I tried a new search last week as I was looking for information pertaining to the Milwaukee panorama painters and Amy Tesch Boos. It might sound like a simple thing, but a search in any database has to be carefully calculated. You need to anticipate all of the possible results and create your own filter, otherwise too much or too little will pop up. This is especially pertinent when tracking down female artists.
The results included a series of articles from 1901-1914 with the title “first woman scenic artist.” “Yeah, right,” I thought. What made the journalist declare her the first and why publish it at that particular point in time?
They all included an interview with the same woman – Grace Wishaar. A search on Wishaar resulted in nothing beyond the exact same articles. Why? She had married multiple times and her maiden name was erased from all written record. Wishaar was no longer part of theatre history.
Illustration of Grace Wishaar as the “First Woman Scenic Artist.”
I admire and appreciate many women who paved the road before me. But there is something to be said when you sense a certain spark that is always present with a truly remarkable individual. What I found especially interesting is that many of the articles reported a scenario where Wishaar simply stumbled across the scenic art field. She was called in to help out an artist and found that she had some talent for the profession. Her story is not that simple. She came from a family with some theatrical interests and was encouraged by her parents – especially her father. As a child, both of her parents recognized the innate talent that both she and her sister possessed. There was not only the support of her family, but an inextinguishable spark that would remain clearly visible throughout the remainder of her life. She had quite a life.
I thought back to the 1882 illustration of two actresses helping a scenic artist paint a scene. It was included in the book “Theatrical and Circus Life; or Secrets of the Stage, Green-Room and Sawdust Arena” (1882).
“Helping the Scene Painter” illustration in “Theatrical and Circus Life; or Secrets of the Stage, Green-Room and Sawdust Arena” (1882). The painter shows an uncanny resemblance to Patrick Toomey of Toomey and Volland Scenic Studio (St. Louis, MO).
Sure, I might believe two women who were simply helping and artists prime a backdrop, but Wishaar was a different. She wasn’t a part of a theatre company who was helping out. It was almost as if Wisahar’s story was being minimized by the press to become acceptable for public consumption.
I literally dropped everything else that I was working on and decided to venture down this particular rabbit hole. I was intrigued. Earlier this year, I looked at some of the women who were reported to work as professional scenic artists during the 1920s. A wonderful article had mentioned this group as an ever-increasing presence that included Vyvyan Donner, Nellie Leach, Gladys Calthrop, Lillian Gaestner, and Gretl Urban.
Vyvyan Donner, with paint brush in hand, and her wall murals.
There was no way that these women suddenly popped up out of nowhere and decided to enter the field of scenic art. They had gone through extensive art training and proven themselves multiple times.
My research suggested that by the 1920s there was a growing faction of women in the scenic art community and some seeds of discontent among the men. What I found interesting about the female scenic artists form the 1920s, however, is that none of them really worked as part of a team, or in a studio setting. They would each be responsible for the scenery or decorations, but by themselves. These were the women who had excelled with their own name and possibly were perceived as an ever-increasing threat.
Wishaar was different and I don’t believe that she was an anomaly. Wishaar was one of many who came before her, but there was a reason that her story emerged when it did. The next few installments will look at her entry into the field of scenic art, her work in a studio and her life after theatre. She was really quite something and deserves to be recognized and remembered.
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.
Painting by August Löhr, nd.Painting by August Löhr, nd.
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.
1890 patent for Keyboard by Imre Boos, husband of panorama artist Amy Tesch Boos.
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.
Panorama painters taking a break during “Jerusalem on the Day of Crucifixion.” Amy Tesch Boos is seated behind the table on the right (look for white apron over her chest).Detail of Amy Boos seated at table while panorama painters are taking a break during “Jerusalem on the Day of Crucifixion.”
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.
Amy Boos seated at easel on left side of picture. Image from the Wisconsin Visual Arts Achievements Awards page. Here is the link: http://wvaaa.com/inductee/panorama-painters-late-19th-century-38
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.
Another detail of Amy Boos seated at table while panorama painters are taking a break during “Jerusalem on the Day of Crucifixion.”
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.
A view of the cyclorama, Battle of Atlanta, by the American Panorama Company.
Many of my posts mention painted illusion for the stage and their connection to moving panoramas, cycloramas and other large-scale visual spectacles. Today, I received an email from Gene Meier about defining panoramas, cycloramas and dioramas. It is probably the easiest definition that I have ever come across and decided to pass it along. It was written by Meier and simplifies something that is often confusing to many individuals.
From the pen of Gene Meier:
Writers attempt to explain what a panorama is to their readers and begin by saying “A panorama is a cyclorama…” Both terms mean “all around view.” “Panorama” is the term used in Europe and America. “Cyclorama” is used in America. This is how I introduce the subject to others: “A panorama is an inside-out diorama, and a diorama is an in-side out panorama.” A (rotunda) panorama consists of a painted circular canvas with foreground, middle ground and background, plus faux terrain (objects) to add to the tree-dimensional illusion. A 3-D diorama (as opposed to a DIORAMA PAINTING) consists of a main object (an up-graded “faux terrain”) and a painted panoramic background suggesting foreground, middle ground, and background.
The attached advertisement was brought to my attention by a descendent of Harley Merry, Victoria Brittain. She has graciously shared many images as she continues her genealogical research.
Victoria recently discovered an advertisement for the Harley Merry Studio in Julius Cahn’s Theatrical Guide from 1902-1903. Theatrical Guides for touring shows are an amazing source of information about North American theaters and theatrical suppliers.
In the big picture, Merry was instrumental in the training of Ernest Albert, Walter Burridge and many other nineteenth-century scenic artists. For additional information about the significance of Harley Merry and his contribution to scenic art, see my past posts from “Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar: Acquiring the Fort Scott Scenery Collection for the Minnesota Masonic Heritage Center” (installments #138-146). There are many other mentions about Harley Merry in this blog too, just do a search on his name!
www.drypigment.net is intended as a resource for those interested in theatre history, specifically the artisans who created painted illusion and visual spectacle.
From Julius Cahn’s Theatrical Guide, 1902-1903, page 36.From Julius Cahn’s Theatrical Guide, 1902-1903, page 36.From Julius Cahn’s Theatrical Guide, 1902-1903, page 36.From Julius Cahn’s Theatrical Guide, 1902-1903, page 36.
Here is the link to the ad: https://books.google.com/books?id=xrNEAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=%22harley+merry%22&source=bl&ots=SDymahEcHq&sig=NefMkdJNmH3K5V-tXDwmH-FvqKw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQuLOWrZHYAhXCeCYKHf-hAp04ChDoAQhEMAg#v=onepage&q=%22harley%20merry%22&f=false
Advertisement for the American Panorama Company’s “Missionary Ridge” next to the Shiloh and the Battle of Gettysburg panoromas.
The American Panorama Company of Milwaukee created the Battle of Missionary Ridge panorama. It was mentioned in the “Bad Lands Cow Boy” (Medora, North Dakota, July 22, 1886, page 3). The article reported, “The Battle of Atlanta was chosen as the second subject for the artists brush, and with better acquaintance with each other, and a wider familiarity with the methods of warfare adopted in this country, and with the men who participated in the civil war, results have been accomplished in “Atlanta” which exceed those presented in any previous painted panorama.”
Text panel discussing battle locations and the landscape.Stereograph from the Panorama of the Battle of Missionary Ridge, Union Troops Ascending the Ridge, American Panorama Company.Stereograph from the Panorama of the Battle of Missionary Ridge, Union Troops Ascending the Ridge, American Panorama Company.Stereograph from the Panorama of the Battle of Missionary Ridge, Union Troops Ascending the Ridge, American Panorama Company.
Here is what I find fascinating – they acknowledged the need for a warm up to better acquaint the immigrant artists with each other, all the while hoping to produce a truly monumental work of art. There was Wehner’s understanding that not all talented artists would work well together. Any type of paint studio needed to find a productive rhythm. That was as true then as it is true now. Wehner realized that many members of his newly formed immigrant staff had never worked together before. He obviously understood the potential for conflicts between individual skills, differing creative processes and artistic temperaments. Wehner needed a close-knit artistic community to ensure the success of the American Panorama Company and its anticipated project, The Battle of Atlanta. Otherwise, a quickly assembled staff could cost him time and money while he would be left to referee internal squabbles within his staff. The nuance of every artist’s technique needed to be fully explored prior to painting the Battle of Atlanta. Therefore, he created a warm-up project. Think of it as either spring training for baseball or making pancakes. The first pancake on the griddle may often flop. Just as the pan needs to reach the right temperature, a team of painters needs to warm up to each other to succeed.
There was also a blend of different ethnicities and languages in his studio. I have to wonder if English or German was there a common language. Was it necessary to have a common language at all? Having led an all-male paint crew in Japan, there is a certain amount of the artistic process that needs no verbal communication. A lot can be accomplished with pointing to a design, then the mixed paints, and finally pointing to a canvas or wall. Plus, these were all professionals, familiar with large-scale paintings and the necessary tools. As with F. W. Heine, most would have arrived with their own brushes in hand.
However, there is an entertaining tale that illustrates the art of communication in the American Panorama Studio. It is from “How A Great Panorama is Made,” an article by Theodore R. Davis, that was sent to me by Gene Meier. Remember, Davis was the individual who recorded many images of the Civil War and later worked for the American Panorama Company. As it deals with this particular cyclorama, it provides a little historical context and the dynamics in Wehner’s panorama studio.
To set up the story, Wehner does what many supervisors do – keep people busy. In many instances, I have tried to make sure that people remain working when they are “on the clock,” helping out with anything. The problem is to never get distracted and leave these people to their own devices. If you think that you have just assigned busy work, or something that is “fool proof” to screw up, think again. Learn from Wehner’s mistake.
Here is the excerpt from “How a Great Panorama is Made.”
“A portion of our picture, “The Battle of Missionary Ridge,” was left thus blank and bare, and was most disturbing to the German Professor who was chief artist. His eye so distracted and troubled by it that he one day directed some of the loitering models to take some color, “any color,” he said and “scumble over the surface to tone it down.” The models, dressed as Union and Confederate soldiers and officers, worked industriously for twenty minutes, when it was suddenly discovered that they had emptied three fifty-dollar cans of cadmium and were opening a fourth! A half-dollar’s worth of cheap house-paint would have been better, for no preparation had been used to make the cadmium dry, and it was still soft when the panorama was sent for exhibition in Chicago. What the artists said when they discovered the models’ mistake was not plain to me, as it was spoken in German; but I know that they all talked at the same time and very vigorously.”
This page shared by Gene Meier is from “How a Great Panorama is Made” by Theodore Davis who was on staff at the American Panorama Company. Published in St. Nicholas Magazine 1886-1887.
What is also fortuitous about this tale and the illustration was finding an almost identical sketch in the diary of F. W. Heine.
Sketch by F. W. Heine in his diary. This image is similar to the illustration “How a Great Panorama is Made” by Theodore R. Davis who was hired by William Wehner for historical accuracy of battle scenes in panorama.
Heine and Lohr were the two German professors at the American Panorama Company who were in charge of the projects and artists. They would later partner to create their own studio. It noticed the similarity as I was sending Meier photos of the Heine diary pages that I photocopied in 2013. There is something wonderful about sharing a discovery, only to learn something else new from him about the subject matter. Meier explained that the first unit of Battle of Missionary Ridge and Lookout Mountain was built on site in Cleveland. The second unit of Missionary Ridge was built in Milwaukee. He continued to explain that small waves of panorama artists were arriving from Germany and used George Peter as an example. Peter was told to first go to Cleveland to work on Missionary Ridge, then go to Milwaukee where the Battle of Atlanta was already under way. Missionary Ridge was truly a training ground used as an orientation for new members of Wehner’s paint staff.
Advertisement from the St. Paul Globe, October 24, 1887, announcing the close of the Battle of Atlanta cyclorama.
The American Panorama Company painted the Battle of Atlanta. It opened in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and closed in 1887. In 1893, George V. Gress purchased the attraction and it has remained in Atlanta ever since. In 1919, an amendment to the Atlanta city charter approved the construction of a building to house the massive artwork that was reported as weighing 9,000 ponds. The structure was designed by architect John Francis Downing and dedicated on October 1, 1921.
The cyclorama building in Atlanta, Georgia.
In 1936, a three-dimensional foreground was added to the painting in Atlanta. A mannequin of Clark Gable from the movie “Gone with the Wind” was also included by 1939. In 1979 the painting underwent conservation, reopening to the public in 1982.
This particular cyclorama is near and dear to me. In 2002, I traveled to Atlanta to assess the condition of the Scottish Rite scenery collection.
Atlanta Scottish Rite scene for the 17th degree, 2002.Detail from the Atlanta Scottish Rite scenery, painted in 1959-1960 by Maj. Don Carlos DuBois. His original designs are available online int he scenery collections database (University of Minnesota Performing Arts archives).
While I was in town, I visited the Battle of Atlanta Cyclorama with Larry Hill. Hill was one of the theatre professors who accompanied Lance Brockman and Rhett Bryson on many adventures as they crossed the country to document Masonic scenery. The three paved the pathway for my own research and restoration projects. When Larry and I visited the cyclorama we went behind the scene and was slightly astounded at how it had been repaired and conserved. I remember thinking at the time, “Well, interesting choice; hope it never has to move.” It has since moved, the website lists the exhibit as “permanently closed,” but is supposedly undergoing conservation. Here are two tales for your perusal: http://www.atlantahistorycenter.com/explore/destinations/atlanta-cyclorama and http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/08/us/atlanta-cyclorama-big-painting-move-trnd/index.html
The Battle of Atlanta was described in detail in the “Bad Lands Cow Boy” (Medora, North Dakota, July 22, 1886, page 3) reporting, “The magnificent panorama of one of the bitterest fights of the Civil War “ was on exhibition in Minneapolis. A great circular building had been erected for the panorama.
The article continued, “The word panorama conveys to the mind of one who has not seen one of these great pictures, but a faint idea of the effect secured by a combination of art and nature. The common idea of the effect secured by a combination of art and nature. The common idea of a panorama is that of a series of moving scenes. The modern war panorama differs radically from this commonly accepted idea. Instead of a series of views the spectator is translated by an ingenious device to a point of observation which enables him to command the entire field and wide expanse of country. The huge painting is hung around the walls of the great circular building, and the spectator is practically placed in the very center of a great landscape stretching away in “Atlanta” to from fifteen to twenty miles in every direction. No description which can be given of one of these wars paintings can convey to the initiated mind any idea of their effect. Ingenious as is the idea it is not one of American origin. The first of these panoramas was painted in Europe as long ago as 1810, and now in every European city of importance some famous battle scene is depicted in one of these war pictures.”
The author of the article explains that there was an interest in depicting battles of the Civil War, especially after Gen. Ulysses S. Grant’s book and a series of stories from officers published in Century Magazine. Interestingly, a signed copy of his book is in the Minnesota Masonic Heritage Center Library. I inventoried it as the Curatorial Director after moving the 10,000 piece acquisition from the St. Paul Scottish Rite during 2015.
Responding to the public enthusiasm in the nineteenth century, William Wehner decided to prepare a panorama with “a series of correct paintings which should have both artistic merit and positive historical value.” Wehner also hired Theodore R. Davis who was a war artist for Harper’s Weekly and possessed a rare collection of sketches of all the principal battles of the Civil War, as well as “a marvelous memory of the events and men.” There were more than twenty thousand figures included in the Battle of Atlanta. Blending in with the two-dimensional composition were also many dimensional items that included trees, mounds of earth, a stream of water, a railroad track, a smoldering campfire, a simmering pot of water, and other physical props.
American Panorama Company artists in front of the Battle of Atlanta. Image form the Wisconsin Historical Society.
As the cyclorama building was being completed, the artists were preparing the compositions, and sketching details that would later be transferred to the canvas. The landscape artists were studying the characteristics of the fields to be depicted, while the portrait and figure painters were occupied in “traveling north and south studying the types of faces.” The article reported “A vast collection of weapons and accouterments, all paraphernalia of war was gathered in the studio at Milwaukee before the task of painting was fairly commenced.”
There are many pictures of the cyclorama and I am attaching only a few for a simple sense of history and scale.
The Battle of Atlanta in its previous home.Detail of the Battle of Atlanta when it was installed in the cyclorama building.Detail of the Battle of Atlanta when it was installed in the cyclorama building.
At the same time the American Panorama Company was opening their studio in Milwaukee, Sosman & Landis were building another scenic studio in Chicago on Clinton Street. Early in 1886, the Sosman & Landis artists moved into the space. There, Thomas G. Moses and David A. Strong would complete their first project – a panorama of General Grant’s Trip Around the World (see installment # 215). Strong was much older and considered part of the Dusseldorf School of painting (see installments #127-128). This would be Sosman & Landis’ main studio for four decades. In 1886, Thomas G. Moses, Edward Loitz, Henry C. Tryon, John H. Young, Hardesty Maratta, Ed Morange and were all part of the paint staff. Charles S. King was the Soman & Landis stage machinist while C. D. Baker was their electrical engineer. Wehner’s panorama staff included at least twenty people in 1885, with the majority being new immigrants.
I want to stop and take a quick glance at the talent employed by William Wehner for his American Panorama Company as well as some other Milwaukee Panorama artists from that same time. Milwaukee panorama painters were quite a diverse community. Although not all were foreign, many hailed from distant lands and few would return to their homeland after the projects ended.
1887 image (26069) from the Wisconsin Historical Society, here is the link to the photograph: https://www.wisconsinhistory.org/Records/Image/IM26069 Group portrait of German painters relaxing in the studio of the American Panorama Company, during a break from painting the Jerusalem cyclorama depicting the crucifixion of Christ. Artists with their specialties include from the left, standing at the table, Franz Bilberstein (landscapes), Richard Lorenz (animals), Johannes Schulz (figures), and Bernhard Schneider (landscapes), and sitting from the left end of the table, Bernhard (Wilhelm?) Schroeder (Schroeter) with pipe (landscapes), Franz Rohrbeck (figures, especially Confederate), Friedrich Wilhelm Heine (wearing a hat) (Supervisor and master of composition), Karl Frosch (Frosh), Thaddeus Zukotynski (Zuchatinsky) (figures), George Peter (animals), Amy Boos, August Lohr (in profile) (Supervisor and designer of landscape settings), and Herman Michalowski (figures).
Immigrants still bring various skills and assets to our country that help it continue to grow and evolve. That was as true in the nineteenth century as it is now. The Milwaukee panorama artists contributed their talents as our country expanded from coast to coast. Foreign artists became part of the fabric that shaped American art and entertainment.
Below is a list of the Milwaukee panorama artists listed at the Museum of Wisconsin Art (MOWA) website. These are names that I have compiled and go beyond the tidy little bundle of “panorama artists” placed in MOWA’s panorama category. In some cases, MOWA gives a brief biography for the artists and in other cases nothing is known beyond a name. Some are not even listed as a panorama painters, yet they were pictured as working in the American Panorama Company in 1880s pictures. It would take some exhaustive research to compile more that this simple list below and I am well into Gene Meier’s territory at this point.
Below, I have included the panorama artists place of birth, place of death. To see the names together with a brief snap shot of their origins highlights the diversity of the group and validates why the United States has often been referred to as the great melting pot. It has always been an asset to our country.
There is a lot to comment on, but what surprised me the most of all was the mention of women, specifically Amy Cross, Amy Boos (Tesch), Mary Grover and Eileen Henrietta Collins. This is a significant dent in the workforce and more than just the lone wife of daughter helping out. They are not the only women scenic artists that I have been noting and tucking away in a separate document. There will be a post in the very near future about females in this predominantly male world. Also, keep in mind as you read the list of panorama artists below that Thomas G. Moses (1856-1934) grew up in Sterling, Illinois and worked from 1873-1934.
There is much more information pertaining to each individual artist, but it is important to see them as a whole and imagine their role in various panorama projects. I have also attached images of art by some of the above mentioned artists. Most were pulled from art auction websites and listed as “sold.” However, it is really quite something to look at their work as a whole and think about all of that talent working in one building. This goes far beyond an artist or two painting a Masonic drop. Each artist brought something unique to the project.
There are other panorama artists mentioned in MOWA, but without any pertinent information, and include, Johannes Schulz, Julius Ernst Peege, Mary Grover, Robert F. Gilder, Mrs. C. H. Eileen Henrietta Collins, Josephus Farmer, and Edward J. Herman.
German artist F. W. Heine traveled to the United States with nineteen other European artists to work for the American Panorama Company in 1885. William Wehner constructed a rotunda building to use as the panorama studio; it was located at 628 Wells Street in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The American Panorama Company was formed in 1883, but closed by 1887 even though the studio space continued to produce painted panoramas. Eight projects were possibly completed during the existence of the American Panorama Company.
1887 photograph. Group portrait of painters relaxing in the studio of the American Panorama Company, during a break from painting the Jerusalem cyclorama depicting the crucifixion of Christ. Artists with their specialties include from the left, standing at the table, Franz Bilberstein (landscapes), Richard Lorenz (animals), Johannes Schulz (figures), and Bernhard Schneider (landscapes), and sitting from the left end of the table, Bernhard (Wilhelm?) Schroeder (Schroeter) with pipe (landscapes), Franz Rohrbeck (figures, especially Confederate), Friedrich Wilhelm Heine (wearing a hat) (Supervisor and master of composition), Karl Frosch (Frosh), Thaddeus Zukotynski (Zuchatinsky) (figures), George Peter (animals), Amy(?) Boos (Boss), August Lohr (in profile) (Supervisor and designer of landscape settings), and Herman Michalowski (figures). Photograph from the Milwaukee Historical Society (#26069), here is the link: https://www.wisconsinhistory.org/Records/Image/IM26069
The Museum of Wisconsin Art (MOWA) lists biographical information about many of artists who created the massive paintings in Milwaukee, Wisconsin from 1884 – 1900. I also have information from the Milwaukee Historical Society on the artists; they are primarily a diverse group of immigrants. The panorama studio staff represented several European countries and most of the painters had recently immigrated to the United States. Many of these artists would continued to work for the American Panorama Company’s lead artists, F.W. Heine and August Lohr, after the first studio closed. They now created massive panoramas under the direction of Lohr and Heine.
1887 photograph of a watercolor painting by F.W. Heine of fellow artist Franz Rohrbeck. Rohrbeck is painting a study of a figure for the Jerusalem panorama (cyclorama) of the crucifixion of Christ. He is seated on a raised platform surrounded by canvases depicting other studies. A model poses for Rohrbeck while another of the panorama artists, Thaddeus von Zukotynski (Zuchatinsky, Chuchodinski) watches. Image from the Milwaukee Historical Society (#26067). Here is the link: https://www.wisconsinhistory.org/Records/Image/IM26067
Like the American Panorama Company, Lohr and Heine’s studio was succeeded by the Milwaukee Panorama Company. The Milwaukee Panorama Company was founded by August Lohr, Imre Boos, and Paul Zabel. Interestingly, Imre Boos was not an artist, but his wife Amy Boos was a panorama painter! THAT is a topic for a whole other post when I delve back into the women scenic artists who have completely faded from theatre history.
This quick succession of studios in Milwaukee, however, reminds me of Walter Burridge forming “Burridge, Moses & Louderback” and then suddenly forming “Albert, Grover & Burridge” only a few years later. As with many scenic studios during the late nineteenth century, there is a continued transformation as partnerships formed, businesses opened, studios changed hands, and artists shifted their allegiances.
Scenic Studio of “Albert, Oliver & Burridge” in 1891.
Regardless of individual artistic temperaments, however, work remained plentiful and there were profits to be made by investors. There was initial push back from the American scenic artists after the twenty foreign scenic artists arrived in Milwaukee but there was money to be made in panoramas – it was big money.
On July 29, 1882, the Chicago Tribune included an article tiled “Costly Panorama” (page 16). The article concluded with “Panoramas have paid so well recently in Paris that there are four in that city, four in London, two in Berlin, three in Brussels, etc.” That was why Wehner was so quick to construct a studio in Milwaukee.
What intrigues me about the American Panorama Company story is the systematic selection of foreign artists to create a popular product. It suggests an explosive market without enough American artists to supply the ever-increasing demand for panoramas. One could also consider a superior artistic training and familiarity with the artistic form. One could also consider the price of immigrant labor as the seeds of unions were being sown in the theatre industry.
Remember, the early unions for scenic artists and theatrical stage mechanics were already forming throughout New York and Chicago. The Theatrical Mechanics Association was formed in 1866 and the initiation of Charles S. King occurred in 1881 while he was in Minneapolis. The American Society of Scene Painters emerged in 1892 (see installments #138 and 179) and included some thirty members of the most prominent men in the profession.
An article about the organization of an “American Society of Scene Painters.” Published under “Stage Gossip” in the July 3, 1893, issue of the “Salt LakeTribune,” on page 7.
The objects of the society were “to promote the artistic and practical efficiency of the profession, and consolidate as a whole the dignity of the profession hitherto maintained by the individual artist.” It prevented stage employees from handling any scenery except that painted by members of the Alliance, stirring up excitement among foreign managers. The American Society of Scene Painters gave rise to a later Protective Alliance of Scene Painters of America formed in 1895. Panoramas were produced and displayed in a space that was not a standard theater with stagehands and run by manager. It may have been a lucrative loophole for investors.
Even as the panorama craze began to diminish at the end of the nineteenth century, the artists remained in the country. It was a land of plenty and a golden age of artistic endeavors. They opened their own studios and art schools. In 1888, Heine opened a watercolor and etching studio that was located in Milwaukee’s Iron Block Building. Like Moses, Heine went on sketching trips with fellow artists to gather primary research. Work was plentiful and the relationships between scenic studios and their artists remained as friendly competitors.
The tale of Thomas G. Moses records his interaction with many other artists, including the German painters at the Toomey & Volland scenic studio in St. Louis. For years, Moses would always stop by the studio when in town. The artists needed to maintain a network and understand the specific talents available in each studio as they might need an additional hand some day. Their connections were an asset, a strength facilitating potential partnerships for future projects. The stylistic interpretation may vary from artist to artist, but the overall approach remained constant. The industry promoted a standard and consistent process of painting techniques. Professional scenic artists created paintings intended to be viewed from a distance, at least twenty feet away.
While looking for images of F. W. Heine, I came across the July 22, 1886, issue of “Bad Lands Cow Boy.” The article described the “Battle of Atlanta” cyclorama that was on exhibit in Minneapolis, Minnesota. I was fascinated with the history of my hometown, so I took a little time to read the entire article. Near the end of it, the author highlighted William Wehner and the American Panorama Company artists. It described how Wehner visited all of the panoramas of importance in Europe and then selected “a staff of the most competent war painters to be found in that country.” The leaders of his exceptional painting team were foreign professors F. W. Heine and August Lohr, “whose previous accomplishments entitled them to be entrusted with the great task which had been laid out.” Heine and Lohr’s artistic staff included “eighteen of the best war painters of Europe, largely from Munich, Dresden and Vienna.” There were artists specializing in landscapes, portraits, figures, and horses. They left their homes to come work in Milwaukee. Most never returned. The fact that the paint staff of the American Panorama Company was mainly composed of foreign artists could not have gone unnoticed, especially by scenic artists in Chicago.
I think scenic artists from all over the country watched, waited, and then acted out against their new competitors. Wehner’s artists arrived in Milwaukee on May 13, 1885. Five months later there was a Scene Painter’s Show in Chicago highlighting American scenic artists. On October 12, 1885, there was the first exhibition of Water Colors by American scenic artists from all over the country. It stands to reasons think that they were defending their turf against this perceived onslaught of immigrant labor. There would never be another Scene Painter’s Show of that generation’s work.
An advertisement for the Scene Painter’s Show in the Chicago Tribune, November 15, 1885, page 16. Thomas G. Moses, Walter W. Burridge and many other scenic artists form across the country exhibited the fine art.
John Moran supported their cause when he submitted an article about the Scene Painter’s Show for the “Art Union, a Monthly Magazine of Art” (Vol. 2, No. 4, 1885, p. 85). The American Art Union was “a society of American Artists, including representations of all the different schools of art” that was “organized ‘for the general advancement of the Fine Arts, and for promoting and facilitating a greater knowledge and love thereof on the part of the public.” The 1884-1885 Board of Directors included D. Hentington (Pres), T. W. Wood (Vice President), E. Wood Perry, Jr. (Secy.), Frederick Dielman (Treasurer), W. H. Beard, Albert Bierstadt, Harry Chase, Harry Farrer, Eastman Johnson, Jervis McEntee, Thomas Moran, and Walter Shirlaw.
The art magazine that highlighted the Scene Painter’s Show in Chicago during 1885.
In a previous post about the Scene Painter’s Show I included Moran’s entire article. I am going to include it again as it can be read now with a much different perspective:
“The Scene Painters’ Show. Chicago, October 12th, 1885
The first Exhibition of Water Colors by American Scenic Artists has been open free to the public for some weeks past, in this city, and the eighty-four examples hung on the walls of Messrs. Louderback & Co.’s galleries include some praiseworthy and valuable works. Such a collection proves that the broad pictorial treatment requisite for adequate stage effect does not incapacitate a man for the finer and more delicate manipulation essential to good aquarelles, and shows, moreover, a healthy progressive spirit among scenic artists. The name of Matt Morgan has long been gratefully familiar to us, and he is represented by diverse and facile contributions. “Alone in the Forest Shade” (1), shows lumbermen with their load descending a wild ravine flanked on either side by towering pines. The feeling of solitude and gloom is forcibly conveyed and the tree forms and foliage broadly yet carefully handled. “The Lost Comrade” (27), and “Waiting for Death” (14), are strong and weird aspects of prairies life, the former representing a horseman, lasso in hand, who has come upon the skeletons of a horse and rider among the pampas grass, and the latter a bull calf standing over the moribund body of a cow, striving with futile bellow to keep advancing wolves at bay. A nude figure, “The New Slave” (71), standing expectantly against a rich low-toned drapery, is exquisite in drawing and color and charmingly beautiful in suggestion. Mr. Walter Burridge runs the gamut of landscape figure and decoration and is good in all! His “Spring” (9), “Autumn Leaves” (39), and “Old Mill” (49), are deftly washed-in landscapes, true to nature and aerial in quality, while “My Assistant” (16), a study of behind the scenes life, and a “Ninety Minute Sketch” (83), of his friend Mr. Ernest Albert, show character and a nice sense of texture. Mr. Ernest Albert’s “Winter Twilight” (12), is full of sentiment of the season and excellent in composition, and his “October Morning” (31), “moonrise” (40), “Sunset” (79), and “Autumn” (80), are severally individual as transcripts and prove his mastery over the vehicle he uses. “A Decorative Flower Piece” (84), by the same artist, groups of roses, pansies and forget-me-nots in a most artistic and harmonious manner. “Nobody’s Claim, Col.” (65) and “Near Racine, Wis.” (76) By Mr. Thomas G. Moses, are among his best examples and are freely treated and with fidelity to locale character and sky effects. Mr. Albert Operti gives us some reminiscences of his Lapland tour in 1884, which are realistic and worthy, and Mr. J. Hendricks Young, “A Busy Day on Chicago River” (38), which together with the local bits by Mr. Moses, Mr. C. E. Petford and Mr. Burridge, is of historical value as it is skillfully painted. “Rats, you Terrier” (59), by the same hand, is a “snappy” and bright treatment of a dog’s head and fully catches the spirit of the English. Mr. Henry C. Tryon’s “Source of the Au Sable” (34), powerfully conveys a sense of somberness and grandeur, and though ample in detail loses nothing of the vastness and breadth, which such a landscape motion calls for. Other works deserving of notice are Messrs. George Dayton, Sr., George Dayton, Jr., the late L. Malmsha, C. Boettger, Chas. Ritter, H. Buhler and John Howell Wilson, whose “Country Road” (76” is especially fresh, verdurous and bright. It is to be hoped that this is only the forerunner of many like exhibitions and it marks a decided growth in the national art spirit.”
On June 29, 2017, (installment #131) I wrote, “This wasn’t just a group of artists linked by a common style or profession – this was statement made by a closely-knit community of passionate individuals. They shared their work, their lives and their passion for painting.” Now I understand that this could have been more than a mere statement; it was creating a united front to battle a potential threat to their future livelihood. Not until this moment had I considered that the Scene Painter’s Show of 1885 was a calculated response to the arrival on twenty foreign scenic artists who worked for the American Panorama Company, having only arrived a mere five months earlier. I honestly don’t know if any other scenic studio in the United States could rival the size of the American Panorama Company’s staff in 1885; certainly not the Sosman & Landis studio.
To provide a little more context for this event, it was also the same year that Moses left the Sosman & Landis Studio to form a partnership called “Burridge, Moses & Louderback.” J. D. Louderback was the Chicago art dealer who hosted the Scene Painter’s Show. Walter Burridge had extensive experience painting panoramas that included work with Phil Goatcher on “Siege of Paris” (1876 Philadelphia Centennial World Fair) and a “Battle of Gettysburg” panorama. He understood cycloramas and would soon design and paint the “Volcano of Kilauea,” a monumental success at the 1893 Columbian Exposition.
Advertisement for Thomas G. Moses’ business with Walter Burridge and J. D. Louderback.
Two groups of artists: one crossing the Atlantic to paint scenery, the other showing what America already had to offer.
Thomas G. Moses (1856-1934) left a written record of his career. At the end of his life, fellow artists referred to him as the “Dean of Scenic Artists.” He assembled a typed manuscript in 1931, compiling all of his handwritten diaries into one document. His daily entries began in 1873 when his father sent him his first journal. Moses also left a scrapbook of not only his successes, but also the achievements of his friends. Both are in the Harry Ransom Center at the University of Texas in Austin. I created an index for both books and am currently transcribing some of the handwritten diaries that just came to light. Moses’ started life in a small rural community, soon moving to a larger metropolitan area. In Chicago, he would strike out on his own as a very young man, determined to establish himself as an artist. Moses created scenery for a variety of performance venues throughout the country and was active in many fine art organizations.
Thomas G. Moses (1856-1934)
There is another artist who parallels his journey, but in the panorama studio – Friedrich Wilhelm Heine (1845-1921). Heine was a German immigrant who arrived in Milwaukee after being offered a position with the American Panorama Company. He was recognized as a successful artist prior to moving to the United States in 1885. Both artists specialized in the painting of scenic illusion and visual spectacle. Moses and Heine each worked as art instructors and exhibited their work. Both recorded their daily activities and painting projects over the decades. Moses’ diaries start in 1873 and end in 1934. Heine’s diaries start in 1880 and end in 1921.
Friedrich W. Heine (1845-1921)
Heine’s diaries were written in almost undecipherable German and Moses’ diaries were written in barely decipherable English. I laugh when I compare the two.
Legible penmanship was not a priority for either man, but these were their private accounts. I am not fluent in German or Heine might have received the majority of my attention, especially considering my heritage. Luckily, Moses left a typed manuscript. There are only a few of his handwritten diaries left and I have transcribed one – 1931. Heines left many handwritten diaries without their compilation in a typed manuscript. I have now contacted the gentlemen who transcribed some of Heine’s diaries, Michael Kutzer. The transcription job landed on his doorstep in 2008 as he had an understanding of art history and painting techniques, as well as the ability to read old German writing. Kutzer studied art at the Academy in Stuttgart, Germany, and art history at the university there. There could not be a more perfect person for the job, but the funding for the project ran out. The project leaders decided to start in 1885 with Heine’s arrival and go until 1893. Kutzer’s passion for the project brought him back as a volunteer where he started with the beginning, 1880. He is now just finishing 1882 and doubts that he will be able to transcribe the remainder of the diaries in his lifetime.
Kutzer mentioned the patience required to decipher the Heine’s “lousy handwriting” and his extreme love for abbreviations. I had to chuckle as I thought of how Moses used alternative and abbreviations too.
The handwriting of F. W. Heine.The handwriting of Thomas G. Moses.
Over the years, many articles have provided insight into Heine’s diaries. He was a great example of an immigrant who gained recognition as a Milwaukee Panorama Artist. Here is a very brief summary of Heine and his scenic art contribution as a panorama painter during the late nineteenth century. Heine was born in Germany and did not immigrate to the United States until the age of forty in 1885. At that time, he was a well-known artist, financially stable, married and had three young children. He had worked as an engraver, book illustrator, a sketch artist with the Prussian army, and a field artist in the Franco-Prussian War of 1871. It was his reputation as a war artist that would bring him to America to work on large battle panoramas. William Wehner provided Heine with his first job in the United States. Wehner was a Chicago businessman who founded the American Panorama Company in 1883. Wehner actively recruited scenic artists from Europe to staff his paint studio.
On April 25, 1885, Heine left Dresden for Bremen where a group of panorama artists assembled for their transatlantic journey. The chief organizer of the group was August Lohr who helped the group board the steamship “Fulda” for the nine-day crossing. In preparation for his departure, Heine signed his family up for English lessons, purchased art tools, and took out a life insurance policy. His family would join him in America a year later.
In New York, Wehner met up with the group of artists and they continued onto Milwaukee, arriving by May 13.
