Gus Wilson - Folk Artist*

By Gene Kangas

Contents

• Introduction
• Personal History
• Stylistic Periods
• Common Traits
• Inventory
• The Mergansers
• Sources

*First published in Decoy Magazine, November/December, 1994.

Introduction

Thousands of individuals and over one hundred factories produced millions of waterfowl decoys after the idea began over two millenium ago. Of that multitude of makers, how many went far beyond the typical decoy in creative efforts to make miniature ducks and other decoy related artifacts? The answer is a very small percentage. Of those, how many fashioned not only quality lures but also a wider variety of folk sculptures distinguishing them from the norm? Only a handful did and they have become recognized for their special contributions. These legends include Elmer Crowell, Ira Hudson, Charles Perdew, The Ward Brothers, Shang Wheeler and Gus Wilson, all prolific masters.

Augustus Aaron "Gus" Wilson's folk art career spanned over half a century of productivity along coastal southeastern Maine. Its been estimated that he sculpted thousands of decoys and multiple dozens of decorative bird carvings as well as tigers, snakes and perhaps other wild creatures. When comparing the overall efforts of all decoy makers, few rival Gus Wilson's form variations. Some turned a head now and then; others occasionally made sleepers. No other carver, however, consistently rendered as many different head and wing positions in working decoys. Wilson lures are powerful form statements that recall the movements of live waterfowl. The hunting rigs he created must have been amazing to watch floating on water. Imagine a group of bobbing black duck tollers with heads rocking, wings outstretched, a few callers, a lone feeder, mixed with several preeners and closed-eye sleepers. Wilson observed nature and portrayed impressions of what he saw in his decoys.

Unlike decoys by the other legends mentioned, the sculptural form of a Wilson is far more important than its paint. Artists are typically oriented that way; some prefer shaping and sculpting while others tend to favor painting or two-dimensional embellishing. Such personal preferences are manifested in different final appearances. To appreciate each fully, one must comprehend the dynamics of each maker's design sensibilities, objectives and circumstances.

Gus Wilson was a thrifty New Englander producing within an established Maine decoy tradition for people of like attitudes. Seaworthiness, durability, practicality, effectiveness and affordability were essential considerations. Early on, these regional requirements influenced the evolution of large solid tollers with modest polychromed patterns. Wilson's genius is demonstrated by his ability to work within existing traditions and yet elevate the Maine decoy to a higher level in decoy history.

Personal History

Augustus Aaron Wilson was born on September 8, 1864 in Tremont, a small coastal town on Mount Desert Island. He grew up along the ocean, and much later entered the lighthouse service at age fifty. It is known that he was a boatbuilder, outdoorsman, sportsman and waterman. The 1900 Maine census lists Gus Wilson as a fisherman and a 1909 merchant directory also identifies his occupation as a fisherman on Mt. Desert Island. His first appointment as a lighthouse attendant was at the Goose Rocks Station on Fox Island in East Penobscot Bay on March lst, 1915. Two years later in 1917 he worked at Two Lights Station at Cape Elizabeth; but, within a year, he was transferred to Spring Point Light in Casco Bay off the coast of Portland. Gus completed his twenty years of service retiring in the fall of 1934 at the age of seventy. Sixteen years later, Gus Wilson died on June 20, 1950. He was eighty three.

Official records in Tremont, Maine document that Augustus A. Wilson was married to Mary S. Hopkins by Reverand A. Redlow, Minister of the Gospel on July 28, 1887. Gus was twenty-two and this was the first of three marriages. Mary and Gus had one child prior to 1900; Mary died in 1909. Ten years later he married Edna M. Snow in Portland on September 25, 1919. Their marriage of over sixteen years was a happy one and it is no coincidence that this time directly parallels Gus' most creative carving period. When Edna died on March 7, 1936, Gus was greatly affected. He had lost a loved companion; he was lonely. Two years later he married Fayette Beal in Portland on May 14, 1938.

Gus had a good sense of humor and loved hunting and fishing as evidenced by numerous stories remembered by Fred Anderson (1918-1983) about their joint exploits. Gus was a keen observer of nature, often taking time to replicate birds flying around his yard; and he was fascinated with exotic beasts, starting with boyhood curiosities about tigers. Reportedly, he carved and fastened a snake to his garage. Perhaps this was his way of interacting through whimsy with neighborhood children.

Gus Wilson and young Fred Anderson first met in 1929 when Fred was just eleven. They soon became good friends and neighbors leading to a long close relationship. Fred eventually worked as Gus's assistant roughing out decoys but Fred said he never painted any. Gus sent Fred to downtown Portland one day during the Depression to sell the dozen flying mallards he had just finished; Fred was to ask four dollars each. None sold. Times were tough. One by one they were given away; neighbors and family often received handmade gifts from Gus. It is important to note that Fred reported that Gus tended to sell finished decoys for one price and unpainted ones for a lesser amount. This practice may account for unexplained differences in the plumage patterns of some decoys especially mergansers. Gus did not normally rig or weight decoys that he sold; that was the responsibility of the hunter. Fred Anderson's relationship with Gus Wilson coupled with his overall knowledge of decoys have provided a valuable and clearer understanding of the man and his life's work.

Stylistic Periods

Ben Gaylord's 1975 article in "North American Decoys Magazine" defined five distinct periods of Gus Wilson's career. A more simplified division, however, into three periods seems more practical considering Gus's ability to create a vast array of diverse forms within a relatively short time span. The first stylistic era probably started during the mid 1880s and lasted until circa 1915. The second period began about then continuing to the mid to late 1930s. The final group of works were fashioned during the first half of the 1940s.

Born in 1864, Gus would certainly have been a physically mature individual by the time he was twenty. If he had begun carving decoys for his own use, his first stylistic period could not have occurred much earlier than 1882-1885. Classic birds from this era have previously been referred to as Monhegan style or Viking type. They are large, bold forms with powerful sculptural attributes. Several early scoters have bottoms incised with a "Double A" and a continuous bar connecting both letters. When viewed upside down, the monogram becomes a "W". These were probably from A.A. Wilson's own rig. The initials help identify this early style as Wilson's. These robust tollers directly reflect the vitality and strength of a young Gus Wilson.

By this time, his works already had carved eyes, inletted necks, relief carved wings, incised mandible separations and unpainted bottoms. These traits established significant signature charactertistics traceable in ensuing periods. Scoters, eiders and mergansers were the dominant species fashioned at this stage. While their body forms are full and commanding, there was limited experimentation with head positions. Turned heads and back and front preeners comprise his more sculptural successes. Function was a dominating priority.

By contrast, the second period was when Gus flourished as an inspired folk sculptor. He was well practiced in the "how to" of making functional lures. Now a mature, fertile, happy mind overflowing with invention and wonderment was set free. His job as a lighthouse keeper provided financial security and ample time to facilitate rapid artistic advancement. Imaginative decoys and wildlife carvings began being shaped in an incredible variety of poses. The quantity of exceptional works to leave his rudimentary shop during this fruitful quarter century secured his place as one of America's noteworthy folk artists.

Exaggerated long-necked goldeneyes and whimsical rocking head blacks and mergansers were brought to life during the second period. Gus fashioned mergansers with carved crests, horsehair crests, leather crests or no crests. On other birds he raised wingtips and on some he lifted entire wings. He opened mouths and turned heads in almost every conceiveable direction and extended necks forward, upward and/or downward.

Small decoratives to impressive life-size herons took shape. So did a series of large and small jungle cats. Many of these folk sculptures were produced for sale as well as personal pleasure. It was also during this time between March 1936 and May 1938 that Gus contemplated sculpting a life-size wooden wife for his lonely kitchen.

By the 1940s Gus was well into his seventies. At that age people often lose portions of former physical abilities. Dexterity diminishes. Effects of advancing age can be observed in corresponding decline in quality of form. Third period decoys tend to be smaller, not shaped or sanded well and painted less successfully. Overall innovation is lacking. However, carved and painted traits established a half century earlier continued.

Perhaps the best decoys produced in this era were the novel "swivel heads." Significantly, this type does not appear earlier; they are probably Gus's unconventional solution to inner urges to devise something beyond the norm, something moving, something alive. Swivel heads adjusted to any angle; they were easily repairable and did not require the exacting carpentry necessary to inlet head seats into matching recesses. Years of experience and a continuing healthy creative mind challenged a less apt body onward. Gus was at the natural twilight of an amazing career.

Common Traits

Artists, folk and academic, whose careers span several decades develop identifiable and predictable traits that become common threads through their work. This often directly relates to tools and materials used as well as the working environment where the art was produced. Gus Wilson did not have an elaborate, well-equipped modern workshop. He worked in a simple garage, kitchen or wherever he found available space. Tools were limited to basic knives, hatchets, keyhole saw and chisels. Lacking a vise, he hand held wooden bodies and heads as he refined them. According to Fred Anderson, Gus drew paper patterns for each group of decoys he was about to undertake; the ephemeral patterns became torn, lost, discarded or used to start fires in workshop stoves. Therefore, it follows that each new generation of patterns might be different from but related to previous sets. Add to that Wilson's thrifty reliance on utilizing every wood scrap including pieces requiring pegs or patches and a picture of expected change emerges. As changes occurred, stylistic periods developed; yet many of the same details and tendencies were maintained.

Frugally using available materials resulted in big birds with little heads, short necks, long necks, stubby bodies, etc. Patterns had to be adjusted to the wood at hand. Imperfect lumber was salvaged and repaired rather than discarded. Resulting form variations and corrected wood imperfections are identifiable traits to Wilson.

Other characteristics common to his decoys and smaller birds are an economical use of carved eyes instead of glass or tacks. Incised oval eye shapes are a trademark existing on all periods and styles of working tollers. Eyes are part of a head confirmation that is rounded and full. While decoy heads might flatten somewhat near each eye, none have recessed "eye sockets," raised eyebrows or pronounced foreheads. A reocurring feature on many lures is the under bill "Y" shaped detailing which even occurs on some sleepers when their heads were carved separately prior to attachment. Apparently eye and bill delineation are attributable more to habit and personal preference than need or function.

Bottoms of the majority of Wilson lures were customarily finished by leaving them bare wood, presumably to save paint. The few that have painted bottoms were colored with the same liquid used for basic body tones. Primer, as a rule, was not used and paints came from what could be afforded or found. Since Gus did not normally rig bottoms of decoys being sold, hardware is unreliable for identification. The overall treatment of bottoms, however, offers clues in identifying Wilson decoys.

Like other Maine makers, Gus precisely inletted heads firmly into sunken areas carved into solid, symmetrical bodies. Shapes of the neck's bases most often are squared at the back and rounded in the front conforming to curved chest profiles. More importantly, the orientation of these inlets tend to vary by pose. While most parallel the normal body axis, some turned heads and preeners have elongated neck seats set at angles to the body's centerline. Some smaller carvings and decoratives also have inletted necks. This is a feature more common to Wilson than his contemporaries.

Other traditional Wilsonesque treatments include abstracted paint patterns that are simplifications of reality, bills with long, straight, incised mandible separations and relief wing carving. Bills can be found with carved nostrils or no nostrils. On most, wing carving is subtle beginning rounded at the shoulders and becoming progressively more pronounced at the wing tips. A few decoys may have carved indentations in their throats suggesting a fleshy look. Decoys and decoratives possessing these traits can be attributed as Gus Wilsons.

Inventory

Gus Wilson was a prolific carver who produced an estimated 5000 decoys for sale to local Maine hunters and sports. It is not surprising, therefore, that the majority of species represented are endemic to that region. In addition to these, Gus also brought to life an array of other nature-oriented folk sculptures. A brief overview of the range and depth of these carvings should help clarify his creative aptitude.

Scoters and eiders were some of the first tollers carved and continued to be prevalent throughout his career. Examples boldly depict front and back preeners, turned heads, side preeners, mouths with mussels, open mouths, cocked heads, calling, swimming, reaching, rocking and swivel heads. Hundreds of scoters and eiders left his workshop with these and presumably other postures.

Fewer mallards exist and those that do likely originated in his second sylistic period from the late 1920s through the 1930s. Some known mallards include regular floaters, one back-preening open-mouth drake, a raised wing drake and a sleeping hen with wing incising.

Black ducks, by contrast, were fashioned in larger numbers, and true to Gus's character, in more variations. Blacks can be seen with fixed heads with open "calling" mouths, rocking heads, "calling" rocking heads, sleeping and preening positions, one and two raised wings, feeding poses and holding food. At least one had its tucked, sleeping head and body shaped from a single thick piece of wood. A few hollow blacks are known.

Another species commonly portrayed was the goldeneye or whistler which appear in more than one period. A dozen earlier ones made circa 1915-1920 originally had long necks but unfortunately, some were intentionally shortened after their creation. Others have turned and swivel heads. Two exceptional goldeneye drakes are illustrated on page 194 of Adele Earnest's book THE ART OF THE DECOY. One is long-necked with a "calling" mouth and the other has a serpentine neck in a chest preening simulation.

Old squaw decoys, fewer in number, are extant from earliest through latest styles. Swivel heads, however, are only found on late era forms, and one third period model sports a long, inset "spike" tail. Some were hollowed via the bottom. Reportedly, one 1930s rig was recarved from six existing hollow Wilson blackducks and then repainted by Gus as old squaws.

In numbers, these are the six predominent decoy species. There may be a small group of very late redhead. One attributed brant was sold at auction; the brant's white wing patches, however, suggest it probably is a scoter with an elongated, upright neck.

In response to creative inclinations, Gus conjured up his own wooden menagerie. Wooden waterfowl hung from ceilings in his home. Carved birds perched in the yard, and a boyhood fascination with tigers prompted Gus to whittle miniature renditions to life-sized beasts. One real-life favorite was Emyr, known to be the largest tiger in captivity and exhibited around the country by the Ringling Brothers Circus. Emyr reportedly was sixteen feet from nose to tail while Gus's 1930 wooden portrayal turned out shorter at eighty two inches. A thirty inch tiger was one of the only carvings Gus ever kept just for himself. In addition, twelve mallards, plus white winged scoters, black ducks, buffleheads and goldeneyes emerged from Wilson's garage/studio as full-bodied decorative avians with applied wings and feet mimicking natural in-flight movements. He also created miniatures as well as large and small standing birds with wire legs. Of these, seagulls are the most numerous followed by robins. There are also crows, rail, goldfinch, Baltimore oriole, meadowlark, bluejays and at least three to perhaps five large heron with wooden legs. Detailing on the decorative heron is consistent with similar treatments to working decoys. And then, there are the mergansers.

The Mergansers

Of all decoy species created by or attributed to Gus Wilson, red-breasted mergansers are the most varied in style, detailing and plumage depiction. Therefore, it is important to first examine decoys in original condition and paint and with Gus Wilson's signature. These are known as the Pike rig. Reportedly, a commercial Maine fisherman named Alger Pike from Lubec purchased a hunting set of mergansers, eiders and scoters from Gus in 1932. At that time, Gus had a rubber stamp and marked them "Made by A. Wilson, So. Portland, Maine." Since Pike's decoys remain in pristine condition, they confirm characteristics identifiable to Wilson.

The thickness of the white neck band, the size and shape of the two shoulder crescents and the two large elongated teardrop shaped speculums are stylistic treatments that appear on decoys from other periods. Remaining colors were applied without primer in a manner resulting in blended or softened edges that separate patterns. Carved eyes, inletted necks, relief wing carving and elongated bills are also traits continued through different generations. These necessitate careful study. For example, the length and shape of Pike rig merganser bills closely resembles those on earlier rocking and turned heads. Approximately 70 to 80 per cent of the measurement from each decoy's eye to the tip of its bill determines the proportional bill length. Bills tend to be primarily long, straight and have incised mandible separations that run their entire length.

Another pair, once in Dr. George Starr's collection, represents the earliest period of Wilson mergansers, circa 1885-1900. They are typified by large inletted neck seats, subtle relief wing outlines and carved eyes and crests. Both have had incorrect bill replacements that do not conform to Wilson's style. Incised lines on the drake's crest are, however, embellishments that do reappear on other mergansers as well as on the wings of some working and non-working carvings. The significant difference is the flamboyant paint patterning. On the drake, three oval white dots and a more fancily shaped speculum vary considerably from Pike rig designs. Paint on Starr's birds is original, thin, dry and applied directly on wood with no primer. The hen's pattern closely matches that of the hen merganser on the cover of American Wildfowl Decoys by Jeff Waingrow.

Why the difference? Why paint in a more elaborate fashion on some decoys and not others early in a career when body forms were less experimental? Why consistently simplify the polychrome patterning in later periods characterized by change and variation? Remember, Wilson was known to sell finished decoys for one price and unfinished ones for another. Since lures with more elaborate patterns vary so much from the accepted norm, it is probable that they were painted by someone else. If Gus Wilson had originated this paint style, it might be assumed that he would have revisited it in later periods. He did not.

IN CONCLUSION, when authors Adele Earnest referred to "the art of the decoy" and Harrison Huster and Doug Knight called decoys "floating sculpture," they recognized that decoys were much more than mere tools. The rich lifework of Gus Wilson epitomizes that recognition.

Sources