Campbell House Visit

I was pretty excited about the field trip to the Campbell House—the week before, I had walked by it and peered into the garden, and I had spent some time this summer talking to someone I know who had volunteered for them doing research and historical preservation. She was pretty excited about, so between that and my excessive compulsions about St. Louis history, I was pretty enthusiastic, and the visit paid off. The Campbells owned an impressive collection of things—things that weren’t all necessarily to my taste, but were a fascinating reflection on their social standing and the importance of certain styles and objects to the family.

One of the most striking elements of the house was the huge contrast between different rooms—for example, the opulent, overdone style of the parlor was a huge contrast to the dark and subdued (yet also overdone) style of the morning room. The stylistic elements that tie the whole house together seemed kind of haphazard, and this made me wonder if this was a symptom of preservation or if the Campbell’s style was actually kind of haphazard.

An object category that also perplexed me was the massive number of self-portraits, paintings and even mirrors throughout the house. Although the mirrors served a practical purpose of extending the amount of light in a room and making rooms seem bigger, there is an element of self-indulgence in having that many reflective surfaces on every wall. The Campbells must have spent a considerable amount of time looking at themselves, either in the form of portraits or mirrors. It especially weirded me out that Mrs. C had a huge portrait of herself in the parlor as the central focus—I wonder what it would be like to sit in a room with a giant picture of yourself all the time and entertain guests. I think it would freak me out.

The difference between the servants quarters and objects and the Campbell’s portion of the house was also fascinating—especially that almost none of those objects were preserved since they weren’t considered useful. Although the servants made up the majority of the household, and contributed a great deal to the history of the house, their objects are nearly entirely anonymous. Since there were so many objects missing, it also seemed like that portion of the museum was much more structured in a false way than the rooms that were precisely preserved as shown in the photographs. I was curious about how these objects would have been when the servants were actually using them—certainly not so neat and put on shelves! I imagine there must have been stacks of dirty dishes and a variety of objects strewn around the kitchen without any concern for their placement. I wonder if the butler’s pantry was also as neat as it was when we saw it—it seemed like a difficult arrangement for using those objects, but a good one for displaying them (especially the chariot napkin ring).

The photographs as the basis for the museums renovation was also interesting since it was so unclear what the purpose of the photographs was—were they taken for documentation, for fun, or for something else? Were the rooms especially arranged for those photographs, and if so, why? The way that the colors were determined from the photographs and the paint sampling was very interesting as well—science plays such a big part in historical restoration.

My favorite pieces in the house were actually pieces that did not belong to the Campbells at all, but rather the furniture in Mrs. Kyle’s room. The dark wood and simple lines were very appealing to me, especially over the ornate decoration and coloring of the rest of the Campbell’s house. I also particularly liked the banister in the front stair, which was in a similar, also older style. I imagine that Mrs. Kyle’s room must have been really dark and oppressive when she lived in it, if the wallpaper was darker than it is currently. It must have been horrible in there with the shades shut!

I enjoyed the Campbell house museum because it provided such a cohesive glimpse into the lives of these objects. Unlike our visit to SLAM, the objects were more or less close to in situ (or as close as their going to get), and I had a much better idea of how they were used and appreciated. At SLAM, there were several pieces that I remember remarking seemed rather modern in relation to the year that they were made. Some similar pieces appeared in the Campbell’s house—shapes, forms and patterns that reflect a more modern taste, such as the ceiling detail in the parlor or some of the small detail pieces upstairs. Kate remarked on this too, and this reminded me that in reality everything old just becomes new again, and that very few new styles or forms are invented, they’re just recombined in new ways to create more fitting forms and functions.