Note: This is a sample entry, compiled by Professor Schrag. It should give you some idea of what a page should look like in terms of format; I hope your research and analysis will be more thorough. (That is, this page would not necessarily merit an "A," though the second analysis of the building would have a good shot at one.)
Patent Office
Image Information
Caption: United States Patent Office, Washington, D.C., showing F Street facade, possibly taken from the upper floor of the General Post Office.
Original Source: Plumbe, John, 1809-1857, photographer.
Location: Library of Congress Reproduction Number LC-USZC4-3596 DLC
URL: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?dag:2:./temp/~ammem_Pbjh::@@@mdb=mcc,gottscho,detr,nfor,wpa,aap,cwar,bbpix,cowellbib,calbkbib,consrvbib,bdsbib,dag,fsaall,gmd,pan,vv,presp,varstg,suffrg,nawbib,horyd,wtc,toddbib,mgw,ncr,ngp,musdibib,hlaw,papr,lhbumbib,rbpebib,lbcoll,alad,hh,aaodyssey,magbell,bbcards,dcm,raelbib,runyon,dukesm,lomaxbib,mtj,gottlieb,aep,qlt,coolbib,fpnas,aasm,scsm,denn,relpet,amss,aaeo,mffbib,afc911bib,mjm,mnwp,rbcmillerbib,molden,ww2map,hawp,omhbib,rbaapcbib,mal,ncpsbib,ncpm,lhbprbib,ftvbib,afcreed,aipn,cwband,flwpabib,wpapos,cmns,psbib,pin,coplandbib,svybib,mmorse,afcwwgbib,mymhiwebib,uncall,mfd,afcwip,mtaft,manz,llstbib,fawbib,berl,fmuever,cdn,upboverbib,mussm,cic,afcpearl,awh,awhbib,sgp,wright,lhbtnbib,afcesnbib,hurstonbib,mreynoldsbib,spaldingbib,sgproto,cola,tccc,curt,mharendt,lhbcbbib,eaa,haybib,mesnbib,fine,cwnyhs
Description
By Leonardo Estudiante
Modified by Joanna Student
The Patent Office building was built between 1836 and 1857. The original design by Ithiel Town and William P. Elliot Jr. was modified by Robert Mills, who was in charge of construction, and by Thomas U. Walter, who replaced Mills in 1852. In 1932, the building was transferred to the U.S. Civil Service Commission. In 1963, it was tranferred again to the Smithsonian Institution, and since 1968 it has housed the National Portrait Gallery and the Smithsonian American Art Museum (originally the National Collection of Fine Arts).
References
- Federal Writers' Project, The WPA guide to Washington, D.C.: the Federal Writers' Project guide to 1930s Washington (1942. Reprint, New York: Pantheon Books, 1983), 292-293.
- David W. Scott, "The Old Patent Office: Dignity Redeemed," Curator 11 (1968): 234-251.
- Pamela Scott and Antoinette J. Lee, Buildings of the District of Columbia (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 189-191.
By Leonardo Estudiante
Historian Cindy Sondik Aron notes that the Patent Office was one of the first federal agencies to employ women to do what had been men's work. Prior to 1863, documents had been copied by men, paid by the word. After that year, Aron write, "supervisors moved these men to more substantive and better paid work, and instead hired women, also at piece rates, to make copies." At first the women worked at home, but starting in 1869, they were given office space in the Patent Office itself.
References
- Cindy Sondik Aron, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Civil Service: Middle-Class Workers in Victorian America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), 72-74.
By Joanna Student
Between 1964 and 1968, a building that had served for more than a century to house office workers was remodeled to serve as the home of two museums: the National Portrait Gallery and the National Collection of Fine Arts. Since the Patent Office had always displayed models of inventions, as well as national treasures such as the Declaration ofIndependence, this was not as great a stretch as it could have been. Still, architects had to bring the building up to date with twentieth-century lighting, climate control, and transporation, including an underground garage and a loading dock.
The adaptation proved controversial. David W. Scott, the director of the National Collection of Fine Arts, claimed that
At the outset, it was determined that an objective of the planning would be to preserve and recover as much as possible of the original architecture of the building. In many areas, this has been accomplished; in others, functional requirements have necessitated basic changes, but ones in harmony with the older structure. The result is that the effect intended by the 19th-century architects, as expressed broadly in mass and volume if not in period decoration, is the dominant impression the visitor receives today.
Washington Post critic Wolf Von Eckardt disagreed. He complained that "the barabaric crudeness with which the Old Patent Office has been remodelled . . . is a blow to American culture." He complained of terazzo floors hiding marble, "hideous" air diffusers cluttering vaults, and fluorescent light that assaulted the eye and, perhaps, the paintings.
In 2000, the Smithsonian tried again, this time spending $283 million, rather than the $5.5 million ($32 million today) budgeted in the 1960s. This time, designers seem to have paid more attention to historic details. Adam Goodheart writes that
vaulted ceilings, still sturdy, shine with fresh plaster, applied using traditional methods. Cracked and missing pavers in [the] marble floors have been carefully replaced. Windows and skylights have been reopened. Layers of dull, federal-issue paint have been carefully steamed off, revealing original surfaces beneath. And for the first time in living memory, partition walls have been cleared away, reopening interior spaces andallowing visitors to roam freely, as Mills intended, around all four sides of the central courtyard.
The museums reopened in July 2006, so visitors can judge for themselves whether the designers found the right balance between old and new.
References
- Adam Goodheart, "Back to the Future," Smithsonian, July 2006.
- Wolf Von Eckardt,"Fine Arts-Portrait Gallery: A Crude Blow to Culture," The Washington Post, November 19, 1967.
- David W. Scott, "The Old Patent Office: Dignity Redeemed," Curator 11 (1968): 234-251.
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.