In 1912, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “June 1st, Sosman agreed to pay me what I wanted, $5,200.00 per year besides my dividends, which will make my income not less than $6,500.00 – not quite as good as the New York venture, but I will be satisfied.” $6500 in 1912 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $171,920.31 in 2019. Of that number, $137,526.25 was Moses’ salary without his dividends.
Now, consider his statement. “not quite as good as the New York Venture.” Moses was referring to his four-year partnership with Will F. Hamilton in New York City – Moses & Hamilton Studio. He left a successful business venture to return to Chicago in 1904. When Moses returned to Sosman & Landis he assumed the role of vice-president, shareholder, and controlled all design, construction, painting and installation. In a sense, Joseph S. Sosman handed all artistic control of the firm over to Moses. In 1904, Moses had been working as a scenic artist for three decades and was not only well-known, but also in high demand across the country. He brought credibility, as well as past clients, when he returned to Chicago.
By 1912, Moses was responsible for the successful delivery of at least two dozen Masonic scenery installations, hundreds of stock settings, all of Ringling Bros. grand circus spectacles, Frederick C. Thompson’s most successful amusement park attractions, and scenery for many premiere productions by Joe Jefferson, Edwin Booth, Helena Modjeska, Sarah Bernhardt, John McCoullough, Julia Marlowe, Katherine Clemmons, Buffalo Bill, and many others. He had closely worked with dozens of theatrical producers, such as Wm. A. Brady. John J. Murdock, Joseph Litt, Gus Hill, Kohl & Castle, H. H. Frazee, Thos. W. Prior, and the list goes on. Moses was a very valuable asset to Sosman & Landis, but his primary obstacle would remain Sosman & Landis stockholders. While Sosman was alive, he acted as a buffer for Moses, being one of the company’s founders. After Sosman’s passing in 1915, Moses faced continued challenges presented by not only stockholders, but also one-time company treasurer and secretary, David H. Hunt. Hunt ran the eastern affiliate of Sosman & Landis – New York Studios,
There are a few factors to consider about Moses’ salary in 1912. First of all, the theatre industry was booming and Sosman & Landis Studio was at the top of their game. They really reigned supreme in regard to painted settings for theatre, opera, music academies, social halls, fraternal stages, public pageants, grand circus spectacles, amusement park attractions, and more. Everywhere you turned, it seemed as if there was a need for scenic art, whether on the stage or at a world’s fair. My exploration of the period from 1890 to 1920 suggests that there was a greater demand than supply. Competition between scenic studios was almost jovial, as there was always another job just around the corner. This dynamic seems to shift during the 1920s when the number of suppliers dramatically increases and the demand for painted scenes begins to wane.
There are many factors that contribute to this decrease, too many to mention in one post. However, it is important to note that there is an increased demand for fabric curtains in lieu of painted stage settings. There is also the emergence of the lighting designer; atmospheric effects once created by paint are now created with light on three-dimensional objects. Whether you want to site realism and naturalism on stage or the Bauhaus movement in theater, the demand for painted illusion diminishes. Scenic art remains, but there is a shift from art to craft in many cases, There is also the increased popularity of film, transitioning the artistic medium as a snippet for vaudeville to a full-length silent film at a movie house. The rise of film shifts many live performance theaters to cinemas, also decreasing the need of stock scenery in some venues. In short, there are too many factors to identify any one thing that directly decreased the demand for scenic art, yet it starts.
Just as two schools of scenic art developed in American during the nineteenth century (English and European traditions), two new schools become associated with live theatre and film during the twentieth century. This is similar to the 19th century shift when scenic art for the stage was painted in either the English tradition of glazing or the European tradition of opaque washes. By the 1920s, scenic art on stage adopts a much more colorful palette, although the two schools of scenic art continue. Shadows are saturated with ultramarine blue and spatter covers painted compositions for the stage, all to interact with light. At this same time, scenic artists who paint for film develop a tighter style as movie cameras improve, branching off in a very different direction of increased realism that transitions into the dimensional. Scenic art for Hollywood and scenic art for grand opera are two completely separate schools, necessitating different techniques.
There is also a shift in the perception of scenic art labor and subsequent wages, more specifically how scenic art is regarded by the various industries. For historical context, many 19th century scenic artists did more than simply paint. They controlled scenic illusion on stage; designing both stage machinery and painted elements, also lighting their creations. Many scenic artists also belonged to the Theatrical Mechanics Association (est. 1866). Similarly, stage carpenters and stage mechanics were also accomplished scenic artists; the titles were not solely based on skill or any one trade. Even in a 1910 interview, Broadway scenic artist and designer John H. Young explained that he always needed to set the lights, being the sole individual who truly understood how his set should be lit, explaining that light can destroy a painted composition in an instant.
There is also the rise of both the modern scenic designer, reducing the role of many mid-twentieth century scenic artists to painters. This trend continues throughout the twentieth century, with more obstacles for scenic artists including the rise of digital technology. This is not meant to say that scenic art declined, the skills evaporated, or the trade died. The perception of scenic art simply began to change. If an industry’s perception of a trade shifts, so will the wages. What the United States experienced by the late twentieth century was a dip in scenic art wages, especially in non-union towns. This has trend has continued into the twenty-first century.
There is one other factor that must be included, and that is the shift of gender within the scenic art industry going from predominantly men to predominantly women. The rise of women in the field of scenic art parallels the decline of salaries in the field of scenic art. There is no disputing that many women, whether they are teaching at a university or in a professional industry, still make less than their male counterparts. The Equal Rights Amendment did not pass in the United States, therefore women are not legally entitled to equal pay; and, yes, this does matter in a lawsuit.
To be continued…
