Month: April 2018

I am back in Minneapolis!

Although a snow storm, rain and ice delayed my scheduled Sunday arrival  at Cobalt Studio until the end of the day on Monday, I was able to work with the Cobalt students and out-of-town guests on Tuesday and Wednesday.  Yesterday was only a half day, as my flight departed in the early evening.

Over the course of 2 1/2 days, the majority of students completed three dry pigment projects.  Immediately upon my arrival Monday afternoon, we looked at a power point presentation on historical scene painting techniques.  For the remaining hour of the day, I taught the students how to work with dry pigments and diluted hide glue. They experimented with various colors on test flats to get familiar with this artistic medium, producing a variety of  rich color combinations.  Dry pigment mixed with diluted hide glue (called size) is a lovely medium to work with, and very different from premixed paint that comes in cans.

Each student had the opportunity to work up a painting from light to dark, with a series of glazes (in the English style that I have been describing in this blog).  They also painted a composition that went from dark to light, using more solid colors (European style that I have been describing in this blog). The replicated sections from  historic backdrops that I have photographed over the years and historic designs from the University of Minnesota Performing Arts Archives.

For all projects, we worked on speed, layout, color and technique.  Rachel requested that the focus of the class this year was rocks, both natural and carved.  However, the students had a chance to work on a little foliage and gold ornament as time permitted.  For the most part, each student was able to select there project with minimal guidance from me.

Each composition was created from a palette, where the colors were individually mixed up and immediately applied to the canvas.  They did not mix individual colors in cans.  This is a very economical way to paint, as nothing is wasted or left over at the end.  I love not having to worry about disposing any leftover paint.

Below are the students with all of the projects that they completed from Tuesday morning until Thursday noon.

 

Part 391: The Danson Family of Scenic Artists

In 1889 W. J. Lawrence listed some prominent English scene painting families – the Greenwoods, Grieves, Stanfields, Callcotts, Dansons, Fentons, Gordons, and Telbins. This installment looks at the Dansons (The Theatre Magazine, July 13, 1889).

George Danson Jr. (1799-1881) was the son of George Danson Sr., and Mary Ianson. His father was a prominent Liverpool maritime merchant and ship owner who died bankrupt. One of five children, George Jr. became apprenticed to T. & J. Shrigley, after his father’s death. The Shrigleys worked as decorative painters, wood grainers, and japanners. On the completion of his apprenticeship, he went to London. By the age of 24, the Royal Academy exhibited two of his paintings. Danson also exhibited occasionally for the British Institution and the Society for British Artists. In 1824, he married Ann Ireland and the couple had seven children. The two sons that survived to adulthood followed their father’s profession and also became scenic artists. By the late 1840s, the scenic art firm of Danson & Sons. Messrs appears in playbills and directories.

Danson created the Cyclorama of Lisbon with designs from Bradwell (Builder, v. 6, Dec. 30, 1848, pg. 627). He was also a popular scenic artist for Astley’s, where he worked with the famous showman, Andrew Ducrow. He was employed to paint for a variety of venues, including Covent Garden, Coburg Theater, Vauxhall Gardens, the Belle Vue Zoological Gardens, the Surrey Gardens, the Coliseum at Regent’s Park and Drury Lane.

His obituary reported, “Early in his career, Mr. Danson was engaged with David Roberts. R.A., as a scene painter at the Theatre Royal, Edinburgh. Subsequently he assisted in carrying out the constructive decoration of Vauxhall Gardens, and was employed under Macready, and with Clarkston Stanfield in the production of the scenery of the great master’s Shakespearean revivals. At the request of Mr. Braham he produced at the Coliseum in Regents’s Park the dioramas of “London” and “Paris by Moonlight,” and designed and erected various grottoes, Swiss chalets, and other scenic illusions which delighted a former generation. At the Surrey, the Adelphi, and other metropolitan theatres, he devised and produced the scenery of the Christmas pantomimes for m any years. All this long and varied experience Mr. Danson brought to bear in his vast outdoor pictures at Belle Vue, Manchester. But beyond his recognized power as a scenic artist, Mr. Danson possessed a singularly inventive capability for adapting all kinds of materials to his necessities. He was an admirable carpenter and joiner” (The Furniture Gazette, 5 February 1881, page 97).

Vauxhall was frequented by all classes and had remained one of London’s favorite pleasure gardens since the late seventeenth century. The 1823 Vauxhall Gardens in London incorporated an eighty-foot high picture of Vesuvius and the Bay of Naples used as the background to a nightly outdoor fireworks show. However, by the 1820s, Vauxhall had become somewhat rundown and other pleasure gardens began to compete with it. , such as the Belle Vue Zoological Gardens that opened in 1831. This amusement center was the idea of John Jefferson (1793-1869). The main attractions at the zoo, botanical gardens and the amusements included mazes, grottoes, an Italian garden and exotic plant house. Danson was employed to paint 30,000 square feet of canvas to create the background where performers were employed to act out a scenario of a major historic event, usually incorporating a battle. Fireworks were incorporated into this spectacle that catered to the public on an industrial scale.

In 1851, he was asked by John Jennison to be the scenic artist at Belle Vue Gardens in Manchester, a position he held until his death in 1881. Charles Dickens was among Danson’s many friends. Danson’s sons, Thomas (1829-1917) and Robert (1836-1917), each continued careers I scenic art. Thomas Danson later held an art appointment at Belle Vue Gardens. Thomas passed away in 1893. His obituary reported, “The death has occurred in London, in his sixty-fourth year, of Thomas Danson, one of the best known of contemporary scene-painters. He and his brother were well known in the North for the huge scenic “effects” produced by them at the Belle Vue Gardens, Manchester” (Birmingham Daily Post 22 December 1893).

The Belle Vue zoo closed September 11, 1977; the Belle Vue amusement park closed October 26, 1980; and the Belle Vue gardens closed during February 1982.

To be continued…

 

Part 390: Clarkston Frederick Stanfield and his Moving Dioramas

The Grieve family’s scenic work for Covent Garden was considered to be exceptional due to their use of transparent glazes, a technique first developed by John Henderson Greive. The Grieve family of scenic artists remained at the top of their profession utilizing this technique until others were able to emulate it, and improve upon it; Clarkston Frederick Stanfield (1793-1878) and David Roberts, R. A. (1796-1864) were two such scenic artsts. Stanfield and Roberts entered the scenic art picture in 1822 when they first started working at the Drury Lane Theatre. It was Stanfield, however, who would introduce movement to the wonderful scenic illusions at the Drury Lane. Roberts was a fine architectural draftsman and scenic artist draughtsman, by the spectacles produced by Stanfield surpassed both Roberts and the Grieves family triumvirate.

By 1823, Stanfield was in the lead at the Drury Lane, creating a succession of ‘moving dioramas.’ In this context, diorama does not refer to the current understanding of a partially three-dimensional painted scene, but a theatre device. Moving dioramas became features of Stanfield’s English Christmas pantomimes during the 1820s. Stanfield’s moving dioramas (what we now may term moving panoramas) were introduced into each of his successive pantomimes; they were considered artistic triumphs and fueled the competition with other scenic artists such as Roberts.

In 1871, E. L. Blanchard wrote that Stanfield “first distinguished himself at Drury Lane by the scenic effects with which he illustrated the opera Der Freyschutz, produced on that stage in 1824.” From that time he remained the chief of the Drury Lane painting-room while Roberts joined the Covent Garden team. Some of Stanfield’s earliest scenes of this kind were in “Harlequin and the Flying Chest,” and his Crystal Grotto in” Harlequin and the Talking Bird” Blanchard reported that they “created a marked sensation” (“Scenery and Scene-Painters” by The Era Almanack, 1871). Pantomimes, or Pantos, appealed to audiences not only for their favorite actors, but also for the processions, tableaux, staged spectacles, and transformation scenes. Stanfield’s moving panorama were enhanced by the use of two moving panoramas that moved simultaneously.

One moving diorama was rolled between two cylinders on the stage. Certain sections were transparent and backlit to suggest the effect of sunrise, sunset, illuminated windows, fire, or other effects. Stanfield’s use of two canvases, one placed in front of the other allowed additional elements to enhance the three-dimensional effect and potential for visual spectacle. The downstage canvas had cut out sections revealing the upstage composition and placing additional elements in the scene. Between the two canvases, profile pieces moved; one example is a sea ship. Stage machinery and the new medium of gas lighting greatly enhanced the painted illusion. Stanfield’s design for “Zoraster” at Drury Lane incorporated a moving diorama that measured 482 feet long.

By 1825, Stanfield produced the great panoramic display titled “Naumetaboia” for a Jack of all Trades (Christmas, 1825), showing the adventures of a man-of-war, from the launch at Dover, its encounter with a gale, the wreck, and the towing into a foreign port. That December, “The Times” theatre review predicted that both Stanfield and Roberts would ‘become highly eminent as contributors to those institutions which have been established for the encouragement of painting in this country’.

Other notable productions mentioned by Blanchard included the 1826 Man in the Moon, that further supported his excellence as a marine painter, with two remarkable scenes called “England’s Pride” and “England’s Glory.” In 1827, Stanfield painted a “fine reputation of Portsmouth in a Gale of Wind for Harlequin and Cock Robin. In 1828, Stanfield painted a moving diorama for Harlequin and the Queen Bee.

The audience was taken on a sea voyage from “Spithead at Sunrise,” past the entrance to Portsmouth Harbour, the Dockyard, Gosport, Mother Bank, Isle of Wight with the Royal Yacht Club, Cowes Regatta, the Needles by Moonlight, the Ocean, the Rock of Gibraltar and ending with a “Grand View of Constantinople.”

Roberts was famous for his dioramas, but never produced works which equaled Stanfield’s, such as “the moving diorama of Alpine scenery, or the memorable views of Windsor and the neighbourhood, which included the sparkling tableau of Virginia water, wherein the real element was so effectively introduced” (The Era Almanack, 1871, page 37). Stanfield introduced unbelievably realistic elements on the stage that were supported by the new gaslight. Roberts left the Drury Lane to join the Grieve family triumvirate of John, Thomas and William Grieve at the Covent Garden Theatre by 1828.

Stanfield’s 1829 pantomime Jack in the Box was distinguished by his diorama depicting the pass of the Simplon, the Valley of the Rhone, Domo D’Ossola, and Lago Maggiore, with the Boromean Islands. An exceptional scene in 1831 was reported to be his diorama of Venice for Harlequin and Little Thumb. The following year he created a magnificent painting of the Falls of Niagara, as seen from the approach to Buffalo on Lake Erie, and the Horse Shoe and Great American fall from Goat Island for Harlequin Traveller.

Stanfield’s painting for the 1833 Christmas equestrian spectacle, St. George and the Dragon was “rendered remarkable by his Egyptian diorama, commencing with the great cataracts and showing the ascent of a pyramid.” The next year he depicted Penrith and Carlisle “in the days of yore” for King Arthur; reviews reported on his “admirable scenery.”

In 1837, Macready became lessee of Covent Garden, and produced the pantomime of Peeping Tom of Coventry, for which Stanfield painted a diorama comprising a series of views in the north of Italy, Savoy, the Alps, and through “French Flanders” to the sea. A special paragraph in the play-bill recorded how the distinguished artist had, “as a sacrifice and in the kindest and most liberal manner, quitted for a short time his easel in order to present the Manager with his last work in that department of the art he has so conspicuously advanced to mark his interest in the success of the cause this Theatre labours to support.”

Two years later, Stanfield created the scenery for the revival of Henry the Fifth, including panoramic illustrations of the Storming of Harfleur, the Battle of Aginciurt, and a view of Southhampton with the departure of the Fleet. Stanfield also furnished the exquisite Sicilian views, illustrative of Acis and galatea, that would become the artist’s last “labours for the stage.”

The Grieve family’s contribution to scenic art in England was the pictorial landscapes gracefully worked up with a series of glazes. Stanfield brought the movement and excitement when he set these beautiful painted settings in motion.

To be continued…

Part 388: The Grieve Family  

In 1889 W. J. Lawrence listed some prominent English scene painting families – the Greenwoods, Grieves, Stanfields, Callcotts, Dansons, Fentons, Gordons, and Telbins. This installment looks at the Grieves (The Theatre Magazine, July 13, 1889).

The Grieves were a family of scene painters who worked at various London theatres during the late-eighteenth through nineteenth century, producing theatre scenery, spectacles and pantomimes. The Grieves had long been famous for the “brilliancy of their style” and the “strong feeling of reality that they communicated to the spectator.” In 1866, the Era reported, “in the taste and artistic beauty of their landscape compositions, they have since had few rivals, and have never been excelled. The Covent Garden Pantomime of ‘Aladdin’ honored Thomas Grieve. The last scene of The ‘Master of Ravenswood,’ at the Lyceum, with the storm effects introduced, was cited as a credit to Grieve’s powers (Gossip About Scenery and Scene Painters from “The Era” 4 February 1866).

The Era Almanack, 1871, reported, “The Grieves had long been famous for their Pantomime scenery, and in the brilliancy of their style, the strong feeling of reality which they communicated to the spectator, and in the taste and artistic beauty of their landscape compositions, they have since had few rivals and never been excelled” (“Scenery and Scene-Painters” by E. L. Blanchard, page 37).

John Henderson Grieve (1770-1845) was the patriarch of the family whose scenic art was primarily associated with Covent Garden. Of Scottish origin, J. H. Grieve was both a painter and draughtsman, born in 1770. Early on in his career, he moved from Perth to work as a scene-painter in the smaller London theatres. By 1794, he was employed by Richard Brinsley Sheridan at Drury Lane. By 1817 he was the lead scenic artist working for the Covent Garden. He remained there throughout the duration of his career, with the exception of extended two absences from 1835-1839 and 1843-1845.

John’s two sons were Thomas (1799-1882) and William (1800-1844), each began their scenic art careers at the Covent Garden Theatre, both training and working for their father. The three remained painting together anformed the famous scenic triumvirate at Covent Garden. Thomas was later assisted by his own son, Thomas Walford Grieve (1841-1882), and together they were credited with contributing to the development of scenic art from romanticism to realism. In 1871, the Era Almanack reported, “To Mr. T. Grieve, and his son Mr. Walford Grieve, the modern stage has been largely indebted. Several drop scenes for the late Theatre known as Her Majesty’s, though coloured by the later William Grieve, were drawn by Pugin, the great restorer of ecclesiastical Gothic

Thomas was particularly known for his work on Shakespearean revivals. Born in 1799, he began working with his father at Covent Garden by the age of 18. When Mr. and Mrs. Charles Mathews became the lessees in 1839, Thomas Grieve was chosen as the principal scenic artist, painting the scenery that accompanied their Christmas pantomimes. After his father’s death, he continued working at Covent Garden, but also painted for the Drury Lane, and at Her Majesty’s Theatre. He was one of the leading artists who supplied Charles Keen with scenery during his time at the Princess’ Theatre, Oxford Street, from 1850 to 1859.

In addition to working for his father, Thomas Grieve worked with the artists who created exhibits for panorama halls. He worked in conjunction with William Telbin and John Absolon to create a panorama depicting the campaigns of Wellington, the Crimean War, Ocean Mail, and Arctic Regions. Like his father, Thomas’ style was known for its brilliancy and realism. His landscape compositions were considered to reign at the top of his profession, and he worked until his passing in 1862. He married Elizabeth, daughter of Robert Goatley of Newbury, by whom he had two children, Thomas Walford Grieve and Fanny Elizabeth “Bessie” Grieve. Thomas Walford, began working with his father in 1862. He also painted for the Covent Garden and the Lyceum, working, for many years under the title “Grieve and Son.”

John H. Grieve’s younger son, William, was born followed the same career course as brother, and made his debut as a scenic artist at the King’s Theatre (later known as Her Majesty’s Theatre). He remained in the venue as a scenic artist stayed until his early passing in 1844, leaving a large family. William was well respected and primarily known for his transformation scenes, especially his moonlight effects. He was reputed to be the first scenic artist called before the curtain to receive the applause of the audience for his contribution to Robert le Diable at the King’s Theatre in 1832.

The three generations of Grieves were credited with not only the introduction of the glazing technique, but also as leading the transition from romanticism to realism in painting for the stage.

To be continued…

 

There is the “Grieve Family Collection of Theatre Designs” at the Senate House Library Archives, University of London. It is comprised of 655 original scene designs and three folders of slides that include panoramas and watercolor ‘cut-outs’ (profile pieces) by members of the Grieve family. The compositions depict various revival productions of Shakespeare plays, along with works by Isaac Pocock, M.R.Lacy, Thomas Otway, Michael Costa, Samuel Beazley, Douglas Jerrold, G.Meyerbeer, Charles A.Somerset, Edward Fitzball, Rossini and others that were staged at the Theatre Royal (Drury Lane), the Theatre Royal (Covent Garden) and Her Majesty’s Theatre, 1813-1857). Here is the ink: https://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/search/archives/3b0cd6e4-22b9-3af4-aa6c-18adba974cc5

 

I am still in transit to teach historical scene painting techniques at Cobalt Studios today. The long journey started yesterday afternoon.  Between the Minnesota snow storm, the torrential rains in Newark and the ice storms near Cobalt, I am still in transit.  I’ll return to my blog Friday, April 20, 2018.

Here is a link to this fantastic scene painting school: http://www.cobaltstudios.net/

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…

Part 386: For the times they are a-changin’

“Come gather ’round people
wherever you roam,
and admit that the waters
around you have grown,
and accept it that soon
you’ll be drenched to the bone.
If your time to you is worth savin’
then you better start swimmin’
or you’ll sink like a stone.
For the times they are a-changin’.”

Yesterday I quoted an author who used the term “patent medicine scenery.” He was referring to the painted product produced by scenic studios such as Sosman & Landis. The author went on to describe that studio drops were “produced almost entirely by mechanical means,” meaning a very specific formulaic approach to color application. During the late-nineteenth century, Chicago was a major manufacturing center for theatrical goods and Sosman & Landis Studio dominated the market. Their work was received with rave reviews and their marketing techniques remained unequalled. Soman & Landis represented the American school of scenic art that employed solid colors in an opaque manner. Their painted compositions were worked up from dark to light. At this time in America, there was a rivalry between two schools of scenic art. Scenic artists working along the eastern seaboard had a tendency to employ the English technique of glazing. Midwestern artists used a much more opaque application of colors.

Thomas G. Moses gives us some insight into the rapid growth of Sosman & Landis and their techniques to quickly turn out scenery installations, describing that when he started with the company in 1880 he was always on the road. He and Sosman traveled a great deal in the beginning, rapidly filling orders immediately after Landis secured the work. It would take six months before Moses even meet Landis, as the company salesman was constantly crossing the country to drum up work. They had a great marketing formula – a salesman on the road with a crew who followed and completed the orders. Work was nonstop for the company.

At first, Moses was employed for a weekly rate of $18, knowing that he could make between $35.00 to $45.00 per week at other theaters. This situation directly contributed to the overall growth and success of Sosman & Landis; it meant that they were hiring an employee at half any competitor’s rate and maintaining a higher profit margin that would allow the company to remain solvent. This also enabled the studio to keep Landis on the road, securing even more work. Of their painting, Moses wrote, “My work might not have been as artistic as some I saw in the theatres, but it pleased the people who paid for it.” He was referring to the rapid painting technique employed by the Sosman & Landis studio and the application solid colors? Keep in mind that the “slapdash” technique mentioned in regard to the Sosman & Landis studio was still very effective from a distance, and that was all anyone really needed to make a sale.

The times were certainly changing for theatre manufacturers and supply companies during the second half of the nineteenth century. Product needed to be quickly produced and reach the appropriate venue. As W. J. Lawrence wrote in 1889 “it is not unusual for these firms to receive an order by telegraph in the morning for a scene…which will be completed dried, and sent on its way to the purchaser before nightfall” (The Theatre, July 13, 1889, page 371-374).   This was a time when the Midwestern region of the United States was experiencing a period of unprecedented growth. The scenic artists and their solid colors were currently winning, but their success would not last.

“Come writers and critics
who prophesize with your pen,
and keep your eyes wide
the chance won’t come again.
And don’t speak too soon
for the wheel’s still in spin,
and there’s no tellin’ who
that it’s namin’.
For the loser now
will be later to win
for the times they are a-changin’. ”

To be continued…

Part 385: Sosman & Landis – “Working Slapdash Fashion”

In 1889 W. J. Lawrence suggested that the English school of scenic art in America was superior when he wrote the article “Scenery and Scenic Artists” for “The Gentleman’s Magazine.” It was republished in “The Theatre” (July 13, 1889, page 371-374). Lawrence wrote, “Not only are English scene painters, at the present day, unrivalled in the several departments of their art, but instances are not wanting to show that they have improved the technique and carried their reformation into other countries.” The “improved technique” was the practice of glazing that had replaced the application of the European technique solid colors on backdrops in some schools, but not all American scenic artists adopted the glazing technique.

Two years later, the American scenic artist Arthur Palmer suggested that the English school of scenic art in America was far superior to that from any other country, writing, “English scenic artists as a class possess a breadth and freedom of style that are unequaled by those of any other nationality. These qualities, which are the highest excellences in scene painting, are especially noticeable in their landscapes, which are simply unapproachable, possessing, as they do at once a beauty, a realism and a fidelity to nature which we look for in vain in the work of the scenic artists of any other land” (“The Morning Call,” San Francisco, CA, 22 February 1891, page 13).

Palmer’s and Lawrence’s comments are part of the growing evidence that suggests there was the not only the development of two distinct schools of scenic art in America, but also the competition between the schools. There were those who were adhered to the English school of glazing and those who adhered to the Central European tradition of solid colors, and “never the twain shall meet.” By the late nineteenth century, the Central European school was the predominant one in the Midwestern United States, and subsequently, driving the market. By the 1890s, Chicago was major theatrical manufacturing center, remaining steeped in the European traditions of solids colors. When considering the thousands of backdrops produced by Midwestern scenic artists, it is apparent that they were guiding the accepted aesthetic in the region by sheer volume. If you also consider the influx of immigrants from Europe and Scandinavia to the Midwest at this time, there is a further support of the European painting traditions. Remember that in 1885, twenty of Europe’s top panorama artists were brought to the Milwaukee to work for the American Panorama Company (see installments #276-281). Many scenic artists would work as both theatre artists and panorama artists during the late-nineteenth century. This migration also points to the development of large studios that employed dozens of artists, all needing to worked together and share a similar approach.

In Lawrence’s article, he also commented about the work of scenic studios, and he was not complimentary about the rapidity of their process or the final product. The last section of Lawrence’s article specifically addresses the hundreds of stock scenery installation by the scenery by the firm of Sosman & Landis. Here is what Lawrence wrote in 1889:

“Paradoxically enough, America enjoys at once the somewhat equivocal honor of having elevated scene painting to the highest pitch of artistic excellence on the one hand, and degraded it to the lowest level of mechanical production on the other. While the leading scenic artists, attached or otherwise, have improved the technique by a judicious blend of the various European systems, commercial enterprise and the universal custom of touring have occasioned the upraising of several scenic depots where orders from the innumerable small theatres which abound in the States are completed “with promptitude and dispatch.” Under existing circumstances it is conceivable that the lessee of every miserable little “opera-house” (Americanese for lecture-hall) in Southern America cannot afford to keep a scenic artist on the premises. To meet the demands for the new stocks of scenery which are generally laid in when the little theatre is first erected, several scenic firms have sprung up in St. Louis, Chicago, Kansas and elsewhere, which employ artists of marked inferiority and turn out work which bears as much resemblance to the genuine article as a chromo does to an oil-painting. Produced almost entirely by mechanical means, no wonder it has been facetiously dubbed “patent medicine scenery.” In this way the firm of Sosman and Landis of Chicago, which employs about twenty-five “artists,” has in the course of nine years supplied upwards of a thousand places of entertainment with complete stocks of scenery. That such work falls short of the domain of art is clearly proven by the fact that it is not unusual for these firms to receive an order by telegraph in the morning for a scene, say thirty feet square, which will be completed dried, and sent on its way to the purchaser before nightfall. So far as the scenic depot is concerned the days of glazing and second painting are gone forever. What matters is that the adoption of the broadest system of treatment possible – working slapdash fashion in a full body colors- makes the painting crude and garish? All the more merit: for the average provincial American gives his vote for gaudiness and plenty of it.”

Ouch.

To be continued…

 

Part 384 – Sosman & Landis – A Leading Firm in Their Line

Yesterday, I listed Sosman & Landis scenery installations that were delivered between June 1881 and July 1882. Only nine years earlier the same Macomb Journal reported, “our young friend Joe Sosman” was assisting the “eminent artist T. B. Harrison, of Chicago” (Macomb Weekly Journal, 17 April 1873). Harrison had worked as the scenic artist and produced the stock scenery for the Moore’s Opera House in Nevada, Missouri; Lamar Opera House in Lamar, Missouri; and the New Odeon Theatre in Maquoketa, Iowa (Harry Miner’s Theatre Directories 1884 and 1887).

In Macomb, Illinois, Sosman was Harrison’s assistant when they were painting scenery for the stage – “the focal point” of C. V. Chandler’s Opera House. Of Sosman, the Macomb Journal reported, “Joe has superior abilities, and our citizens will wake up some fine morning and find in him, that Macomb has a first class artist.”

Here is the Macomb Journal 1882 article titled, “SOSMAN & LANDIS – A Leading Firm in Their Line in Chicago – The Senior a Macomb-Raised and Educated Boy” (The Macomb Journal, 13 July 1882). Here is the article in its entirety:

“Nearly all the county readers of the Journal know “Joe” Sosman, and that he is in Chicago in the scenery-painting business, but few, if any, are aware of the prominence of the firm of which he is the senior partner. “The News Letter,” a paper devoted to the theatrical interest, in an article not long since, gave some account of the prominence and business of the firm, which article we append below. We know it will be perused with interest by hundreds of the “Journal” readers, who have a lively solicitude not only for Mr. Sosman, but for every McDonough county boy who goes out in this great world to carve his fortune, his head and hand being his only capital. Here is the article:

“One of the surest indications that Chicago is fast becoming one of the most important dramatic centers in America is the evidence before us, that in all matters pertaining to the theatrical profession Chicago has become, so to speak, a manufacturing center. Theatrical printing, etc., have long been staple industries, but of late years, matters which hitherto might have been considered as peculiarly belonging to the great metropolis of the East, have taken prosperous root in Chicago. Among the industries we refer to is that of fitting up opera houses and out of town theatres.

Some five years ago, Messrs. Sosman & Landis, a firm composed of a couple of enterprising young fellows established in this city what they termed a scenic studio. The beginning gave them a good deal of hard work, but in the period we have mentioned above, their business has grown from comparatively nothing to being one of the most important of its description in the United States. This all speaks volumes for Chicago as a theatrical center, and say what we may, there is no disavowing the fact that next to New York city, Chicago is without a question the most important locality in America in all matters pertaining to general amusement affairs.

Perhaps no better recommendation could be given to the firm we have referred to above than the information which is contained in their circulars to managers, and which tells the actual number of houses they have fitted-up since the first of June, 1881. We give the list as a matter of curiosity as much as anything else:

New Opera House, Rockford, Illinois

Academy of Music, Minneapolis, Minnesota

Grand Opera House, Richmond, Indiana

Hill’s Opera House, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Humblin’s Opera House, Battle Creek, Michigan

Union Opera House, Kalamazoo, Michigan

Russell’s Opera House, Bonham, Texas

Brownsville Opera House, Brownsville, Texas

My Theatre, Fort Worth, Texas

Leach’s Opera House, Somerville, Tennessee

Kahn’s Opera House Boliver, Tennesse

King’s Opera House, Jackson, Tennessee

Stummer’s Hall, Washington, Georgia

Vicksburg Opera House, Vicksburg, Mississippi

McWhinney’s Opera House, Greenville, Ohio

Yengling Opera House, Minerva, Ohio

City Hall, Athens, Ohio

Freeman’s Opera Hall, Geneseo, Illinois

Odd Fellows Hall, Peshtigo, Wisconsin

Hyde’s Opera House, Lancaster, Wisconsin

Klaus’ Opera House, Green Bay, Wisconsin

Storie’s Opera House, Menominee, Wisconsin

Holt’s Opera House, Anamosa, Iowa

King’s Opera House, Hazleton, Iowa

Opera House Nanticoke, Pennsylvania

Opera House Athens, Georgia

Opera House Gainsville, Texas

Opera House Reidsville, North Carolina

Edsell Opera House, Otsego, Michigan

New Opera House, Howell, Michigan

Stouch Opera House, Garnett, Kansas

Germania Hall, Blair, Nebraska

Bennett’s Opera House, Urbana, Ohio

Klaus’ Opera House, Jamestown, Dakota

Opera House, Westville, Indiana

City Hall, Mineral Point, Wisconsin

City Hall, Lewisburg, West Virginia

Opera House, Denison, Iowa

Opera House, Nevada, Ohio

Opera House, Hoopeston, Illinois

Opera Hous,e Cambridge, Illinois

Turner Hall, LaSalle, Illinois

Kolter’s Opera House, Wausau, Wisconsin

Opera House Moberlv, Missouri

Krotz’s Grand Opera House Defiance, Ohio

Opera House, Montague, Michigan

Opera House Eutaw, Alabama

Opera House, Greyville, Illinois

Opera House, Carthage, Illinois

Masonic Hall, Macomb, Illinois

New Hall, Good Hope Illinois

Music Hall, Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Temperance Hall, Seneca, Illinois

Opera House, Jefferson, Iowa

Opera House, Waupaca, Wisconsin

Soldiers’ Memorial Hall, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Opera House, Mexia, Texas

Opera House, Wilson, North Carolina

Opera House, Newbern, North Carolina

Opera House, Goldsboro, North Carolina

Grand Opera House, Cheyenne, Wyoming

Cosmopolitan Theatre, Miles City, Montana Territory

Arbeiter Hall, Ludington, Michigan

Opera House, West Bay City, Michigan

Opera House, Detroit, Minnesota

Opera House, Lockport, Illinois

Opera House, Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin

Opera House, Grass Lake, Michigan

Opera House Demopolis, Alabama

Opera House, Unionville, Missouri

Opera House, Harrodsville, Kentucky

Opera House, Hancock, Michigan

City Hall, New London, Ohio

Opera House, Stevens’ Point, Wisconsin

A visit to the studio of Messrs. Sosman & Landis, in this city, reveals the fact that these gentlemen at this time give employment to five of the best scenic artists in the United States, and that their facilities for turning out first-class work with promptitude and at reasonable figures is unequaled by any establishment in America. At this very moment these gentlemen are actively employed in fitting-up the interior of one or two of the best theatres in the West, and their large corps of artists and stage carpenters are constantly kept busily at work.

We take some little pride in the success of these gentlemen. It has always been, and still is, our ambition to see Chicago ahead in all matters pertaining to western dramatic affairs, and the unusual success which has attended the venture of Messrs. Sosman & Landis is a feather in the cap of our wishes.

It is true that much of the success attended these gentlemen has been due to the fact that they have proved entirely reliable in all their transactions, and that their work has always been of the very best. They take contracts to fit up the entire stage of any new house in course of erection, and we venture to say from undoubted information that no contract that they have ever undertaken has proved aught but most highly satisfactory. With their success the success of Chicago as a dramatic center is blended, and we are more than glad to see that to-day, in nearly every opera house in the West which is under erection, the contract for fitting up the stage has been let to Sosman & Landis.”

From 1880 to 1889, Sosman & Landis outfitted 1000 thousand theatres. By 1889, the company employed twenty-five individuals. By 1894, the company’s brochures advertised that 4000 places of amusement were using scenery made by their firm. This scenic studio was shaping the industry and they were painting with solid colors as in the Central European approach.

In 1880, Thomas G. Moses wrote that he and Sosman traveled a great deal in the beginning and Landis was always away, traveling to secure orders; Sosman and his crew painted what Landis sold. It would take six months before Moses even meet Landis after being hired as he was constantly traveling across the country to drum up work. Interestingly, Thomas G. Moses left the Sosman & Landis studio for the first time during May 1882, just a few months before this article was published. He left the firm to partner with Lemuel L. Graham. Graham would later found Kansas City Scenic.

To be continued…