On January 25, 1911, an entertaining article was published in “The Columbus Journal” about a fine artist’s quote to paint a drop curtain.
Here is the article in its entirety:
“Costly Drop Curtain.
The One Meissonier Didn’t Paint For French Theatre.
The enterprising manager of a theater called upon the famous French artist Jean Louis Ernest Meissonier on one occasion and asked him to paint a drop scene for a certain theater and name his terms.
‘You have seen my pictures, then?’ asked Meissonier.
‘Oh, yes,’ exclaimed the manager, ‘but it is your name I want! It will draw crowds to my theater.’
‘And how large do your wish the curtain to be’ inquired the artist.
‘Ah, well, we will say 15 by 18 meters.’
Meissonier took up a pen and pencil and proceeded to make a calculation. At last he looked up and said, with imperturbable gravity,
‘I calculated and find that my pictures are valued at 80,000 francs per meter. Your curtain, therefore, will cost you just 21,600,000 francs. But that is not all. It takes me twelve months to paint twenty-five centimeters of canvas. It will take me just 190 years to finish your curtain. You should have come to me earlier, monsieur. I am too old for undertaking it now. God morning.”
Meissonier (1815-1891) was a sculptor and fine artist, known for his detail and precise brushwork. His realistic approach to painting meant that it took time to complete each composition; the same techniques could not be applied to the stage for many reasons.
Although Meissonier passed away two decades before the 1911 article was published, the story still resonates in the field of scenic art today. The precision required for photorealistic painting takes more time, and ultimately, these same techniques destroy illusion on the stage. An artist may excel at photorealism yet remain unable to produce a satisfactory backdrop or large outdoor mural.
Many artists struggle when they change exhibition spaces, for example, transitioning from small-scale watercolors to large-scale theatrical backdrops. Painting miniatures for an art gallery versus painting cycloramas for the stage require different techniques, tools and materials. Is the artwork intended to be viewed from several inches away or from several yards away? An automated billboard in Times Square is intended to be viewed from several blocks away. The basis of scenic art has always been learning how to see from the audience’s perspective. This skill is not necessarily taught in fine art schools.
Different painting techniques take an artist different amounts of time to complete. This is what is addressed in the 1911 newspaper article above. Meissonier based his estimate on a very realistic technique, one that he used for his many detailed military compositions. Painting techniques not only shift when transitioning from one type of artwork to another, but also one school of scenic art to another. Some techniques take more time. Here is one example: The majority of theatrical backdrops created at the turn of the twentieth century took between one and two days. The same compositions might now take a scenic artist one to two weeks to complete. It is not that contemporary scenic artists are untalented, or simply slow. Much has to do with the fact that many of the scenic art techniques have been lost or altered over the decades, whether intentional or not. In addition to the shift in painting techniques, the overall paint system changed from dry pigment to pre-mixed theatrical paints. Shifts in scenic art remain dependent on instruction, tools, and type of paint. Whether a student learns in a classroom or scene shop, the instructor/journeyman is the one to pass along a tradition and “preferred” type of painting system.
In the past, I have posted articles that examined why scenic artists more easily transitioned to a fine art gallery than fine artists transitioned to the stage. It all has to do with one’s ability to understand how painted compositions are intended to be viewed from any distance, whether far away or close up. In short, theatrical artists painted many compositions that were intended to be viewed from a distance of twenty feet or more, employing speed and economical brushwork. They incorporated specific painting techniques that allowed the audience’s “eye” to fill in the gaps. There needs to be a division of colors and separate of value. Keep in mind their work appeared at many other venues beyond the theatre, opera, and vaudeville stage. Scenic artists controlled the scenic illusion at world fair attractions, grand circus spectacles, and American pageants. The scenic artist could not create photographic realism for these venues as their paintings would appear fuzzy from a distance.
At the same time, these same scenic artists had to paint for intimate performance spaces and displays that placed audience members mere feet from their work. This requires an overall understanding of stage illusion and various scenic art techniques for any venue, in addition to basic artistic training in color, light, perspective, composition and layout. In the end, these trained, experienced and knowledgeable individuals understood how to make their artworks come to life from a distance or up close. Painting techniques placed well upstage of the proscenium line would “fall apart” when examined close-up. The same could not be said for a drop curtain that was within almost arms reach of the first row, as the techniques were different than those employed against the backwall.
Throughout the twentieth century the understanding of basic painting techniques that were dependent on the scenic piece’s stage position became a struggle, especially as some modern scenic designers failed to comprehend the complexity of the painted stage aesthetic, or the magic that could be produced by one. Simultaneously, the role of a nineteenth-century scenic artist who controlled the entire stage aesthetic transitioned to a twentieth-century scenic artist who painted another’s design (the scene designer). This transition compounded by scenic designers who were not trained as scenic artists became a challenge. In many cases it has continued to remain an obstacle when painted scenery is designed by those who do not paint, or fully understand painted illusion for the stage. It is not that these designers are unskilled, or that they are less valued by our industry, but it provides a challenge for many paint crews when a scenic designer visits a shop and sees a backdrop at close range, and not from the back of an auditorium. Simply stated, these designers are unable to fully comprehend either the possibilities or limitations of a two-dimensional composition and therefore, in many cases, avoid them. This lack of understanding has carried over into come current digital designs. In many cases a scenic artist should be used to help the designer translate his vision for the stage. One example is when computer renderings fail to depict a uniform light source, allowing random shadows and highlights to appear through the final product. With an inconsistent use of shadows and highlights, the dimensionality is destroyed, and the overall composition looks flat, or simply odd. The basic rules of scenic art for the stage still apply to digital backdrops.
Contemporary scenic art obstacles, however, are not solely the result of designers, lighting or technological innovations. Much has to do with training. All scenic art is not equal; it has never been equal, and America has supported two distinct schools of scenic art (see past posts about opaque painting versus glazing). In the end, whether it is hand-painted or digital the same questions need to be asked. Is the background or prop for live theater, film, theme parks, department store displays or some other exhibition space? Each one requires a different skill set. The individual designing and manufacturing the backdrop needs to understand that the final product is dependent on whether it is viewed from a distance or up close.
Another example of differing skill sets: backdrops for theatre and backdrops for film. Comparing these two is just like comparing apples to oranges. From the beginning, techniques used for scenic illusion on the stage did not successfully transfer to the movie industry, especially as the quality of film advanced throughout the twentieth century. This aesthetic shift for scenic artists was already in play during the first decade of the twentieth century – the early twentieth-century generation of scenic artists that had to figure artworks for a new format. They needed an even further division of value to help the painted scenery read on screen – in the beginning. When Harley Merry worked with Thomas Edison on some of the earliest films at the turn-of the century, new painting techniques were created to successfully read in this projected black and white format. Keep in mind that some of the early films also included Thomas G. Moses’ work for attractions at Coney Island. The distance from the camera to the painted setting, and from the screen to the audience, dictated the scenic artist’s painting technique at this time. By the mid-twentieth century, a scenic art system for film was partially in place for color.
Success in any form of scenic art is based on the continued study of the trade. There should never be a point when any artist says, “I have learned enough.” For centuries, scenic artists sought constant training, whether it is in the form of a class at the academy or a sketching trip with one’s contemporaries. We must continue to grow as artists, always studying the past while planning for the future. In many ways, today’s scenic artists are even closer to their nineteenth-century predecessors who successfully worked in a variety of industries throughout the duration of their career. Their income derived from many different venues, not simply painting backdrops for the stage, or working in a studio. It is an exciting time to be a scenic artist as change is the only constant thing we can expect.
To be continued…
