Month: April 2018

 

For three decades, I have worked as a scenic artist and designer. My focus remained the study of historical scenic art techniques, especially for Masonic theaters.  My passion to preserve theatre history led me specialize in the repair and restoration of painted scenery for historic theaters, opera houses, public halls, and Scottish Rite stages. After years of solely focussing on the restoration of scenery, I recently formed a new partnership – Historic Stage Services LLC. We are much more than a scenery restoration business.

We offer a unique service – the only one of its kind in North America.

Our mission is to provide historic theaters with the information that they need to make important decisions about their future. Our team specializes in historic stages, scenery, stage machinery, and how to make them work to today’s needs. We offer a new approach to old problems.

Click on the new permanent link above to check our website and new brochure at www.historicstageservices.com

Here is a sneak peak at our brochure:

 

 

 

 

Part 383: The Battle Between Two Scenic Art Traditions

I believe that a battle between two American schools of scenic art commenced in earnest during the 1870s – the English school of glazing and Central European school of solid color application. Each school held a fierce loyalty to their respective traditions and techniques.

The 1870s was the time when many scenic artists traveled west following the rapid expansion of the country – there was work to be had throughout the region. They moved to Chicago where opportunities abounded after the great fire in 1871 and the area became a major manufacturing center for theatrical scenery and stage machinery; destroyed theatres were rebuilt and new ones popped up everywhere. Scenic artists working in Chicago and the west gravitated toward a system of efficiency, even more so than before. This refined Central European approach in scenic art did not include multiple layers of glazing. The artists in the Midwest needed a refined system of paint application that allowed a quick turn around. They needed to produce hundreds of drops over an extremely short period of time; this was capitalism at its finest and the audience took no notice of the aesthetic shift that was occurring before their eyes.

Each approach, whether painting with glazes or solid colors, is valid. However, there is one a distinct difference – speed. Remember that I speak from the tradition of the Central European approach, so my perception is subjective. Glazing relies on a series of thinned paint application that take more time to dry than the simple layer of solid color. Painting a dark composition when starting with a light base can be extremely time consuming. Large areas may need to be glazed repeatedly, and this takes time. The final effect is stunning, airy and ethereal. However, it may be labor intensive, remaining on a paint frame too long, taking up valuable space in a studio with limited paint frames. When using solid colors in an opaque manner, you layout large areas of color and each additional layer takes up lest space as you are going from dark to light. For example, dark areas of color that form the basis of a treetop are quickly defined with a few brush strikes suggesting leaves.

At the end of the nineteenth century, J. W. Lawrence took a jab at the quick application of solid colors as practiced by the scenic studio artists. He further commented on the rapidity of scenic artists who did not employ the glazing techniques, writing, “the days of glazing and second painting are gone for ever. 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.”

Lawrence continued, “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.” I have to chuckle as I think what he is really saying is “if it doesn’t take a long time to paint, the backdrop has no merit.”

He was taking issue with the fact that several “scenic depots” had risen to prominence in the Midwestern region of the United States. One “depot” was the Sosman & Landis studio, Lawrence even mentioned this scene painting firm by name and reported that the company had provided stock scenery collections for one-thousand small opera houses over the brief span of nine years. Sosman & Landis, as other studios in Chicago, Kansas, and St. Louis employed the scenic art techniques associated with Central European tradition of painting with solid colors for a rich opacity.

He who painted the most scenery won; and the Midwestern artists were ahead of the game during the late nineteenth century as their approach to painting was faster. One way for the Eastern artists to attack their competitors was to diminish the mass-production of painted scenery in the Central European tradition as a “slapdash fashion in a full body colors of solid colors.” Yet this approach to scenic art was appearing in hundreds of opera houses across the country; it was establishing a standard in the American theatre market.

Glancing at Julius Cahn’s Official Theatrical Guide from 1896-1897 illustrates just how much of the market had been gained by Sosman & Landis. Their name dominated the list of any other competitor. They produced out a ridiculous amount of scenery in a relatively short period of time. To further explore their productivity, a newspaper article listed how many venues Sosman & Landis fitted up from June 1881 to July 1882.

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 House, 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

Sosman & Landis utilized the Central European tradition and immediately succeeded by sheer volume of drops that they produced. There remain remnants of this past rivalry today, as “experts” compare the installations of local artisans in the east and studio artists in the west. There continues to be the perception that mass-produced compositions by large studios are “less” than anything created by a marginally-skilled local artist at a small social hall. There is the idea that backdrops produced in a large scenic studio carry less artistic merit than a one-off by a small-time local artisan. It is difficult for me not to take into account that many of the scenic artists in the larger studios would later achieve international recognition as fine artists, yet the battle continues to rage on.

To be continued…

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…

Part 381: The Artistic Legacy of Phil W. Goatcher

Phillip W. Goatcher has repeatedly appeared in my searches over the past few years, often as the mentor to various artists that I was tracking down. In 1892, the Chicago Sunday Tribune reported Phillip Goatcher as “a well-known artist of the old school, famous for his oriental color and tropical foliage” (Dec, 18, 1892, page 41). Goatcher instructed numerous scenic artists who gained national reputations during the late-nineteenth century, including Homer Emens and Walter Burridge. Burridge trained with Goatcher at the Chestnut Theatre during the mid-1870s and by 1876, Burridge and Goatcher worked on the “Siege of Paris” for the Philadelphia Centennial World Fair.

Goatcher was unique, working all over the world from New York to Melbourne. His 1931 obituary in the West Australian reports that he, “followed the calling of scene painter for nearly 60 years in America, England and Australia…He had resided in Western Australia for 30 years and was known as perhaps the finest scene painter whoever worked in this State. Going from America to England early in 1873, he painted the scenes for several of the leading theatrical productions in Manchester, Birmingham and London in the next few years, including scenes for the operas of Mr. Rupert D’Oyley Carte’s companies. He also worked in Paris, and for some time was engaged in decorating the London house of Lord Londonderry. He leaves three sons and a daughter, one son, Mr. James Goatcher, being at present in Perth. Another son is in New South Wales, and his daughter and third son are in America” (Perth, WA, 9 October 1931, page 18)

I first discovered this interesting scenic artist when I was researching drop curtains and came across the Goatcher Curtain in the Boulder Town Hall. At the time, I was looking at theatre history in Boulder, Colorado – never expecting to discover a drop curtain in the gold-mining region of Western Australia attributed to Goatcher. The City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder is a major mining center and current home to over 30,000 people working in a wide range of businesses servicing the community and the mining industry.

As a piece in the puzzle of Goatcher’s legacy, it is an appropriate time to add in this information about historic scenery and the need for conservation. The painted curtain in the Boulder Town Hall depicts the scene of the Bay of Naples, showing Vesuvius in the background. Some historians suggest that the composition was designed in recognition of the Italians working in the Eastern Goldfields at that time. The drop measures 20’ high by 26’ wide. Signed and dated “Phil W. Goatcher 1908,” it is believed that this is the only surviving backdrop by Goatcher left in the world. Interestingly, the original 1908 stage machinery is still used to raise and lower the curtain.

As with many painted scenes, the Goatcher curtain was forgotten over time as the hall and stage scenery were used less and less. The canvas was severely deteriorated when it was rediscovered in 1990. There were cuts, tears, water damage, and vandalism. The canvas had been partially over-painted with white for use as a movie screen sometime in the 1940s.

An 1994 conservation report estimated the cost of restoration at $224,000. Funds were immediately raised to carry out the work as the community saw value in their large-scale artwork. Once again, pride in ownership saved one more piece of theatre history!

There are several sites that depict some of Goatcher’s surviving fine artworks, most notably a 1916 oil painting of ‘The Annunciation” at St. John’s Anglican Church in Freemantle. There is also a 1922 mural painted for the Anglican Church in Collie, a coalmining town in Western Australia’s south-west. It is wonderful to see that a piece of a theatre history will live forever in Australia.

To be continued…

Part 380: Phillip William Goatcher, Art Instructor of Homer Emens

The artistic mentor of Homer Emens was Phil Goatcher (1851-1931). Goatcher was characterized as “Well travelled, well read, a born raconteur and practical joker.” He was fascinating; In Melbourne, Australia, a horse race was named after him. Some reports from 1890 note that Goatcher was the highest paid scene painter in the world. So, who was Goatcher?

Philip William Goatcher was born November 23, 1851, in London. He first worked as a young law clerk at Lincoln’s Inn Chambers in London. During this time, he visited Sadler’s Wells Theatre and the experience left quite an impression, sketching scenes and other doodles from the stage on office pads.  Later in life, Goatcher said, “Stage painting was to my mind the greatest achievement of man, so the desire to study the art took root deeply.”

By the age of 14, Goatcher accepted an apprenticeship with a Liverpool shipping firm, and began to travel on the high seas. He sailed to Melbourne, Australia in 1866 as an apprentice seaman on the True Briton and later on the Dover Castle. The second voyage he jumped ship near Melbourne and walked to his aunt and uncle’s home in Ballarat. Some accounts suggest he jumped ship to head for the gold fields, but failed to strike it rich. Regardless, in Ballarat Goatcher was employed backstage by John Hennings, Melbourne’s lead scenic artist at the Theatre Royal. Hemmings predicted that the young man had a great potential to be a successful scenic artist. However, the wages for a young man entering the scenic art filed were poor and the opportunities scarce.

It was gold fever lured Goatcher away from Melbourne and to New Zealand, and then to Californa. An additional incentive to leave for the West Coast was an invitation from Henry E. Abby of the Park Theatre.  Goatcher left Sydney for San Francisco, traveling through the South Sea Islands. In San Francisco Goatcher found a new mentor, the scene painter William Porter. Goatcher also met J. C. Williamson, an American actor who would later become a prominent theatre director in Australia. His stay was brief and Goatcher was once again on route, this time to New York by way of Mexico and Panama. At the time, Goatcher was only 19 years old, but after arriving in New York he soon began working for the scenic artist Matt Morgan. Morgan worked at Niblo’s Garden.

Goatcher stayed in New York until the age of 22, when he finally returned to England. By 1873 he was painting settings as an assistant to the scenic artists at the Drury Lane and Covent Garden theatre. At the age of 24, he married Alice Little and established a decorative-arts business in the West End. The business did not last when Goatcher decided to return to America as projects surrounding the Centennial Exposition offered substantial profits. He remained in the United states for the next fifteen years, spending an entire decade at Wallack’s theatre where he remained the chief scenic artist from 1875-1885.

Goatcher was naturalized as a US citizen in 1882 and listed his residence as Lexington Avenue in New York. In 1888, at the age of 27, he entered into a partnership with John H. Young as “Goatcher & Young” at 44 West 30^th Street. Keep in mind that Young had worked with Moses up to 1882 and permanently moved to New York in 1884.

In 1889 Goatcher and Young created the scenery for “King Cole II” at Hermann’s Philadelphia Theatre. The show was reported to be “one of the most gorgeous affairs of its kind ever gotten up in this country” (Morning Call, Allentown, Penn., 21 April, 1889, page 5).

In the US Goatcher he painted scenery for the companies of Dion Boucicault, Edwin Booth, David Belasco, Edwin Booth, and Lillie Langtry. His specialty was not only drop curtains, but also pastoral landscapes, complete with wonderful translucent effects. His techniques were characteristic of the English tradition working up a backdrop with glazes. Goatcher especially excelled at painting scenery for Shakespearean production.

Goatcher and his first wife Alice had four children, but the marriage did not survive and the divorce was messy. In addition to domestic strife, Goatcher also struggled with chronic bronchitis. In 1890, Goatcher returned to London with his two eldest sons accompanied and accepted a position at the Adelphi Theatre. In London he worked for Hawes Craven, the leading stage designer for Henry Irving and Richard D’Oyly Carte. His projects also included settings for Gilbert and Sullivan productions. However, he was not destined to remain in England for long and returned to Melbourne that same year to work at Melbourne’s Princess Theatre.

At this time, Goatcher was 38 years old and a well-respected; he accepted a three-year contract with J. C. Williamson to work at his scenic artist in Melbourne (Arkansas Democrat, 22 July 1890, page 8). Goatcher’s first project was ‘The Gondoliers’ that October. He soon earned the nickname “Satin n’ Velvet Goatcher” for his elaborate painted textile drops.

Continued health issues prompted Goatcher to relocate to Perth, in hopes the dry climate would prove to be therapeutic for his acute bronchitis. There, he recreated the original scenery from his London and New York productions of ‘The Silver King’ (1882-83) for the Theatre Royal production in Perth during 1897. By 1899 he found love again and married a woman from Sydney, Emma Stone. More than 20 years his junior, the couple had twin sons, with only one surviving infancy. In West Perth Goatcher set up a successful painting and decorating business, later partnering with his son James. Decorative projects included the smoke room at Melbourne’s Menzies Hotel, Sydney’s Palace Theatre, the Singer Sewing Machine showroom in Sydney’s Queen Victoria Building, and the painted auditoria of Her Majesty’s Theatre, Melbourne.

In 1913, his second wife Emma passed away on Christmas Eve. As a 65-year-old widower, Goatcher purchased land in Dalwallinu during 1916, where he became not only a member of the Roads Board, but also a Justice of the Peace. Goatcher died in West Perth on the 8th October 1931 at the age of 80 and was buried in the Anglican section of the Karrakata Cemetery next to his second wife. Goatcher’s reminisces were published in a few publication that included the Australian Star (27 December 1890), Table Talk (31 October 1890, 8 January 1892) and the New Zealand Herald (11 March 1927).

To be continued…

Part 379: Homer F. Emens, a student of Phillip Goatcher and John Mazzanovich

 The past two installments described the design process and scenic art of Homer Franham Emens (1862-1930). Here is a little more information about this well-known New York artist who was a contemporary of Thomas G. Moses. He was nationally recognized as a fine artist, trained in both the United States and Europe.

Emens was born in Volney, New York, and began a career as an artist in Syracuse, New York. He soon moved to New York City for further artistic instruction and studied with Phillip W. Goatcher (1851-1931), the principal designer at Wallack’s Theatre from 1875-1885.

Another artist at Wallack’s theatre who worked with Goatcher was John Mazzanovich. He painted for various theatres, including Niblo’s Garden and the Standard Theatre. Mazzanovich also became a mentor of Emens. The Chicago Inter Ocean recognized Mazzanovich as one “who used his brush with singular facility and felicity” and “had excellent qualities as a draughtsman and colorist and a delicate and refined fancy” (Chicago Inter Ocean June 12, 1886, page 8). However, Mazzanovich’s instruction was short-lived, as the well-known artist died at the young age of 30 in 1886. It was after Mazzovich’s death that Emens really started designing scenery on his own. It was common at the time for various scenes in a production to be assigned to different artists.

By 1894, Emens sought additional artistic training in Europe, understanding the value of classical training and having a great desire to improve his own artistic abilities. Upon his return to New York, he resumed his career in scenic art, but also began exhibiting paintings with the National Academy of Design, the Society of American Artists, and the Art Institute in Chicago. In 1904 Emens returned to Europe to advise on scenery design. Work in the United States included partnering with Edward G. Unitt to work for some of the most prominent theatres in New York, Boston, and Washington, D.C. At the height of Emens career, he managed eight scenic studios. His accomplishments included being the scenic director for the Metropolitan Opera for over a decade.

During WWI, Emens worked for the Department of the Navy to create a new system of camouflage. By the 1920s, Emens and his wife moved to the West Coast. Their first home was in Santa Barbara, but later moved to Camel, constructing studio-home in the Eighty Acres Tract on Torres Street and Eighth Avenue. He concentrated on landscape painting during this period, exhibiting with the Carmel Art Association. Emens is a nationally recognized fine artist of both oils and watercolors.

The Internet Broadway Database (IBDB) has an extensive list of productions that Emens worked on. It is an impressive list that provides some context for his contribution to Broadway productions. Here is the link: https://www.ibdb.com/broadway-cast-staff/homer-emens-26159

 

“The Main Line, or Rawson’s Y” (1886 with Phil Goatcher)

“Lohengrin” (1886 Academy of Music with William Voegtlin)

“Lakme” (1886 Academy of Music with Charles Graham and William Schaeffer)

“Faust” (1886 Academy of Music with Gaspard Mauder, William Schaeffer, Hughson Hawley, Thomas Weston, Mark Apjohn and Otto Namzynowski)

“Mikado” (1886 Academy of Music with William Voegtlin)

“Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde” (1887 with Hughson Hawley)

“Dorothy” (1887 with Walter Burridge and Hughson Hawley)

“A Midnight Bell” (1889)

“The Black Crook” (1893 with Albert, Grover & Burridge, J. S. Getz, John W. Sommer, and J. S. Clare)

“Gismonda” (1894 with Joseph Clare, D. Frank Dodge, Richard Marston and Ernest Albert)

“For the Crown” (1896 with Richard Marston)

“The Village Postmaster” (1896)

“The Old Homestead” (1898, 1907, 1908)

“Erminie” (1899 with Richard Marston)

“Peter Stuyvesant” (1899 with Richard Marston)

“More Than Queen” (1899)

“Chris and the Wonderful Lamp” (1900 with F. Richard Anderson, Frank E. Gates, E. A. Morange, and Ernest Gros )

“Lost River” (1900 with Frank E. Gate and E. A. Morange)

“Monte Cristo” (1900 with Frank E. Gates, E. A. Morange, Ernest Gros and John H. Young)

“Dolly Varden” (1902 with John H. Young)

“Her Lord and Master” (1902)

“Mary of Magdala” (1902 with Frank E. Gates and E. A. Morange, and 1903)

“Captain Dieppe” (1903 with Edward G. Unitt)

“Babes in Toyland” (1903 with John H. Young)

“The Office Boy” (1903 with Edward G. Unitt and Joseph A. Physioc)

The Girl From Kay’s” (1903 with Edward G. Unitt and Ernest Gros)

“Babette” (1903 with Edward G. Unitt)

“The Man and I” (1904 with Joseph A. Physioc, Edward G. Unitt, and Ernest M. Gros)

“Piff! Paff! Pouf!” (1904 with Edward G. Unitt)

“A Venetian Romance” (1904 with Edward G. Unitt and Joseph A. Physioc)

“A Madcap Princess” (1904 with Edward G. Unitt)

“Granny” (1904 with Edward G. Unitt)

“The Two Roses” (1904 with Edward G. Unitt)

“The Winter’s Tale” (1904 with Castle & Harvey, Ernest Albert and Edward G. Unitt)

“Babes in Toyland” (1905 with John H. Young)

“Cousin Billy” (1905 with Ernest M. Gros and Edward G. Unitt)

“The Duchess of Dantzic” (1905 with Thomas Mangan and Edward G. Unitt)

“The School for Husbands” (1905 with Edward G. Unitt)

“Miss Molly Dollars” (1905 with Edward G. Unitt)

“Beauty and the Barge” (1905 with Edward G. Unitt)

“Just Out of College” (1905 with Edward G. Unitt)

“Mlle. Modiste” (1905, 1906, and 1907 with Edward G. Unitt)

“The Mountain Climber” (1906 with scenery painted by Emens and Unitt)

“The Little Father of the Wilderness/The Mountain Climber” (1906 with Edward G. Unitt)

“About Town” (1906 with Edward G. Unitt and Arthur Voegtlin)

“The Red Mill” (1906 with Edward G. Unitt, F. E. Gates, E. A. Morange)

“The Great Divide” (1906 with Edward G. Unitt, and 1908)

“Eileen Asthore” (1906 with Edward G. Unitt and Joseph Wickes)

“Cymbeline” (1906 with Edward G. Unitt)

“The Blue Moon” (1906 with Edward G. Unitt, Ernest Albert, and Joseph Wickes)

“Pippa Passes” (1906 with Edward G. Unitt and Joseph Wickes)

“The Straight Road” (1907 with Edward G. Unitt, Alexander Corbett, and Joseph Wickes)

“The Rose of Alhambra” (1907 with Edward G. Unitt, F. E. Gates and E. A. Morange)

“The Tattooed Man” (1907 with Edward G. Unitt and Joseph Wickes)

“The Spoilers” (1907 with Edward G. Unitt and Joseph Wickes)

“His Excellency the Governor” (1907 with Edward G. Unitt and Joseph Wickes)

“The Rogers Brothers in Panama” (1907 with Walter Burridge and Ernest Albert)

“The Step-Sister” (1907)

“The Hoyden” (1907)

“Artie” (1907)

“The Right Way” (1907 with Richard Marston)

“O’Neill of Derry” (1907 with Edward G. Unitt and Joseph Wickes)

“Funabashi” (1908 with Edward G. Unitt and Young Brothers & Boss Co.)

“Lonesome Town” (1908)

“A Waltz Dream” (1908)

“The Prima Donna” (1909)

“The Fair Co-ed” (1909)

“The Candy Shop” (1909 with John H. Young)

“The Taming of the Shrew” (1909 with Edward Unitt)

“The Old Town” (1910)

“The Arcadians” (1910)

“The Merry Whirl” (1910 with John H. Young)

“The Girl in the Train” (1910)

“Barry of Ballymore” (1911 with Edward G. Unitt and Joseph Wickes)

“The Siren” (1911)

“The Rose of Panama” (1912)

“Robin Hood” (1912 with Frank E. Gates and E. A. Morange)

“The Girl from Montmatre” (1912)

“Oh! Oh! Delphine” (1912 with Edward G. Unitt and Joseph Wickes)

“The Lady of the Slipper” (1912)

“The Isle o’ Dreams” (1913)

“The Sunshine Girl” (1913 with Ernest Albert)

“The American Maid” (1913)

“The Marriage Market” (1913)

“Pretty Mrs. Smith” (1914 with Robert Brunton and Kellam)

“Chin Chin” (1914)

“Cousin Lucy” (1915)

“The Princess Pat (1915)

“Hip! Hip! Hooray!” (1915 with Mark Lawson, F. E. Gates, E. A. Morange and Ernest Albert)

“Sybil” (1916)

“Betty” (1916)

“Rambler Rose” (1917 with Baron Voruz de Vaux)

“Jack O’Lantern” (1917 with Ernest Albert and Joseph Urban)

“Come Along” (1919 with F. E. Gates and E. A. Morange)

 

To be continued…

 

Part 378: 1899, Theatrical Scene Painting and Homer Emens, second half

The article “Theatrical Scene Painting” was published in “The Philadelphia Inquirer” on August 20, 1899, by James Clarence Hyde (page 46). Here is the second half of the article posted yesterday:

 

“Mr. Emens, whose ancestors, by the way, were among the earliest Dutch settlers of New York, devoted several weeks to looking up authorities in the libraries, both public and private, and making the preliminary sketches. The scenario called for a drop showing the exterior of Peter Stuyvesant’s house; an interior of Whitehall, the Governor’s mansion; the old fort at the Battery and an exterior view of Whitehall. The play is in three acts and four scenes. Mr. Emens’ next step was to make the models.

A model looks very much like a toy theatre with the proscenium arch omitted. It is built on the scale of half an inch to the foot. In making these Mr. Emens is guided to a certain extent by the scene plot, a written and roughly drawn plan showing the entrances, exits, set pieces and the like that are required in the action of the play. This is outlined by the authors. In making the models as much care with regard to the details is taken as with the proposed scenery. Ever leaf and every stone is painted in watercolor.

Upon the completion of these models duplicates are made to guide the scene builder. In the construction of this it is important to observe simplicity, so that the entire scene can be set up, or “struck,” in a few minutes. The models for the “Peter Stuyvesant” sets were turned over to Claude Hagan, an experienced scene builder. Some time elapsed before his work was completed and then the scenery, or rather, the unpainted canvas mounted upon skeleton frames, was sent to the Fourteenth Street Theatre, where Mr. Emens does his work.

The pictures taken at the Fourteenth Street Theatre expressly for the Inquirer, give an excellent idea of how things look in Mr. Emens’ workshop. The artist, you see, needs a good deal of room. He requires not only the paint bridge and paint frames, but the entire stage. The paint bridge is suspended forty or fifty feet above the rear of the stage. It is about ten feet wide and there are no protecting rails to prevent the artist or his assistants from stepping off into space. At one end of the bridge is the studio where the models are constructed; at the other end are the shelves where the supply of paint is kept. The paints are not mixed with oil, as many people imagine, but with “size,” or diluted glue. On either side of the paint bridge hangs a massive frame, big enough to hold any “drop” (the background of a scene) that may be desired. These frames are lowered to and hoisted from the stage by means of a windlass. This is where the scenic artist’s junior apprentice gets in his fine work and acquires a muscle that is useful later in life. Scenery is usually classified as drops (the backgrounds), wings (the side-pieces), borders (the cross pieces overhead), and set pieces (such as a fort or a bridge). This is the first step in preparing the scenery is, of course, to have it placed upon the frames by the boss stage carpenter and his assistants. The frame is lowered to the stage and the scenery nailed on, as shown in one of the pictures. Then it is hoisted to the level of the bridge and the painting begins. Another picture gives an excellent idea of this. You will observe Mr. Emens in the foreground at the drawing board. Back of him, at his left, is an assistant sketching in outline a border. In his right hand he holds a long stick to which a piece of charcoal is fastened, in his left the model of the border. Preliminary to this work the canvas had to be “primed,” that is, painted white, and then the body color was laid on. On Mr. Emen’s right another assistant is seen painting a drop, while near by a third is mixing the colors on a very substantial palette. In the background the junior assistant is busy with the pots of paint.

One would probably wonder how such great effects are accomplished with the artist so near to the canvas.

How does he get his idea – of perspective – of atmosphere? The only answer to this is long years of study and experience. When the scenery is painted it is lowered to the stage. But there is still more to be done. In the case of a leafy border, for instance, the ragged outlines of the leaves have been marked with a thin red line, and all the intervening canvas has to be carefully cut out. In a third picture taken upon the stage, showing the carpenters and one of the artists at work upon a set piece, you will notice at the left, flat upon the stage looking a good deal like a mosaic floor, a piece of scenery. It is one of the borders, and from the canvas-littered stage you may know that busy hands with sharp knives have been cutting it out. This picture shows the boss carpenter seated at the right of the model of the old fort at the Battery in his lap. His assistants are fitting the fort together. The underpinning of the painted fort is strong enough to support several people, but it is so carefully constructed that it can be taken apart and placed flat against the wall in less than three minutes.

Perhaps in these few words an idea has been conveyed of the great amount of skill and labor required in preparing scenery for the stage, much has been necessarily left unsaid; the difficulty of getting up elaborate interiors, the use of stencils, the construction of practical waterways and a thousand and one things that a scene painter must know. He must combine the knowledge of a landscape artist of the first order, and architect and a builder. He must posses more than the ordinary patience, and then if he is a good business man he will have the happy consolation of a substantial bank account, even if the public are slow to accord him the glory that is his due.”

To be continued…

 

 

 

Part 377: Theatrical Scene Painting and Homer Emens, first half

 About the same time that Thomas G. Moses started working for Henry W. Savage at the American Theatre in New York, an article was published on the scenic design and art of Homer Emens. Emens was a contemporary of Joseph Physioc, John H. Young, Gates & Morange, Hart & Becker, F. Platzer, Walter Burridge, Ernest Albert, Edward Unitt, T. B. McDonald, F. Richard Anderson, and Moses. This is from a time when scenic artists were classically trained; they also understood stage mechanics and the effects of lighting. They were a part of a tradition dating centuries old, when individual artists sought mentors with whom they could study and acquire exceptional skills. Their artistic endeavors went well beyond any hobby, craft or individual art work. Scenic artists were recognized as part of the fine art community; they were the creators “magic” and of visual spectacle. They attained a level of skill that I have strived to achieve since first entering the field of scenic art. It was not a profession for the weak of heart, or those seeking the easy path toward recognition. By 1908, Emens was reported as “one of the most distinguished American scene painters” (Brooklyn Life, 22 August 1908, page 7).

The article “Theatrical Scene Painting” was published in “The Philadelphia Inquirer” on August 20, 1899. The article about Emens was written by James Clarence Hyde (page 46).

Here is first half of the article as it provides great context for the New York theatrical art scene:

“It all looks very pretty and complete to your eye as you sit out in front on opening night. It seems almost real enough to be true – the village street, the tavern, the Governor’s mansion. The painted scene is marvelously correct and effectively lighted. The play is a great success. When you go across the street for supper you will probably talk about the play and the acting. But how many people give more that a passing thought to the art, the labor and the care necessary to produce the scenery that has been such an admirable setting for the play? The performance lasted scarcely two hours and a half. You can rest assured that the scenery and properties alone took weeks, possibly months, to prepare.

New York is the great producing center of the theatrical field in this country. It is there that the best scenic artists, the cleverest property men and the most skillful scene builders are to be found. It is there that the gigantic paint frames are located. A correct estimate of the number of people who directly derive their living from the theatre and yet who are never seen by the public would surprise some who think that they are pretty well informed upon theatrical matters. Certain mills make a specialty of turning out the canvas used for scenery. There is one big lumber dealer in New York who makes it his exclusive business to supply stage carpenters with material. In the construction of scenery, lightness and strength are the essentials, and the patents on clamps, braces and hangers used only in scene building number over two hundred.

One of the heaviest productions for the coming season will be “Peter Stuyvesant, Governor of New Amsterdam,” which has been written for William H. Crane by Brander Matthews and Bronson Howard. As an illustration of how scenery is painted we will take this production as an example. Last winter Mr. Crane decided that he wanted a new play, and in view of his success in “The Henrietta” he wanted Bronson Howard to write it. Mr. Howard did not feel like undertaking the task. Then Mr. Brander Matthews was seen, but he, too, gave an evasive answer. Finally the dramatist and novelist were brought together and induced to collaborate, and the result is “Peter Stuyvesant.”

The first thing to be considered in a strictly historical play is accuracy, and the Astor and Lenox libraries were ransacked for this purpose. From the mass of material secured a scenario, or outline of the play, was drafted and submitted to Mr. Crane. He approved of it, and then it was found that time was flying; the winter had passed and spring was slipping by. It was decided to go right ahead with the scenery from the scenario without waiting for the play – an unusual proceeding. Homer Emens, one of the leading scenic artists of the country whose work is known not alone to the theatre-going public, but to the visitors to the National Academy of Design and the exhibitions of the Society of American Artists, was engaged.”

To be continued…

 

 

Part 376: Henry W. Savage and the American Theatre, A Permanent Home for Opera in English

Thomas G. Moses traveled from San Diego to New York during August 1899. Of his West Coast departure, Moses commented that Mme. Modjeska’s company gave him a “fine send-off.” He wrote, “a large tent was put up on a vacant lot; refreshments were served and different members of the company did a little stunt. After a hearty God-speed, I was off for New York City. I regretted not being able to stay until Modjeska opened, but I knew I had a big time ahead of me in New York.” Moses was leaving to work for Henry W. Savage at the American Theatre. His contract began on August 27.

Moses wrote, “I was in hopes of being able to remain at home [in Chicago] for a week or so before going east, for the awful separation from my family was getting under my skin in bad shape. I felt as if I would like to throw up the New York job, but had signed a contract to be there in time to do the first opera.”

Henry W. Savage contracted Moses to produce scenery for the Castle Square Opera Company’s third season in New York. Other notable scenic artists had worked for Savage during the first two seasons, such as Walter Burridge, Frank King, H. Logan Reid, and John Clare. The increased volume of subscriptions during the first three seasons of the Castle Square Opera Company, supported Savage’s plan to establish at the American Theatre a permanent home for opera in English. The opera company also had branches in Chicago and St. Louis. By 1900, it was advertised as “the largest operatic company in the world,” having “gained a larger clientele than any other established musical organization.” A commemorative book, “500 Times,” documented the success of the Castle Square Opera Company’s performance of operas in English by Monday, October 16, 1899.

Moses’ first project for Savage was designing and painting “Die Meistersinger.” This was the show that would open the third season for the Castle Square Opera Company on October 2, 1899.

Moses wrote, “On my arrival in New York, I found working conditions very good; wide bridge and large frames; congenial men in charge of the theatre. My first opera was “Der Meistersinger.” I had a chance to get some good settings and I succeeded. The street scene was the most effective. It was built to the back wall and continued through the large door into the scene room, compelling the chorus to enter from the outside door. The perspective was in proportion to the characters. Mr. Savage paid me a flattering compliment on the production.”

By Christmas, Moses had painted several heavy operas, among them were “Martha,” “Rigoletto,” “Aida,” “Faust,” and “Tannhäuser.” Of “Tannhäuser” the Brooklyn Daily Eagle article reported, “Scenically and sartorially the production will conform to the accepted traditions. Thomas G. Moses has provided a series of beautiful stage pictures, which will be rendered more effective by the appropriate costumes, especially designed for the occasion” (22 October 1899, page 20). The amount of scenery produced under Moses’ supervision from August 27 until three shows opened in October is astounding.  It also speaks to the speed of which scenery was painted at the time.

During September 1899, the “Chicago Tribune” reported that the Castle Square opera company had assembled at the Studebaker Theatre in Chicago (7 September 1899, page 8). The newspaper noted, “Mr. Savage returned to New York last evening to witness the rehearsals of Wagner’s ‘Die Meistersinger,’ which is about to be given for the first time in English in America by the New York section of the Castle Square Company. The New York Company will come to Chicago during the grand opera season in December to present the opera at the Studebaker.”

By January 1900, Metropolitan Magazine (New York) reported, “One of the most important musical events of the past season has been the first production in English in this city, and first time here of “At the Lower Harbour,” the English version of Niccola Spinelli’s “A Basso Porto.” It was given by the Castle Square Opera Company at the American Theatre on January 22. The other operas given for the first time in English in this city have been Wagner’s “Die Meistersinger” and “Tannhäuser,” Weber’s “Der Freischütz,” and Beethoven’s “Fidelio.” (Vol. 11, No. 1, January 1900, page 326). Once again, Moses was there to be part of something new and exciting. Opportunities abounded in New York. Some were so appealing that Moses would consider permanently relocating to the East Coast in 1900.

To be continued…

Part 375: Thomas G. Moses at La Jolla

In 1899, Thomas G. Moses mentioned various sketching trips in the San Diego area, especially outings to La Jolla. He wrote, “The pounding of the surf at the caves of La Jolla had an intense interest for me, and I made several sketches of the cave and the well-known ‘Alligator Head Rock.’”

Spanish for “The Jewel,” La Jolla is a hilly seaside community within the city of San Diego, California. It is surrounded on three sides by the Pacific Ocean and backed by the steep slopes of Mt. Soledad. Since the 1880s, the biggest draw for tourism is the rugged ocean bluffs, stunning rock formations, and sea life. La Jolla is currently home to the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, the Stephen Birch Aquarium, the University of California – San Diego, the San Diego Museum of Contemporary Art, and La Jolla Playhouse.

La Jolla remained one of Moses’ favorite locations to sketch while visiting the West Coast. Almost three decades later in 1928, he wrote, “Arrived in Los Angeles on April 26^th, and immediately took another train for San Diego and La Jolla where I enjoyed a week of sketching, all of which is fully described in my travelogue.”

In 1929, Moses made a point to sketch at La Jolla again, writing, “I packed my sketching kit and made an early start for La Jolla, where I put in a good day sketching. I remained on the beach long after sunset and studied; making several pencil sketches. I had four days of sketching; going back to San Diego at night at the San Diego Hotel. I have thoroughly enjoyed the sketching – all of which I have put in my travelogue of this trip.” His travelogues are lost, but fortunately Moses mentioned some of his visits in his typed manuscript.

In 1931, Moses wrote, “July 11^th, we started for San Diego and La Jolla. Found very nice apartment, and celebrated the Madam’s 75^th birthday on the 12^th, by spending the day on the beach. I celebrated my 75^th birthday on the 21^st, on the beach also. We left for Los Angeles the next day, having a very pleasant trip. I also saw my old friend Tom Getz at the Ramona House.”

There are certain places you return, time and time again. Whether it is by sight, sound or smell, certain areas will continually beckon you. It may be the distant view from atop a mesa as you watch storm clouds gather, or it could be the smell of pine needles crunching underfoot as you walk an alpine trail. I wonder if it was the sound of water that captivated Moses, whether waves crashing against rocky shores or a babbling brook in a forest glen brought him back to the same location. In 1932, Moses wrote some thoughts about his love for water, called “The Brook.” He explained the magic of sketching and how it brought him peace. La Jolla was listed as one of Moses’ favorite sketching locations.

Others included the Kennebunkport and Ogunquit, Maine; Kingston and Ellenville, New York, on the edge of the Catskills; Woodstock and Mt. Washington in New Hampshire; Breckenridge, Colorado; Mt Shasta, California; Mt. Rainier, Washington; Chattanooga, Tennessee; the Buckwater River in West Virginia; the French Broad River in North Carolina; the docks near Oakland, California; and the beaches of La Jolla. By 1932, Moses recorded that his collection of sketches numbered 1200 (600 oil paintings ranging from 6” x 8” to 40” x 50” in size), 200 watercolor and tempura paintings, and 400 pencil sketches).

To be continued…