The same year that the Sosman & Landis Annex studio opened, an article appeared in the Chicago Sunday Tribune, “Paint Mimic Scenes, Men Who Have Found Fame in the Wing and Drop Curtains” (Dec, 18, 1892, page 41). Here is the continuation of that article started in installment #245.
“Chicago has every reason to feel proud of her scenic coterie. Out of its hundred or more members but a few can be briefly noticed. There are memories of poor Minard Lewis, an artist essentially English in feeling, some of whose “drops” are still preserved in the Grand Opera House; Lewis [Louis] Malmsha, whose finished work graced the old McVicker stage; John Mazzanovitch, whose witchery in waters with reflected foliage and charm of middle distance in exteriors was also associated with this house. All of these are dead. Richard Halley, at present winning laurels as a painter in Europe, was the scenic artist for Kelly and Leon in the halcyon days of minstrelsy and painted marbles in distemper almost as well as Kilpatrick does them at present in oil. David Strong, “Old Trusty,” still at work in this city, is the only survivor of the good old Dusseldorf school. Everything that comes from his facile brush – and he could walk over miles of canvas of his own painting – has the quality of opaqueness peculiar to his school and seldom found nowadays.
Ernest Albert is undoubtedly the best student in architectural work in this country. Everything that his deft hand touches is full of authority and rich in color. That he is also an idealist has been demonstrated by his spectacular creations, the first at the Chicago Opera-House and Auditorium. In interior decoration, tapestries, etc., he has few equals, and follows the same medium in distemper as the aquarelists. One of the great giants of the scenic world was William Voegtlin, the greatest deceiver of transformation effects that ever walked the paint bridge. He had a style peculiarly his own and seemed to incorporate the stunning effects of all schools, but was not without artistic weakness and peculiarities. In some respects his drawing had the weakness of Morgan, but his color was wonderfully vivid, and he was a grand master with foil. In this latter respect he was only rivaled by Thomas Noxon of St. Louis, a remarkable artist in spectacle. Voegtlin often ate and slept on the paint frame for weeks at a time during the rush of a great production. Then followed a period of dissipation, when his painting was very “red.”
Walter Burridge is the best foliage painter in this country, and is in all respects as an artist of out door nature the equal of Richard Beverly, who holds the palm for the line of work in England. The leaves of his foliage appear to be agitated, and his atmospheric feeling is remarkable.
Thomas G. Moses is an artist of solid merit who does an immense amount of work, but who has small opportunity to exercise his creative faculty.”
This list of scenic artists presented in the article continues tomorrow, but I want to pause here about the entry concerning Thomas G. Moses. He would soon leave the Sosman & Landis studio again – this time for New York. I have to wonder if the article was a turning point for him. The description of Moses as a scenic artist “who has small opportunity to exercise his creative faculty” must have been quite a blown. There is nothing like reading a statement that basically says, “unable to achieve his full potential.” Moses’ creative wings were clipped by studio work. I think that this one sentence spoke to a much larger issue at hand and I doubt that Moses was ever really happy at the studio, even after he became the company’s president. He saw the money that could be made and how little profit he received in the end, especially after all of his hard work, “hustling,” and extended absences from his family.
Then there is the aspect of personal artistry and public acknowledgement of your work by colleagues. The article negates his overall contribution to scenic design and art for the stage in 1892. When you look at some the exciting theatrical effects being produced for the stage by close friends and past co-workers, it must have been frustrating. He was now reduced to standing on the sidelines. Were Sosman & Landis primarily seeking profit through numbers? The article mentioned 1300 jobs in a decade. In 1892, Moses’ life and work at the Sosman & Landis studio appears to have been reduced to primarily painting stock scenery and drop curtains. He had a steady salary, but knew that there were much more exciting projects out there.
To be continued…
For past installments on the scenic artists mentioned above, see: Ernest Albert (installment # 131, 133-139, 145, 154, and 179); Walter Burridge (installments 127, 128, 131-140, 155, 171, 179, 185, 217, 218, 225, 231, 244, and 248); David Strong (installment # 65, 123-131, 153-155, 167, 199, 215 and 248); William Voegtlin (installment # 248); Thomas Noxon (installment # 89, 92, and 136) and Louis Malmsha (installment # 123-4, 127, 131, 133, 165-66, 178 and 198).
