{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022036474164133738, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.239336492890995, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Second Line Rescue: Improvised Responses to Katrina and Rita

that some, even many, screen painting artists would have been people of colour, but Eff does not acknowledge any contribution or lack thereof. Since a significant proportion of folk art in America has been produced by under-represented groups, not mentioning any influence or contribution seems suspiciously ethnocentric. Eff diverges from a chronological organization and presents biographies of screen painting artists from the mid twentieth century. Each of these artists has a unique feature, like Johnny Eck’s penchant for bright colours, or Ruth Chrysam’s delicate techniques. These biographies also chronicle the changing demographics of the screen painters, most notably that women joined the ranks. The pre-eminence of females and new artistic themes defined this era of screen painting. Individuality and personal expression become its hallmarks However, Eff’s assessment of the folk art turns dark when she describes the most modern trends in Baltimore. With a widely changing ethnic landscape in the city, crippling poverty, and destruction of the iconic row-houses, Eff sees the future of the screen painting tradition as endangered. Little hope is offered for a resurgence, and the narrative ends with a warning that her entire book could very well be an obituary for a peculiar and prolific folk art in Baltimore. The Painted Screens of Baltimore presents a compelling argument for screen art as an element of identity in Baltimore, and provides a beautiful catalogue of images to illustrate the point. The reader will wonder about screen art’s prevalence in other cities, and whether Eff’s assessment is biased by her own connections and commitment to folk art in Baltimore. Also, any acknowledgement of the presence, or lack, of minority contributions to screen painting would have made the work more representative. It is a relief that Eff did not delve too deeply into the ever-present and contentious ‘art’ verses ‘folk art’ debate, although the context of screen painting in the broader folk art movement would have helped to advance readers’ understanding of screen painting’s context. Her understanding of screen painting’s process is impressive. In addition, the historiographical and biographical skills needed to compose such a volume could not easily be accomplished by another author. Overall, her personal attachment to the subject matter enabled her unprecedented access to modern screen painters. What results is a colourful, informative, and fascinating ‘biography’ of a much underappreciated and swiftly disappearing folk art in America.