Part 387: Trade Secrets, or the Initiation into the Mysteries of Size and Whitewash
In 1889 W. J. Lawrence commented on the English scenic artists’ contribution to the theatre (The Theatre Magazine, July 13, 1889). He detailed the evolution of “the old odor of disreputability” associated with scenic art in the 1830s, noting the condescending characterization of “daubing,” “white washing,” and “paper-hanging.” He briefly mentions the contributions of Clarkston Frederick Stanfield (1793-1867), David Roberts (1796-1864), William Leighton Leitch (1804-1883), and Joseph William Allen (1803-1852). However, he holds up William Roxby Beverly (1810-1889) as being “the first great scenic artist who knew how to uphold the dignity of the profession,” later describing those who were “initiated into the mysteries of size and whitewash” while acknowledging that most abandoned the paint frame for the easel. Lawrence quotes Chaucer in regard to the scene painting profession, “The lyfe so short, the craft to long to lerne.”
Lawrence goes on to explain that most notable English scenic artists originated from a long lineage of scene-painting families, “so habituated to the scene-loft from their youth upward.” Prominent among these scene painting families were the Greenwoods, Grieves, Stanfields, Callcotts, Dansons, Fentons, Gordons, and Telbins.” Lawrence wrote, “It comes somewhat as a reversal of the usual order of things to find a son beating his father at his own game, and completely effacing his identity by dint of superior genius.” This is a significant statement as it suggests that every generation improved upon the foundations of the previous one, as one would hope in the world of art. Lawrence also credits many of the English scenic artists as possessing a variety of other theatrical skills. He refers to Stanfield’s father as one specific example:
“Very few people nowadays seem to have any knowledge of the fact that Clarkston Stanfield’s father was not only a capital scenic artist, but a man with some pretensions to literary fame. From his fluent pen came the popular Freemason’s song, “Friendship and Love.”
This really accompanies his use of the “initiation into the mysteries of size and whitewash.” I immediately thought back to the 1881 Minneapolis newspaper article that mentioned Charles S. King and his being “initiated into some of the mysteries of stage mechanism.” Any initiation into a special group was founded on the keeping of secrets. In the case of scenic artists and stage machinists, it was the continued practice of innovating techniques that were kept secret from their competitors.
There were scene-painting families that functioned in the similar manner to that of earlier guilds. These groups of artisans closely safeguarded their painting techniques, as these were trade secrets and set them apart from the rest of their colleagues; not all scenic artists were cut from the same cloth, and some were simply better than others. Some also had taken years to master techniques that they would never hand off to a competitor. They expected any new apprentice to slowly acquire an understanding of a skill, as there were no shortcuts, or fast tracks, to becoming a master scene painter.
In London, as well as other places, the “scene-painting fraternity” practiced the ‘exclusive’ system or a closed shop, barring those who had not gone through an apprenticeship. Again, not everyone had the talent, connections, or training to make the cut. The apprenticeship system monetized on a specific artistic approach, as this was a direct attribution to their success, especially when it involved new techniques or technology.
I think about the Mosaic families in the East and how each group specialized in a unique Mosaic pattern that was passed down from father to son, or master to entered apprentice. I also think back to the cathedral builders and the close kept secrets of masonry and construction techniques. Operative masonry had a specific body of knowledge safeguarded by individual, lodges, masters, passwords and grips to identify a member of their group prior to entry in any meeting. Guilds were never intended as a free resource for inspiring artists, or any artisan who happened to pass along. The function of a guild was not to share resources, but to maintain a standard, adding skills for those who only helped your group surpass the competition. Competitors would attempt to replicate techniques, but it was unlikely that they would ever access the original formula; leaving them to create only poor imitations of the originals. Think of the generic version for a prescription medication. Almost the same, but not quite.
So, lets get back to the introduction of English glazing and its use abroad. The technique in scenic art is credited to a member of the Grieves, a well-known scene painting family in England. This is what set the Grieves apart at the Covent Garden Theatre. They established a new trade technique within their family, that brought them to the top of their profession as noted by Lawrence in 1889. In approximately 1810, John Henderson Grieve was credited with revolutionizing the “ordinary methods of scene painting” by introducing a glaze in lieu of solid colors. He is using a series of translucent layers to create a vibrant depth to the overall composition and it was an instantaneous success with the public. Grieve’s son William, also used the family practice of glazing, and eventually was recognized as the first English scene painter to whom the public paid tribute with a “call” before the curtain in 1832. This scene painting technique was eventually replicated and employed as the accepted technique by English scenic artists by the mid-nineteenth century.
So who were the other families who contributed to English scenic art tradition and eventually beat the Grieves at their own game? Tomorrow, we will start with the background on the Grieves and move to the other families.
To be continued…
