Part 382: The English and Central European Influence on American Scenic Art
When I first started working as a scenic artist, I noticed regional discrepancies, both in regard to paint consistency and painting techniques. At first, I attributed the difference to historic versus contemporary paint application. It seemed that I worked with more solid colors, while some of my co-workers used a series of glazes. Regardless of differing painting techniques, our approach during the preparation of the composition was similar; layout and drawing techniques remained consistent.
My initial perception of “historic” versus “contemporary” painting techniques has gradually shifted to the idea that there were two distinct influences on the evolution of American scenic art, thus establishing two geographically defined schools of scene painting. Each tradition shaped a scenic artist’s painting process, particularly the mixing of paint and painting technique. These next few posts are an attempt to identify the two nineteenth-century approaches to scenic art in America and the various hybrids that developed during the twentieth through twenty-first centuries.
Two distinct scenic art traditions rose to prominence during the nineteenth century, each taking hold of particular region in the United States with not only a fierce passion, but also undying loyalty. The era that am focusing on is from 1850 to 1890; during this forty year period there was the development of two dominant approaches in the application of paint to theatre scenery – solid colors and glazes. Please understand that I am not delineating between the use of dyes versus dry pigment, as that also became its own unique tradition when creating drops that could be packed into a trunk for touring shows. In this post, I am specifically presenting two scene-painting traditions that found fertile ground in America and established two schools of scenic art associated with geographical regions – the East Coast and the Midwest. I will get to the contributions of other countries and the development of scenic art along the West Coast in separate posts.
The English and Central European schools of scenic art settled in the United States in the East and Midwest, respectively. Each had a distinct aesthetic in terms of landscape compositions, coloration, and paint application. The New York (English school) style built up a composition with a series of translucent layers – going from light to dark colors. The composition’s foreground held the action and detail, with the middle ground and background fading into an airy distance.
Historical sources from the late-nineteenth century credit the distinctive approach of glazing to John Henderson Grieve, father to the brothers Grieve. During the first decade of the nineteenth century, he introduced a glazing technique that his rivals would contemptuously refer to as a “Scotch wash.”
Prior to that time, the dominant paint technique was the application of solid colors in scene painting. It would remain that way in Central Europe. Grieve was reported to demonstrate an “extreme gracefulness” in his wash application when painting landscape scenery. It was recorded that by the middle of the nineteenth century, this system of glazing was adopted by most English scenic artists in both London and abroad. New York scenic artists, and those who worked along the Eastern seaboard became closely connected to the English style of scene painting and the application of glazes.
Scenic artists in Chicago, St. Louis, and Kansas City were closely connected to a Central European school where scene painting used a more solid application of opaque colors.
My research also suggests that the Germanic influence, particularly the Dusseldorf school, also promoted this painting process. Furthermore, the compositional layout shifted from the primary action moving from the foreground to the middle ground. In a past installment (#127), I have examined the Sosman & Landis artist, David A. Strong, who was dubbed the last of the Dusseldorf-trained scenic artists.
Walter Burridge (1857-1913) would affectionately refer to Strong as “Old Trusty” and a member of the Dusseldorf School. Fellow artists heralded Strong’s skill, his “facile brush,” and “the quality of opaqueness peculiar to his school” (Chicago Tribune, Dec. 18, 1892). It is this “quality of opaqueness” that was in direct contrast to the English practice of glazing. The opaque application of solid color also meant that a subject could be worked up from dark to light. The use of glazes typically meant that the composition was worked up from light to dark. Each was successful, yet supported differing approaches when mixing paint and applying color to the composition. Furthermore, each final product was intended to be viewed from a distance. So in that sense there remained uniformity when viewed from the audience. Most nineteenth-century theatre patrons would not be able to identify the differing techniques and aesthetic nuances, but the scenic artists would.
This is the first of a series of posts where I will look at the established nineteenth-century American scene painting traditions that shaped the training and work of Thomas G. Moses and his contemporaries. In this world Moses trained in the Central European tradition and rose to prominence as a scenic artist.
To be continued…
