Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 282 – The Milwaukee Panorama Company and Amy Boos

The Milwaukee Panorama Company was founded by August Löhr, Imre Boos and Paul Zabel on November 27, 1888. The Milwaukee Panorama Company produced a cyclorama at the Wells Street Studio (the old American Panorama Co. space) – “Christ’s Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem” that opened on June 1, 1889. By March 22, 1890, the Chicago Tribune reported that the panorama was “sold to a syndicate of Mexican capitalists for $35,000, and will be exhibited in the City of Mexico” (page 10). There is much more to that story, but my main focus is the founders. Let’s look at those three men:

August Löhr (1843-1919) had previously been involved in the American Panorama Company and started a studio with F. W. Heine. Löhr & Heine used many of the artists who had previously been employed by the American Panorama Company. The Milwaukee Panorama Company was just one more business venture for Löhr. Born as the son of a soap maker in Hallein, near Salzburg Austria, Löhr studied in Munich and became a landscape painter, specializing in alpine scenes.

Between 1879 and 1881, he worked for Ludwig Braun painting panoramas, including the Battle of Sedan. By 1884, Löhr was supervising the installation of a German panorama at the World’s Fair in New Orleans (the Cotton Exposition). He then signed a contract with Wehner and moved to Milwaukee.

Little is known of Paul Zabel other than that he was a singer and impresario who organized operatic performances. One of his performance venues was Schlitz Park. By 1900 he is briefly mentioned as being nominated the secretary for the Deutscher Club (Inter Ocean, 4 April 1900, page 4). This musical connection would have brought him into contact with the Boos family.

Imre Boos (1851-1915) was a journalist for German and English newspapers in Milwaukee. He also entered into the real estate business and was an investor. He also was an inventor and patented a transposing keyboard for pianos on May 13, 1890.

In addition to the Milwaukee Panorama Company, he was also involved with the Vanderbilt Mining Company. On Dec. 19, 1882, the articles of incorporation for the Consolidated Vanderbilt Mining Company were filed and two of the incorporators were Imre Boos and John H. Tesch (Chicago Inter Ocean, Dec. 20, 1892, page 7). The object of the company was general mining in New Mexico Territory and elsewhere.

Imre was the husband of Milwaukee panorama painter Amy Tesch Boos (May 6, 1851- July 4, 1935) who had worked for Lohr and Heine creating the panorama “Jerusalem on the Day of Crucifixion.” A daughter of German immigrant parents, here maiden name was Tesch. A photograph in the Wisconsin Historical Society (#26070) shows Amy Boos in the midst of the panorama painters, relaxing in the studio during a break while painting the Jerusalem panorama.

It was her black dress and pinned apron that immediately caught my eye. It not only verifies that she is a female, but also matches her garb in another studio photograph where she is sketching at an easel.

The beer bottle and glass of wine on the table in front of her also made me realize the relaxed atmosphere and sense of camaraderie during their paint breaks. Better paint breaks than any of my paint crews have ever experienced, to say the least.

There were a myriad of other small details in the photographs that I also found fascinating: the time clock on the one wooden support, the scale drawings, and figure studies, the pegs for the jackets on a distant wall, and various examples of stuffed animals for reference during painting. It set the tone for their space and the running of the panorama paint studio. In my mind, only the paint-spattered clothes for the artists were missing. Realistically, their paint jackets or cover-ups were probably hanging from the pegs, discarded at break before sitting down.

Boos is one in a line of many female artists, all are extremely difficult to research. Part of it is that women artists lost a portion of their history along with their maiden name when they married. If the female had any type of a career or recognizable name, changing last names was similar to suddenly going incognito. It was one of the reasons that I decided to hyphenate in 1993, loosing the distinctive last name of Waszut was incomprehensible to me, but I wasn’t brave enough to buck family tradition and solely keep my maiden name. In the end, I created a one-of-a-kind last name that made me easy to find in a Google search. Think of it as a form of brand marketing.

For female artists from the past you have to divide their histories into two section – “before marriage” and “after marriage.” However it is ore complicated than simply using a new last name. For example, Amy Tesch would not necessarily become Amy Boos, she might solely become Mrs. Imre Boos, losing both her first and last name in one fail swoop. At that point Amy Tesch would disappear from all written records and solely become an extension of her husband’s name, only distinguished by an additional “s” (Mr. Imre Boos and Mrs. Imre Boos).

There is also the public perception of women that shifts throughout the centuries and defines what is socially acceptable for women to accomplish at any one point in time. They might be working in a scenic studio or panoramic studio, but any public record of their presence might not benefit either the employee or employer. It might not help with marketing to explain that there are women on staff working on large-scale art works. It could make the public’s perception of the company shift to dismay or anger. Throw in the preconceived notions of what women could and could not accomplish at various points in history and a female artist might really become a liability.

The rare mention of women working in a fine art studio or a scene painting studio are few and far between during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries for the above reasons. The mention of four known female panorama artists in the Wisconsin Historical Society database shocked me. Panoramas were the “rocket science projects” of the time and not entered into lightly or without skill. The idea of women being involved in these projects is a validation that they were trained and experienced; this was not a one-time job for them.

I try to place myself in their shoes and recognize “hiding in plain sight.” It may have been an early version of “don’t ask, don’t tell” which just makes me sad. However, there were without doubt, daughters, sisters and wives who painted alongside family members, especially if it was a family business. As with many family businesses, women and men worked side by side. A great example is farming. So, why would it be any different for artistic or theatrical families? Honestly, I am looking for the woman with no familial connections to either theater or the art world as that would be a turning point in history – especially if she was publically acknowledged for her work. It had happened by the 1920s, but was there someone earlier? Yes.

Tomorrow we look at the nineteenth-century gal who was noted as the “first woman scenic artist.” “Really?” I thought, “I doubt it.” What was the incentive to market this particular female as a scenic artist? Was she a novelty at that particular time? She certainly wasn’t the first.

To be continued…