the nice things writing this blog is occasionally hearing from readers whose lives have been touched in similar ways.  This is a postscript to this particular entry, received two years after I wrote it.  I’m including the email here by permission of the writer, Frank Fink, as well as the photograph he sent of his grandfather, taken by my great-grandfather in 1889.  As I said in the entry, most of the precious glass plates and prints from Hagelstein Brothers were destroyed after my Uncle’s death, although I had tried to place them with a museum.  This was before the age of digitization.  It would have been a very different outcome if it happened today.  Still, I’m always on the lookout for prints from Hagelstein Brothers, and it was thoughtful of Frank Fink to forward this image.
 
Hi Bob,

I ran across your blog while researching the provenance of a photograph of my grandfather, Ferdinand Ephraim Fink (b. 1885, New York NY, d. 1961 Brooklyn NY). The print carries the Hagelstein imprint on the bottom.  The handwritten caption on the back reads "Daddy when he was 4 years old." I believe that was written by my aunt Doris.  That would have made the date of the portrait 1889.

Anyway, it looks like you are on your way to recreating the Hagelstein archives. Hope this helps. 

Best,

Frank Fink

For more information on the history of Hagelstein Bros., go to this link