Russell Smith (1812-1896) took pride in his nature sketches. Tromping out into the wilderness with stool, paint box and easel was a time-honored tradition for many nineteenth century scenic artists. Sketching trips provided an opportunity to gather source material for future compositions, whether placed in an art gallery or on the stage. These plein air paintings, or portions thereof, were incorporated into many settings for the stage. Twentieth century scenic artists continued this practice, long after printed sources became readily avaialble, as it was a way to hone their artistic skills. Thomas G. Moses (1856-1934) wrote of his sketching trips with fellow artists during the 1880s. His traveling companions included Henry C, Tryon, Walter Burridge, Edward Morange, John H. Young, Hardesty Marratta and many others, publishing his recollections of the outings years later. They all had ties to Russell Smith.
Scenic artists who were associated with the Düsseldorf School, such as Sosman & Landis artists David Austin Strong (1830-1911), also supported plein air painting, leaving the four walls of their studios to work from nature as it was integral to the artistic process. Strong was a contemporary of Smith who also sought training in Europe and became a prolific scenic artist in his own right. He was one of the original scenic artists for “The Black Crook” at Niblo’s garden in 1866 and later settled in Chicago, working at the Sosman & Landis studio. Strong’s work was well known throughout the United States in hundreds of theaters from New York, Boston, and Philadelphia to Chicago, Kansas and California.
I think back to Moses’ records describing the numerous sketching trips where he peacefully sat and captured the pristine beauty of mountain valleys, sunlit meadows, and babbling brooks. Their trips to the Catskills, Rocky Mountains, Canadian Rockies, New Mexico, California, and many other picturesque locations were immediately incorporated into both small-scale and large-scale projects, ranging from art exhibitions to scenic spectacles. The expansion of America’s railway system opened up possibilities for ambitious artists.
Smith discussed in detail the need for nature studies throughout his journals. Virginia Lewis included many of these remarks in her 1956 book “Russell Smith, Romantic Realist.” Of note, Smith acknowledged that some artists replicated specific engravings or paintings, while he used his own materials. Of mentioning the need for nature studies, one director responded, “Oh what’s the difference so its pretty, you’ll spend much money and time making sketching tours when you could buy something just as good or better by Calame or Harding for fifty cents.” The manager was referring to the many lithographs available at the time by Alexandre Calame (1810-1864) and James Duffield Harding (1798-1863).
Calame was a lithographer and a popular artist associated with the Düsseldorf school of painting, as Strong had been. A Swiss landscape painter, Calame’s work was featured in numerous series of lithographs depicting picturesque mountain regions. Similarly, Harding’s work was readily available in print form for scenic artists to replicate. Harding was an English landscape painter, lithographer and author of drawing manuals. Harding’s “Lessons on Art,” “Guide and Companion to Lessons on Art,” “The Principles and Practice of Art,” and “Elementary Art, or the use of the chalk and lead pencil advocated and explained,” were widely sought after.
Much more could be said of both Calame and Harding, but the main issue at hand is Smith’s identification of artists whom opted for printed sources in lieu of sketching trips. Nature studies provide training for the artistic eye, something a printed work cannot do. Although the blue in a lithograph can be replicated, it is not the same as capturing the brilliancy of a clear blue sky. There is a depth of color that is lost in translation in print form.
The difference between the artists who easily purchased prints for reference instead of creating their own can be identifiable in their painting, taking on a flat and lifeless characteristic that accentuates any overall lack of skill. Sitting outside and observing nature, trying to replicate the color of atmospheric landscapes yields different results than those who dutifully copy a print. Smith continued to describe the artists who “captured the truth.”
Near the end of his life, Smith wrote, “What I am going to say of some scene painters I knew in early life I hope may not be attributed to the general tendency of the old to praise the past at the expense of the present. There were forty or fifty years ago, some, in Philadelphia, New York and Boston, that were true artists; men who could make a fine original drawing from nature, and paint a scene possessing much truth as well as beauty; and were not content to work from print only. Robert Jones, a pupil of Stanfield’s was one of these, but seemed to aim more in the style of Turner. Then there was James and William Coyle, both of whom had painted with Marinari in Drury Lane Theatre, were excellent in Gothic and Picturesque architecture. Whilst Harry Wilkins, a pupil of Naysmith’s, the Edinburgh landscape painter, was admirable in landscape, trees and rocks. Hugh Reinagle, a brother of the Royal Academician Reinagle, was also a very fine architectural painter. So was Mr. Hilliard, well known in New York. I have preserved specimens of the work of all these painters and any good artist can see the truth of what I say. Now there is such a glut of design, in fine woodcuts, engravings, chromes, photographs, and even paintings that a young man who can copy and desires to paint scenes, can for a little money, supply himself with a collection that will enable him to furnish a scene of any subject, or a view of any remarkable place; and like all easily acquired knowledge, is very shallow. As a consequence there are a very few scene painters now who could rank as an artist-studying and bringing from Nature their skill. Many believe that the same may be said of actors in general; but of that I cannot pretend to judge.”
Smith passed away in 1896. His work remains part of the American scenic art legacy, artists who saw value and benefit in gathering source material from nature. These were also artists who worked in both small scale and large scale, each requiring a unique skill set and distinct understanding of contrast, color, and detail for each. Many artists can produce small artworks, easily transported and hung on both private and public walls. Not all are able to successfully transition their ideas to a large-scale format that is best viewed from a distance. Tightly painted and detailed artworks become fuzzy from the back of an auditorium. The stage demands the separation of color and an increased contrast that allows the audience’s eye to work and see the illusion. Smith could do it all.
To be continued…
