Month: November 2018

Part 579: Lee Lash

Lee Lash (1864-1935) was a friend and colleague of Thomas G. Moses (1856-1934). They worked together when Moses was working in New York City and living in Mount Vernon, New York. Moses & Hamilton Studio operated in the area from 1900 to 1904. There is even a newspaper clipping that shows Moses painting in the Lee Lash studios, possibly next to his partner William F. Hamilton. Moses pasted this clipping in his scrapbook. Lash is quite an interesting artist and studio owner, especially in light of his exploits as told by William Chambliss in 1895 (see post 578).

Lash was born in Vancouver, British Columbia, during 1864. Isador Lash moved his family to San Francisco in the following year. There, Lee and his brother Sam attended public schools before focusing on art. In his early teens Lash was a pupil of artists Juan B. Wandesforde and Domenico Tojetti. He then journeyed to Europe for further artistic instruction. He traveled to Paris where he studied with artists Jules J. Lefebvre(1836-1911) and Gustave Boulanger (1824-1888) at the Académie Julian. Lash received a positive reception at the Paris Salons. After eight years of study from 1881 to 1889 in Europe, he returned to the United States.

An 1889 newspaper article reported, “Lee Lash, a San Franciscan whose work in France and abroad, and whose picture in the last Salon was praised by the French critics, has returned to this city. Eight years Mr. Lash spent in Europe. He brought with him many pictures of great merit, through which the terms of his apprenticeship and mastery may be noted” (San Francisco Chronicle, 27 Oct. 1889, page 12). Upon his return, Lash established a studio in San Francisco and taught at the School of Design from 1891-1893. It was during this time that he had the altercation with William H. Chabliss and “borrowed” Charles D. Smith’s idea for the development of American advertising curtains.

Lee Lash Studios opened in San Francisco during 1892, founded by himself and his brother, Samuel Lash. In 1893, the brothers moved their theatrical curtain company to Philadelphia, and a few years later established a second studio in New York City. By 1895 Lash’s two curtain advertising enterprises were continuing as successful endeavors. There is some debate as to when the New York Studio was establish; some records note 1895 and others 1898. At first their New York studio was located at Thirtieth Street and Broadway, but moved several times over the next decade. By 1910, Lash built a studio in Mount Vernon, N.Y. By now, the firm was doing much more than ad drops and drop curtains. They were also building scenery for shows designed by others, often featuring well-known scenic artists as “staff supervisors” for premiere productions. Lee Lash’s studio became heralded as one of the best in the country, a very large outfit that could produce up to thirty curtains at one time.

Lash was reported as having advertising curtains in 1700 American theatres that brought in more than $250,000 during the hey day of vaudeville (Star-Gazette, 4 March, 1973, page 7). One of Lash’s employees was Paul V. McTighe was tasked with visiting every playhouse on the Subway Circuit twice each month to make sure that the Lee Lash curtains were being displayed according to contract. McTighe also worked as a bell-captain at the Flanders Hotel.

Most of Lash’s curtains carried their own ad block:

“If in this world, you

Hope to rise,

By a balloon, or

advertise.” (Star-Gazette, 4 March, 1973, page 7).

The 1922 publication of American Elite and Sociologist Bluebook reported Lash to be “Business President and Director, of 1476 Broadway, New York City; and a member of various clubs and societies. He is president of the Lee Lash Studio of Mount Vernon, N. Y. He is chairman of the board of directors of the Hugo Gedro Studios; and the president of the Lee Lash Company, and of the Lee Lash Company, Incorporated. He resides at Mount Vernon, N.Y.” (page 319).

Harry J. Kuckuck, who had joined Lee Lash in 1892, eventually purchased the company by 1926. At that point, the studio name was changed to H. J. Kuckkuck’s Lee Lash Studio. It remained in operation for another twenty years, until the time of his death in 1945. A sign with that name was once attached to the Hershey Theatre fire curtain’s controlling mechanism and is now part of the Hershey Story Museum on Chocolate Avenue (Here is the link to the artifact: https://hersheystory.pastperfectonline.com/webobject/06263EA9-4F35-41C2-A565-438659853932).

Lee Lash retired after the stock market crash in 1929, but he continued to do fine art pieces. In 1935 he exhibited his paintings for a one-man show in New York. There are many Lee Lash artifacts, dating from 1912-1941, in the New York Public Library Archives & Manuscripts.http://archives.nypl.org/the/22147

Here is the overview for the NYPL Lee Lash Studio Designs collection: 11 boxes (ca. 381 drawings); 2 boxes (ca. 180 photographs). The collection is held in the Billy Rose Theatre Division and contains original designs for curtains, drops, olio curtains, nightclubs, set designs, parts of set models, and photographs of designs by Lee Lash Studios. Most designs are color on paper or board and are unidentified, although many are numbered. Identified set designs include the play “Bet Your Life” by Fritz Blocki and Willie Howard (John Golden Theatre, 1937), and designs for the motion picture “Everybody’s Girl” (ca. 1918).

To be continued…

Part 578: The Tale of Lee Lash and the Tivoli Advertising Curtain

For the next few posts, I will look at the life of Lee Lash and the origin of the advertising curtain. It is being included at this point in Thomas G. Moses’ story because in 1908 and 1909 some areas of the country were calling for the removal of advertising curtains. The origin of the American advertising curtain is an interesting tale, often crediting Lee Lash with the idea. This story even is included in the Cambridge Guide to American Theatre.

Here a brief summary of the tale: When Lee Lash was a young painter and working on an olio curtain in San Francisco, he conceived of the idea of incorporating the names of advertisers in natural places within a street scene (rather than the customary practice of painting the names in “patchwork style”). His idea worked so well that he founded Lee Lash Studios, soon expanding its operations to serve theaters across the country. Now, much could be said about the actual composition of Lee Lash’s curtain versus the supposed “patchwork quilt” one too. First of all, advertising curtains were around long before Lash.

There is a second version of the story, however; one that is told by William H. Chambliss in his memoirs. Chambliss blames Lash for stealing the advertising curtains idea from Charles D. Smith. I am starting with Chambliss’ version of events as they are a “first hand” account, and it is a far more entertaining tale. This is a novel length post today, but certainly worth it!

Chambliss’ story was part of “Chambliss’ Diary: Or, Society As It Really Is, 1895.” His account was fully illustrated with over fifty copper-plate half-tones and photo engravings, including twenty-five society pictures by Laura E. Foster. His account is available online as part of “California as I Saw It: First-Person Narratives of California’s Early Years, 1849-1900.”

Although it is very long, here is Chambliss’ account. It is really worth reading:

“I undertook to start a new line of advertising here, and made arrangements with the late Mr. Kreling to put an advertising curtain in the Tivoli Opera House; but a bum artist named Lee Lash, a member of the Bohemian Club, and a supposed friend, whom I employed to make a sample sketch of the Tivoli drop curtain to show the merchants how the signs were to be placed on it, appropriated the contract and the idea, together with sixty dollars in cash.

With the assistance of his father, and his brother Sam, and their attorney, Edward Lande of 405 California Street, Lee Lash developed the curtain scheme on the stolen idea. He made a good deal of money out of it, so I am told.

“I employed “Lawyer” W. M. Cannon to enjoin the Lashes from using the ideas, and have Lee arrested for obtaining money under false pretenses; but the shyster compromised with the knaves for the sixty dollars which Lee got from me. The shyster then charged me half of the amount for giving Lash a 336 receipt that left him in undisputable possession of the business.

This lesson taught me to steer clear of the society of sheenies and shysters. Creations like the Lashes, claiming to be Jews, are well calculated to get honest Jews a bad name.

“The chapter of the Lash history with which I am personally acquainted affords such a true picture of the real character of the particular class to which he belongs that it would be an injustice to my readers to omit a brief mention of it. I see no reason in the world why I should not give it to my readers; I certainly paid for it, and paid dearly, too.

“I met Mr. Lee Lash through some mutual acquaintances in January, 1891. I shall not give the names of those mutual acquaintances, for I esteem them very highly. They have expressed to me their regrets for ever having known Mr. Lash at all. At the time of my first chance meeting with Lash, I was an officer of the City of Peking, and Mr. Lash was introduced to me as the “talented young artist.” He had a studio in the back yard of his father’s house upon Post Street, but subsequently he moved out and set up in “business” in a little cottage at 2309 Bush Street, near Steiner, and right close to a big Catholic church.

“In April, 1892, while I was confined to my room at the Palace Hotel from the effects of a bullet of lead which Dr. McNutt had extracted from my right leg, some lady friends of mine called upon me one day, bringing Lee Lash along to carry some flowers which they had picked for me. Mr. Lash, in the kindness of his heart, called again. About this time, while waiting for my wounded leg to get well, Mr. Charles Duryea Smith of New York called in to talk over the proposition of going into business in San Francisco, mentioning the advertising business.

“Mr. Smith proposed to put advertisements on theater drop curtains, a scheme which was well known to everybody in New York and Paris. Mr. Smith said that if I would go into business with him he would secure a contract with Mr. Kreling to advertise on the Tivoli drop curtain. He went off and made arrangements with Kreling to that effect, and, while I was not enthused with his wild ideas of vast wealth to be made in that line, I agreed to go in with him as soon as I got well enough to walk out. The young man seemed highly pleased with the prospects, and left me on the evening of April 19 in high spirits.

“That night there was a violent earthquake which shook San Francisco from cellar to garret. The shocks kept coming at intervals for three days, and I think they shook my poor friend Smith’s mind all to pieces, for he came in to see me on the morning after the first shock, looking like a ghost. “My God, William,” said the poor boy, “do you have those things very often? If so, I will—” He did not finish his sentence, for just then a rumbling sound, like an approaching freight train, caught his ear. “Great Heavens, it’s another earthquake!” said he. In a second the giant caravansary began to rock and groan; windows rattled, doors flew open, and it looked for a few seconds as if we were going into the bowels of the earth. General T. B. Bunting of Santa Cruz and Mr. M. G. Coward, now of the Chicago Times-Herald, were in my room at the time, and they will remember this circumstance: “Good-by, gentlemen,” said Mr. Smith, “I am going to leave this rocky, shaky city.” So saying, he left the room, and hurried away to his own apartments.

The next day the bell boy handed me a note reading as follows:

PALACE HOTEL, Thursday, April 21, 1892.

MY DEAR WILLIAM: I am going home to-night. Would have gone last night, but could not secure a sleeper. Will drop in later to tell you good-by. If you wish to develop the curtain scheme go ahead and do so; I must get out of San Francisco. Sincerely yours, (Signed) CHAS. D. SMITH.

“I waited in hopes of seeing Mr. Smith before he left. I expected him to call, but he never came. The next day, Friday, April 22, my young friend William O. Warnock, a nephew of Mrs. Adam Forepaugh, of circus fame, called at the Palace and took me out for a drive, to give me a little fresh air. We drove down toward San Bruno and called on some young lady friends of ours living out in the country, the Misses Nellie and Kate Dowling. Miss Nellie ran down to the front gate to meet us.

“Just then a boy came along crying out: “Extra Report, all about the suicide!” Miss Nellie got a copy of the Report, and read: “Suicide at the Palace Hotel. Charles D. Smith ends his earthly troubles. Failing to hear from New York relatives, and becoming completely stranded, he puts a bullet in his heart.” The Report went on to explain that the poor fellow was dunned for a week’s board bill by Cashier Charles Clark of the hotel, and that having not the necessary funds with which to pay, had ended his life rather than ask anyone to help him out. Had he known Mr. Clark as well as I do, he would not have bothered his head about the propriety of asking that gentleman for a little time, or even a small loan. Mr. Clark is a very obliging cashier. I have had favors from him myself, which I am happy to mention in order to clear this good man of the awful charge of having driven a guest of his hotel to suicide.

“Subsequently I learned something more about poor Smith. He was the son of a wealthy New Yorker, who, like a great many other unjust fathers, as well as would-be adopted fathers,—like Captain R. R. Searle,—threw barriers in the way of the young man’s matrimonial inclinations. This sad case of young Smith, and other similar cases, justify the assertion that I made in the New York Herald, March 17, 1895: The parent or guardian who prevents a grown son or daughter from marrying is a worse enemy to society than a murderer, for he murders the spirit of the Goddess of Love, the highest redeeming spirit in mankind.

“It was on the next morning after the news of Smith’s suicide that Lee Lash called. During the discussion of the unfortunate affair I called Lash’s attention to the fact that it was strange that Smith should have considered himself hopelessly stranded when he had such a good money-making scheme under way. I also mentioned to Mr. Lash the fact that I intended to let Smith have some money with which to develop his scheme. At the same time I handed Lash Mr. Smith’s letter. Lash read the letter and then asked me all about the scheme. I told him the facts. In a minute Lash forgot all about the pathetic side of the story,—the suicide of the promoter of the scheme,—and began talking about my going ahead with it where Smith “left off.”

“Why! see here, my dear friend, Smith has willed you his scheme,” said Lash. “I am an artist,” continued Mr. Lash, “and I can paint the signs on the curtain; but you must remember that I am in a position which I cannot risk by going into trade. Sign painting is trade, you know, and I am an artist. But, since you are a friend of mine, I will do this work for you.” Mr. Lash seemed so enthusiastic, and was so persistent, that finally I told him to go ahead and make me a sketch of the Tivoli drop curtain, so that I could show it to the merchants. I gave Lash an idea of how many signs there should be, and also how big the sketch should be. “Good,” said Mr. Lash, “I will have it ready for you in twenty-four hours.” So saying he took his departure, after having explained to me that he was “hard up,” and did not propose to let his pride drive him to suicide, as in Smith’s case. “Would you let a man kill himself for a few paltry dollars?” asked Mr. Lash. “All that I want is ten dollars.” He got him the ten, and went his way rejoicing.*

*I did not know at the time that Lee Lash was the same “artist” who begged permission to paint a picture of the “Old People’s Home,” and subsequently tried to make that charitable institution pay two thousand dollars for his worthless daub.

“Mr. Lash did not complete the sketch in twenty-four hours, nor in a week. He kept running down to the Palace to tell me about some cigar signs or soap advertisements that he had seen on curtains in the demi-monde resorts of Paris where he had studied high art. I humored him in his nonsense, and told him to get me some sort of sketch finished, and improve it later. William Warnock asked me one day what Lash was doing around my room so much, and why he was in such a confidential mood with me all the time. I told Mr. Warnock the circumstances, and was somewhat surprised at his saying that he would bet me a French dinner that Lash was playing me some trick or other. I took the bet, and subsequently paid for the dinner.

“While keeping me waiting for the sketch, Mr. Lash went quietly to Mr. Kreling and, representing himself as the rightful owner of the scheme, secured a new contract with that man on his own behalf. The Mr. Lash wrote to his father, who was in some fake wine business in New Whatcom, Washington State, to hurry down to San Francisco and bring Sam Lash, the younger brother, with him.

“On the 10th of May Lee Lash made a demand on me to pay him $50 for the sketch, which was still unfinished. (An honest sign painter would have made the sketch in a few hours for $2.50, frame and all.) Mr. Lash then came right out and told me that if I did not wish to pay so much for the sketch, I could let him have a half interest in the enterprise. The talented artist subsequently assured me that if I did not care to accept either proposition, he would start an opposition business. Seeing that I had confided my “inherited” ideas to a false friend, having investigated the scheme and having found that there was money in it, I paid “the talented artist” $50 more, making $60 in all, and took the sketch, still only half finished.

“In the meantime old Isador Lash and Sam had arrived in the city. I took the $2.50 sketch, which had cost me $60, to Taber, the photographer, to have a copy made of it to send to Washington to have copyrighted. But the three Lashes, old man Isador, Lee, and Sam, got their heads together at the office of Edward Lande, an “attorney” of the Lash tribe, and together they went up to Mr. Taber and raised such a piteous howl about my having the sketch photographed, telling Mr. Taber that it was theirs, that the gullible old photographer gave the sketch to the little petty larceny Shylocks, who proceeded immediately to develop the business with the money that old Lash had made out of several well planned “failures” in trade. *

* New York, June 6, 1895. The subjects of the above biography are carrying on the drop curtain advertising enterprise in this city. Their office is at No. 25 West 30th Street. They have an office in Diamond Street, Philadelphia, also. They call it the “Lee Lash Company,” or the “Lee Lash Studios,” or some such Oscar Wilde name. I can recommend the “firm” from personal knowledge.

“After Sam Lash had secured some orders for advertisements, he and the old man and Lee opened up business in the old Merchants’ Exchange building, and called it the “Art Advertising Co.”

“The “talented young artist” abandoned his fastidious idea that an artist should not soil his artistic hands in vulgar trade, such as painting drop curtains. He of the artistic “tastes” (I don’t mean Oscar Wilde’s tastes) even got up on a scaffold to add some finishing touches to a bicycle “ad.”

“The artistic scaffold fell down and almost killed him. I am told that this accident crippled him in such a peculiar way as to constitute an impediment to matrimonial felicity. But of that I know nothing, never having studied surgery of that kind further than the lecture contained in Deuteronomy xxiii.

“The notoriety that I got through the papers over this affair brought me before the public in such a way that a great many other “business” men with schemes and ideas offered to let me go into partnership with them and invest various sums of money, which they assured me would “double in a little while.”

Giving credit to Chambliss’ account, the “San Francisco Examiner” reported that a letter was found in Smith’s belongings after his suicide stating, “Smith wrote that he had at last ‘found the road to fortune.’ But what the road was he failed to state” (23 April 1892. Page 3). It was the advertising curtain that Lee Lash would greatly benefit from. At one time, Lee Lash was reported as having advertising curtains in 1700 American theatres that brought him in more than $250,000 during the hey day of vaudeville – and that was just an annual curtain (Star-Gazette, 4 March, 1973, page 7). It really was the “road to fortune” that Charles D. Smith envisioned at the age of 32. Smith was from New York.

To be continued…

Here is the link to Chambliss’ tale: https://cdn.loc.gov//service/gdc/calbk/108.pdf

This may be more than you need to know about me, but here is a link for my interview with Ricard Bryant, founder of Facebook Group Archiving Technical Theatre History:

https://anchor.fm/…/Episode-4—Wendy-Waszut-Barre…/a-a1ptlh

Part 577: Resources Pertaining to the M. Armbruster & Sons Studio

The Ohio State University is a great place to start when looking for information pertaining to the Armbruster studio and family. In July 1965, Allan S. Jackson studied and photographed a number of extant drops by the Armbruster Studio. His findings were published in “The Ohio State University Theatre Collection Bulletin” (Vol. 12, July 1965). Five years later, a doctoral dissertation was written about the history of the Armbruster Studio. Here is a little information about what is available to artists and historians when examining the scenery work of M. Armbruster & Sons.

There are two primary sources that provide quite a bit of information about the Armbruster family and studio. One is a lovely paper about Mathias Armbruster written by Leeann Faust and the other is a doctoral dissertation by Robert Suddards Joyce “The History of the Armbruster Studio” (Ohio State University, 1970). I have had a copy of Studdard’s dissertation for years, unfortunately it is more of a descriptive work on extant scenery that an insight into the working of the studio and familial dynamics. Here is the link to a digital copy of Joyce’s dissertation: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/!etd.send_file?accession=osu1486655760439351&disposition=inline

I was thrilled to finally find a digital copy available online. Unfortunately, the scanned images are very poor. I have yet to locate any recent publications about the collection, the historic scenery or the Armbruster Scenic Studio Collection.

The Armbruster Scenic Studio collection at Ohio State University consists of scenic design materials relating to Mathias Armbruster and his studio in Columbus, Ohio. It is at the Jermone Lawrence and Robert E. Lee Theatre Research Institute. It is part of the Ohio State University Libraries Special Collections. This collection includes set designs, paint stencils, minstrel shows, ad photographs of stage performances, as well as, inspirational source material clippings from illustrated journals, financial information, and other miscellaneous materials relating to the studio. The records, both in English and German. Some of the contents include designs for White Minstrels, Coburn’s Minstrels, Al G. Field Minstrels, Thurston the Magician, Masonic temples, Romeo and Juliet, King John, Uncle Tom’s Cabin, the Merchant of Venice and many other unidentified productions. This collection is a treasure trove, especially when looking for primary resources referenced by the studio artists for backdrop compositions.

Subject folders include clippings from magazines, journals, and photographs that depict exotic locales, woods and trees, gardens, courtyards, mountains, caverns, landscapes, waterways, shores, ships, trains, military and battle scenes, winter scenes, churches, monasteries and altars, angels and cherubs, female nudes, public structures, furniture and moldings, ornamental designs and patterns, residential interiors and exteriors, Medieval and Renaissance, historical antiquities, contemporary and historical portraits, and mythology and statuary. This is one scenery collections that really should be online and available in a scenery collection database.

During my search this past week, I also stumbled upon a wonderful video about the Armbruster Studio created by PBS. Here is the link to the short PBS video about the Armbruster collection: https://www.pbs.org/video/broad-and-high-mathias-armbruster-armbruster-scenic-studio-collection/

Finally, there are some wonderful images of designs by M. Armbruster & Sons Studio available online at Ohio Memory (http://www.ohiomemory.org/cdm/search/searchterm/armbruster/field/all/mode/all/conn/and). It is such a fantastic resource that goes far beyond theatre history. Ohio Memory’s mission is to help communities share, discover and connect to Ohio’s rich past through dynamic online resources. In terms of theatre history, there are some scans of M. Armbruster & Sons Studio scene designs. This may be cone of my favorite sites to explore.

Ohio Memory was established in 2000; a collaborative statewide digital library program of the Ohio History Connection and the State Library of Ohio containing over 700,000 digital images. The images are from a variety of primary source image types that include photographs, maps, drawings, paintings, manuscripts, letters, diaries and journals, archaeological, natural history and historical objects, newspapers, books and e-publications, videos and more. On this free website, you can explore digital content from over 360 cultural heritage institutions representing all 88 of Ohio’s counties!

To be continued…

Part 576: C. B. Harmount’s production of “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” with scenery by M. Armbruster & Sons Studio, 1915

Theatre collections are an extremely valuable resource, not only to theatre historians and practitioners, but also to the general public. Whether designs or backdrops, many holdings were associated with public entertainment and popular culture; much is now lost. Today’s installment continues with examining the scenery created by M. Armbruster & Sons scenic studio of Columbus, Ohio. This scenic studio created thousands of settings for touring shows, many painted with aniline dyes. Scenery for one of the touring productions with scenery produced by Armbruster Studio was for C. B. Harmount’s “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.” Here are a  few:

Twelve extant drops from the Harmount Company’s touring show are now part of the Harmount Collection at the Jermone Lawrence and Robert E. Lee Theatre Research Institute. It is part of the Ohio State University Libraries Special Collections.

This Harmount collection compliments the Armbruster Scenic Studio Collection, also part of the Jermone Lawrence and Robert E. Lee Theatre Research Institute. Very little is available online, however, but there is an extremely detailed description of the collection’s contents; each folder is described in detail. Little is available as high-resolution scans. Fortunately, some images from the Harmount and Armbruster collections have been posted to other websites, such as “Uncle Tom’s Cabin & American Culture” (http://utc.iath.virginia.edu/sitemap.html). I stumbled upon this particular site while researching M. Armbruster & Sons Studio. The Harmount collection even included a letter to C. B. Harmount from Emil Armbruster. This site was created by Stephen Railton, and somewhat associated with University of Virginia.

“Uncle Tom’s Cabin & American Culture” site included a page that was labeled “Scenic Drops.” The page included photographs of twelve drops produced by M. Armbruster & Sons for C. B. Harmount’s touring production of “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.” The date of creation was likely 1915. The post credits the twelve drops as belonging to Ohio State University. There is nothing quite like getting into a collection through the back door.

There were also some images posted of correspondence describing the sale of the Armbruster scenery for “Uncle Tom’s Cabin.” One letter described the technical specifications of the show and scenic inventory. It was sent ahead to theatre managers in the towns that C. B. Harmount wanted to play. A letter dated May 3, 1915 notes, “I am carrying a company of 25 people, band and orchestra, colored quartette and drum corps, 22 special drops put up by the Armbruster Co. of Columbus, O., electrical snow and ice scenes, which not other Tom Show carries and which is a very essential feature to the correct production, also beautiful electrical transformation of allegorical scene, big street parade, and the finest pack of dogs with any UNCLE TOM’S CABIN SHOW – my cast is all select.”

Another 1915 letter from Emil Armbruster to C. B. Marmount discusses creating a second scenic outfit for another Uncle Tom’s Cabin production. The price of the first collection was included with the information in the letter; fourteen drops priced at $33.33 per drop. This amount was a “special price” due to the large order of fourteen drops, even though certain scenes were more expensive to produce at the time, ranging from $40 to $50 (July 1, 1915).

The “Uncle Tom’s Cabin & American Culture” website notes that the Armbruster scenic drops “provide a good sense of the look of a touring ‘Tom Show,’ especially the kind of effect aspired to at the conclusion, in what most companies referred to as ‘The Grand Allegorical Transformation Scene,’ during which Tom dies on stage and theater-goers are transported into the realm of the blessed, perhaps with the help of Eva dressed as an angel and suspended on wires from the flies.”

To be continued…

Part 575: M. Armbruster & Sons Scenic Studio

The 1901-1902 Columbus Directory lists that M. Armbruster & Sons studio was located at 247-253 South Front Street. Matthias, Otto H., Albert E. and Emil G. were all listed as part of the firm in the city directory. Interestingly, Otto H. was working in New York for Moses & Hamilton during this same time. The home address for each of the men was noted as 247 S. Front Street.

The main studio building included offices and a property storage room. Wooden sheds provided extensions that provided additional storage for larger scenic pieces. By 1904, a journalist for the “Columbus Sunday Dispatch” described the interior layout of Armbruster’s studio. The first floor housed the carpenter’s shop, sewing room and storage areas. There was also a paper maché workroom on this level. It was in this room that a variety of set pieces were manufactured, including mantels, statuary, ornaments, and stage food for dining scenes.

The second floor of the building afforded the best light for the paint shop. This area was 64 feet long, 62 feet wide, and 58 feet high. The Sunday Dispatch article described, “The canvas is stretched on frames, the largest of which there are two in number, extends almost the entire length of the floor as to permit of their being lowered, to accommodate the artist… A feature of the movable frames is that they are sort of set out from the wall, a sufficient distance to permit working behind. This is necessary in painting stained glass windows, where colors must not be seen until thrown through the canvas form lights behind.” The article continued, “In the center of the room are two large stationary frames, close together, between which is a platform which may be elevated or lowered as desired.” Each large movable paint frame was approximately 40 feet by 50 feet. The standard paint frame used by Armbruster artists was only 30 feet by 50 feet. The gridiron in the studio accommodated two standard frames lashed together, allowing the final size to measured 60 feet in length.

The painting process for the studio was also described in detail, “The palette, for use in mixing the paints, is a table about ten feet long that can be pushed wherever needed. It has a separate compartment for brushes and for a number of pails of paint…The colors are taken from the cans and mixed on the flat surface of the palette or table.”

To be continued…

Part 573: Otto Armbruster, 1908

In 1908, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “August 16^th, heard of Otto Armbruster’s death by suicide. It was an awful shock as we were such close friends. The German way of getting out of trouble, but he had no trouble, plenty of money and a good business. No one seems to know just what the cause of the rash act was.” Newspapers suggested various causes for Armbruster’s suicide, including a lack of studio work and the intense summer heat.

Armbruster was a colleague and friend of Moses during his time in New York when he worked for Moses & Hamilton. During the spring of 1900, Thomas G. Moses and William F. Hamilton opened the scenic studio of Moses & Hamilton at Proctor’s 125^th Street Theater. That year, Moses’ wrote, “Otto Armbruster was with us and he was a very valuable man. He and [Ed] Loitz worked at 125^th Street most of the time.”

Otto Herman Armbruster came from a well-known scene painting family in Columbus, Ohio, a son born to Mathias Armbruster (1839-1920), the founder of Armbruster Scenic Studios (est. 1875).

Born in Cincinnati, Ohio, on August 28, 1865. He was trained as a scenic artist under the tutelage of his father, Mathias. Unlike his other brothers, Otto moved away from the family business at the age of twenty to strike off on his own as a freelance scenic artist in New York. He was soon associated with the Broadway Theatre and also became an illustrator for decorator magazines. Like Moses, Otto was also a member of the Salmagundi Club in New York, and joined the Kit-Kat Club.

The “Cincinnati Enquirer” reported on Armbruster’s suicide and suggested that lack of work was the cause (16 Aug. 1908, page 1). In a special dispatch to the Enquirer in Columbus, Ohio, on August 15, the article reported on the suicide of “a former resident of Columbus, and one of the best-known scenic artists in the country.” The article continued that one of Armbruster’s brothers received a letter from him a month ago, in which he complained of lack of work.”

The “New York Times,” provided a little more detail about the suicide and suggesteed another cause – “ARTIST A HEAT SUICIDE. Driven Insane by High Temperature, Otto H. Armbruster Shoots Himself.” The article noted, “Mamaronek, N. Y., Aug. 15 – Driven insane by the intense heat, Otto H. Armbruster, a New York scenic artist, committed suicide at his home in Mamaroneck early this morning by sending a bullet into his right temple. He was taken to the New Rochelle Hospital, where he died while the doctors were probing for the bullet. Mr. Armbruster, who was 43 years old, came home yesterday and told his wife he could not endure the intense heat. He had been working hard in New York on some scenery, and was greatly fatigued. This morning, Mrs. Armbruster left her husband in the bedroom while she went downstairs to have breakfast prepared. She had been on the lower floor only a few minutes when she heard the report of a revolver, and on going to her husband’s room found him of the bed with a bullet hole in his temple. Mr. Armbruster came from Columbus, Ohio. He had lived in Mamaroneck about eight months. Mrs. Armbruster told Coronoer Wiesendanger that last summer her husband’s mind was affected by the heat” (16 Aug. 1908, page 1).

Starting tomorrow, I will examine one of the major competitors to Sosman & Landis – Armbruster Studios of Columbus, Ohio.

To be continued…

Part 572: The Majestic Theatre in Indianapolis

In 1907, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “We had more work for the Majestic Theatre also for Indianapolis.” The Majestic Theatre opened on September 2, 1907. It was located on South Illinois Street and West Maryland Streets. The “Indianapolis Star” advertised the venue as “Indiana’s Coziest Playhouse” (Indianapolis Star, 27 Oct. 1907, page 35).

The seating capacity was 1675 (orchestra -675, first balcony – 500, second balcony – 500). Within the first decade of its existence, the Majestic Theatre became associated with burlesque. By December 25, 1919, the Majestic Theater became known as the Broadway, soon changing its names again to become the Mutual Theatre seven years later. Like many vaudeville theaters this one-time vaudeville house solely featured movies. The building was closed and then demolished during June 1955.

In 1916, the “Indianapolis Star” included an interesting article about an upcoming burlesque performance at the Majestic Theatre (26 Nov. 1916, page 52). As the article’s 102^nd anniversary is very near, I thought that I would include it in today’s post.

Charles  Robinson and his “Parisian Flirts” Company seemed to be ushering in the holiday season in Indianapolis that year. Here is the article in its entirety:

“Majestic – Burlesque

Charles Robinson and his ‘Parisian Flirts” Company, will be the attraction at the Majestic Theatre next week.

Manager Robinson claims to have one of the best attractions playing the circuit. The books are from the pen of Ed Hanford, the famous actor-playwright, and are considered his best efforts. The musical numbers are of the tuneful sort that make you whistle and go home in a happy frame of mind. In the cast are: Charles Robinson, the famous tramp comedian; the Harmonists Four, May Bernhardt and Mabel Lee, Harry S. LeVan, Charles E. Edwards, Al Turpee, William Mack, Gertrude Sommers, Freda Lehr and the Dancing Hawaiians.

The company is large, mostly girls, who have made burlesque famous. There are many novelties in the show, and the lyrics are full of smart witticisms.”

It was hard not to read this article without thinking of “You Gotta Have a Gimmick” from the musical Gypsy. Here is the link to one of my favorite versions (1962): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFRSawe33sA.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving – I am taking the next two days off to enjoy my family.

To be continued

Part 571: Streets of Paris in St. Paul, Minnesota

In 1907, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “In April I went to St. Paul to put up the show ‘Streets of Paris’ in the Auditorium. It fitted alright and looked well.”

The show was given by the Junior Pioneers and held in the St. Paul Auditorium. The Auditorium, built by popular subscription, had been recently completed and turned over to the city only a few weeks prior to the event. 50,000 people attended “Streets of Paris” that spring. One of the display booths was a reproduction of the Eiffel Tower by an electric company. It was located in the center of the hall as part of an area arranged to replicate the streets of Paris. This type of project continued to offer opportunities to scenic studios as themed booths required creative construction methods and scenic art.

Events such as the “Streets of Paris” became increasingly popular during the first decade of the twentieth century. They offered local companies an indirect method of securing business throughout their area and region. Food fairs, electric shows, advertising shows, automobile exhibits and other popular public events drew thousands of people together in metropolitan areas every years, providing visibility for a variety of products.

The National Electric Light Association Convention even included the presentation of a paper about noting the benefits of the “Streets of Paris” and a previous show at the St. Paul armory in 1907. Prior to the Streets of Paris, the St. Paul Lodge of Elks held a pure-food show and home industrial carnival at the armory. The event provided St. Paul Gas Light Company with an opportunity to present the many sanitary and other reasons to use electricity for cooking, heating, lighting and ventilating, showing the possibilities of improved electric appliances. For the “Streets of Paris” there were demonstration with electric coffee percolators and electric cooking appliances.

As with the armory, the St. Paul Auditorium was well adapted to reach a large number of people at the same time. It was an ideal advertising opportunity for many local businesses. These grand scale events subsequently provided work for scenic studios throughout the region to supplement their income. There was more work than any one studio could handle, so studios outside of the area were brought in to create a variety of display booths and exhibits.

To be continued…