Month: October 2019

In 1912, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “Ella and I started on our vacation November 9^th to Cincinnati and Asheville, N. Car., which is all written up in detail elsewhere.  Arrived home from our vacation December 8^th. Four good weeks.  Had a fine trip. Christmas day was a good one.  We had Frank with us, which made a big family reunion.  At the close of this year’s business, I have no kick to make.  I only regret not being able to do more sketching, as I found it too cold in North Carolina.  I am sorry that we did not go away down south to the Gulf.  I think we would have found it at least warm, if nothing else.”

One stop on his trip was in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Of his visit to the city, the “Chattanooga News” reported, “Chattanooga Catches the Eye of the Artist. Vice-President Moses, of Sosman & Landis Scenic Studios, delighted.”(15 Nov. 1912, page 2).

The article headline included “LIKES THE LOCAL SCENERY. Chooses Chattanooga Vicinity as a ‘Promised Land’ for Artists to Revel In.” The article continued:

 “Thomas G. Moses, vice-president of the Sosman & Landis scenic studios of Chicago, and one of America’s most distinguished artists, has spent several days in Chattanooga and the vicinity, with a view to establishing a post for the Palette and Chisel Art Club of Chicago. He has been sent out by the club in search of new fields, Sketch grounds all over Europe and America are discovered in this way. One or two men are sent out in advance, and they find ‘the promised land’ they herald the good tidings to the eager artists in waiting.

Mr. Moses is enthusiastic over the natural scenery of Chattanooga and its surroundings, and has made preliminary arrangements for the post.

In time of peace and plenty the greatest steps in art and science have been made. Midsummer Chattanooga, in all its glory, will be painted by American celebrities. The pictures will be done by the greatest artists, will be exhibited in the famous galleries, and will bring great prices.

So Palette and Chisel Club of Chicago will flock to Chattanooga and form a little colony. Artists are like gold-seekers; let one find a small pocket, and there will be a stampede.

The well-known Palette and Chisel club has furnished the art world many bright lights. They have secured the “Prix de Rom” plum, which carries with it three years in Rome and $3,000. The east winner was Mr. Savage, with E. Martin Hennings a close second.

Mr. Moses agrees that this is a ‘garden spot of America.’ He says:

‘We have painted much in the Rockies, but they are too large and the air is too clear. What we want is mist and a little smoke. They will be great factors in producing the poetical sketches we find here. The delicate opalescent coloring of the distant mountains is greatly enhanced by the drifting mists that float about your valleys.’

A magnificent view of Chattanooga 14×28, done by Moses, can be seen at the manufactures’ association headquarters on Market Street. It was taken from North tower on Missionary ridge, and has been presented to the association by Mr. Riffe.

Mr. Moses left Chattanooga Thursday morning on an early train for Asheville, where he may establish a second post. By his side is his charming and companionable wife, who is interested in all movements of art. In his baggage were many sketches of this location; in his mind were dreams of burnt sienna clay and opalescent coloring.

The sketches will be reproduced on large canvas and will be exhibited next spring to the Salmagundi Club, of New York City, of which Thomas Moses is a member. They consist largely of rustic scenes, rugged mountains, dense forests, falling waters and babbling brooks. These are the delightful avenues through which Mr. Moses walked to renown.

The exhibition of these scenes will be made with a view of inducing the members of the Salmagundi club to this ‘garden spot of America’ that is unlimited for the artist in scope and variety.

The Salmagundi Club is one of the most conservative in all Europe and America. No man enters uninvited; no man is invited under the age of fifty years. Some of the well-known artists are Charles Warren Eaton, R. M. Shurtleff, J. Francis Murphy, H. A. Vincent, George Innis, Jr., and Walter C. Hartson.

If this club, too, accepts the challenge next summer, Chattanooga, in all its glory, will indeed be painted.”

To be continued…

A year after Thomas G. Moses was invited to a stage party hosted by the Palette & Chisel Club, his son Rupert was invited to an informal stag. In 1913, Rupert Moses received an invitation to an informal stag party, sponsored by the Pallet & Chisel Club.  The letter was sent to Moses at the Sosman & Landis main studio address on 417 Clinton Street in Chicago. I encountered the invitation in the John H. Rothgeb papers at the Harry Ransom Center, University of Texas, Austin. It was part of the contents in an unlabeled file in an unprocessed collection.

The informal stag invitation announced, “Your presence is requested at the debut of Little Wayoff Saturday Eve, December Six Nineteen Thirteen” from “Gita Wayoff and husband.” The invitation included a ticket to admit “R. Moses” to “Little Wayoff” Palette & Chisel Club, 59 East Van Buren Street, Saturday, Dec. 6, 8:15 P.M.

“Little Wayoff” was billed as “an Eugenic Prodigy with Futuristic Tendencies,” sponsored by Gordon St. Clair.  The production was “dressed by Gustave Baumann & William Watkins” with “orchestra muffled by Carl Krafft, Properties and plumbing by R. McClure and reception by Theodore Gladhand Lely.”

The cast for the production included:

Hesa Wayoff – an husband – Glen Scheffer

Gita Wayoff – his wife interested in the vote – Alex Kleboa

Little Wayoff – their only child aged six – A. J. Anderson

An Ice Bandidt – Mr. Wayoff’s half brother – R. V. Brown

The Art Wife – R. J. Davieson

Promise Wood Shavings – R. McClure

Prof. Glow-Worm – Art Instructor – R. V. Brown

Young Lady Sketcherines – Violet (John E. Phillips), Fay (De Alton Valentine), Gladys (R. J. Davison), Pearl (J. Jeffrey Grant), and Maude (D. Gut Biggs).

Hanging Committee – Hi Kroma (John E. Phillips), Siam Blooey (J. J. Grant), Harrison Wredo (D. Guy Biggs), Strontian Pale (Glen Scheffer), Paris Green (D. Valentine) and Hugh Newtral (R. J. Davison).

Lem – a janitor – W. C. Yoemans and Genevieve.

The “s’nopsis” for the first picture was Mrs. Wayoff’s husband’s kitchen not far from the Palette  Chisel Club shortly after the great suffrage parade in the spring of 1913. The second picture was the sketch pasture of Prof. Glow-Worm’s class near the club’s summer camp at Fox Lake. The third picture was the hanging committee at play.

In 1908, newspapers reported that Ibsen’s Little Eyolf was sometimes referred to as “Little Way-off” (Star Tribune 26 Jan. 1908, page 19). However, “Little Wayoff” was also a parody of Ibsen’s work, included in “The Vassar Miscellany” (Vol. 24, 1894, page 227). Noted as “Life’s admirable paraody, wickedly entitled ‘Little Wayoff’ the book review commented the criticism was unjust. On June 17, 1895, the Baltimore Sun” mentioned “Little Wayoff” in the book review “Criticism – With Sugar”  (page 8). The article reported, “ ‘Suppressed Chapter and Other Bookishness.” By Robert Bridges, author of ‘Overheard in Arcady.’ New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, Cushing & Co. It is not necessary to be dull to be wise, nor is long wind one of the requirements of a critic. A glance is pleasant if the eye sparkles, and a touch and away may leave an impress, while a heavier stroke would induce the wearied reader to exercise that wise discretion which is known as skipping. Those who have read ‘Drock’ in ‘Overheard in Arcady’ will need no introduction to the ‘Suppressed Chapters,’ from the ‘Dolly Dialogues,’ will appreciate the belated ‘Trilby’s criticism of Trilby,” and the absurd parody on Ibsen, of “Little Wayoff,” or the happiness of title and contents of ‘Literary Partition of Scotland.” On March 28, 1896, the “Courier-Journal” mentioned “Little Way-Off, a variation of Little Eyolf, is a clever addition to the work of the Norwegian Dramatist” (Louisville, Kentucky, page 9).

To be continued…

In 1912, Thomas G. Moses received an invitation to a stag party, sponsored by the Pallet & Chisel Club.  I encountered the bright orange envelope in the John H. Rothgeb papers at the Harry Ransom Center, University of Texas, Austin. It was part of the contents in an unlabeled file in an unprocessed collection.

The back of Moses’ invitation noted, “Informal Stage. 8 p.m. This card admitting one only, must be present at the door.” It was a party hosted by the Palette & Chisel Club of Chicago. By 1911, the Palette & Chisel Club had one hundred members; we have no idea how many were invited to the party.

The Palette & Chisel Club was known for its remarkable parties.  On June 5, 1921, the “Chicago Tribune” reported, “Some of the original entertainments of the club, given during the past years, are amusing to recall. “Il Janitore,” by George Ade, afterward became known as “The Sultan of Sulu.” At the time when newspapers were bringing influence to bear upon the Illinois Central to get them to electrify the roads into Chicago, the club produced a burlesque, ‘The Hog in Chicago’s Front Yard.” It might well be given again now. The electrification of the road is as much needed today as ever. ‘Carmine,” a take-off of the opera ‘Carmen,” was a marvelous production. ‘The Shredded Vast” was a huge comedy success. “Le Cabaret du Howard Pourii’ was another famous bit of humor and sarcasm” (page 79).

In 1906, the Palette & Chisel Club hosted Bohemian Night for Alphonse Mucha on the seventh floor of the Athenaeum Building Athenaeum Building. Before moving to their later quarters at 1012 N. Dearborn Ave., the club rented studio space in the Anthenaeum building on Van Buren between Michigan and Wabash Ave.

The May 18, 1912 event was at the new location – 59 E. Van Buren St.  “The Shredded Vast” was designated “an operatic neoteric.” Musical selections by Offenbach, Bizet, Gounod, Donizetti, Planquette and Flowtow accompanied the book by Gordon St. Clair.  The “Palette & Chisel Club Augmented Symphony Orchestra” included Emil Biorn, director, and Martin Baer, F. Tollakson, Max Gundlach, R. F. Ingerle, Max Boldt, Watkins Williams, Willie Marsh, W. J. McBride, and W. C. Kintz.

Scenery for the production was designed by Gus Baumann and executed by Watkins Williams, Gus Baumann and E. R. Burggraf. The costumes were designed by Baumann and “executed by wives & sweethearts.” Production notes included “Shoes by McBride. Beer by the gallon.”

The Synopsis of Scenes described “Scene 1 – sunset in wood in kingdom of Glum-Glum,” “Scene 2 –  Twilight in studio of Artneo Teric. Elapse of one month,” and “Scene 3 – Throne-room of King Rum- Dum. Next day.”

The cast of characters included:

Rum-Dum [King of Glum-Glum] – R. F. Ingerle

Princess Palala [his daughter] – Holger W. Jensen

Artneo Teric [a futurist painter] – Ernest P. Thurn

Lord Beno [Vice reformer to the king] – Theo Lely

Chorus [woodsmen, soldiers, ballet, lords and ladies of the Court] – J. E. Phillips, George Ruckstaetter, B. A. Kleboe, Theo Lely, J. J. Grant

A final note stated, “Post-Ursine Vibrations by Fred S. Bersch and Glen C. Sheffer.”

Recognizing many of the artists, when I look at the list of names I am astounded at the room full of talent.

To be continued…

In 1912, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “The Palette and Chisel Club honored me by giving me a big dinner and named me ‘Uncle Tom’ of the Club.” I have explored Moses’ Palette & Chisel Club activities in the past, but will recap today. The next few posts will examine club events and some members.

Founded in 1895, the Palette & Chisel Club was an association of artists and craftsmen for the purpose of work and study. The organization’s members were reported to be “all wage-workers, busy during the week with pencil, brush or chisel, doing work to please other people” (Inland Printer, 1896). But on Sunday mornings, they assembled for five hours to paint for themselves.

In 1906, Thomas G. Moses joined the Palette and Chisel Club in Chicago. Moses wrote, “I don’t know why, as I had so little time to give to pictures, but I live in hopes of doing something some day, that is what I have lived on for years, Hope, and how little we realize from our dreams of hope.” That same year, the Palette & Chisel Club sponsored “Bohemian Night” in honor of Alphonse Mucha, as Mucha was in town teaching at the Art Institute of Chicago that fall. The group was a tightknit community of strong personalities boasting incredible artistic talents.

In 1905, members of the Palette and Chisel Club established a primitive camp at Fox Lake, Illinois. The Palette and Chisel Club camp drew a variety of artists during the summer months, including Moses by 1906.  This scenic retreat was formed along the shores of Fox Lake, providing a haven far away from the bustle of studio work in Chicago. There were many Sosman & Landis employees who also became members of the Palette & Chisel Club, strengthening the bonds of friendship during off hours.

In the beginning, the camp was quite rustic. Of the primitive camping experience, Moses wrote, “June 1^st, I made my first trip to the Palette and Chisel Club camp at Fox Lake, Ill.  Helped to put up the tent.  A new experience for me, but I enjoyed it.  I slept well on a cot.  Made a few sketches.  A very interesting place.  I don’t like the cooking in the tent and there should be a floor in the tent.  I saw a great many improvements that could be made in the outfit and I started something very soon.” Moses soon fixed most of these issues, donating a “portable house” to the camp two years later. In 1908, Moses wrote, “I bought the portable house that we built years ago and at that time we received $300.00 for it.  I finally got it for $50.00, some bargain.  It cost $25.00 to remove it and we will put it up at Fox Lake in the spring.  It has been used in Forest Park all summer to show ‘The Day in the Alps.’ The next year Moses wrote, “As we had put up the portable house in Fox Lake, I was better contented to go up.  I gave the camp a portable kitchen and it was some class.  I felt sure I would manage to get a camp outfit worth while and the boys all fell in line with me.”

His statement, “…and the boys all fell in line with me” is something to note. It was a common occurrence both in and out of the paint studio for Moses to lead the pack.  His charisma, charm and personality facilitated not only business dealings, but also other social activities, Fox Lake being one of the instances where Moses took charge of an artistic group. In 1910, Moses wrote, “Fox Lake appealed to me all summer.  I went up as much as possible and made good use of my time.  How I wished in vain for time and money to spend all summer sketching.  I know I could do something worthwhile.” Regardless of his own opinion, Moses continued to make progress in the eyes of Palette & Chisel Club members.

Although late to the game, he was their beloved leader. Therefore, I have to consider Moses’ earning the designation of “Uncle Tom” in the Palette & Chisel Club in 1912. Was it intended as a compliment or a slight?  Was it simply an endearing term given by a bunch of white men who didn’t really understand what “Uncle Tom” signified? Were they simply thinking of Moses as the self-sacrificing figure who put others before himself? By 1913, Moses wrote, “The Palette and Chisel Club boys wanted me to give an exhibit at the club.  I always refused, claiming that I am not in the picture game, and paint pictures for pleasure only.  September 3^rd, a committee came to the house and insisted on going to the studio, I had over three hundred pictures in the studio; some very good but the other 275 were not as good, but the boys seemed to think I had at least 250 good ones, which was quite flattering.” He was in good company, with many members becoming nationally recognized artists over the years. These successful artists maintained close ties, suggesting that they admired and respected him.

Now in regard to the title of “Uncle Tom” for Moses…

“Uncle Tom’s Cabin” was still playing theaters throughout the United States in 1912. On April 26, 1912, there was such great interest in Harriet Beecher Stowe’s work and the subsequent theatrical interpretations that the “Quad City Times” included an article entitled, “The Writing of Uncle Tom,” going into depth about the author (page 4). On October 9, 1912, the “Muncie Evening Press” interviewed the “Educated Drug Clerk” about the play (page 8). This individual seems to have offered his view on various topics of the day. The article quoted the Educated Drug Clerk as saying, “It wouldn’t seem right for a theatrical season to go around without one or two ‘Uncle Tom’ shows visiting every town in the circuit…I suppose it is too early yet to say whether or not ‘Uncle Tom’ is to become a classic. The era of slavery has gone and seems far away to some of us. Yet there are thousands of people who remember the dark days. Another century, perhaps, will determine Uncle Tom’s real place in literature. Now I gather from critics that the true work is shown when it has the faculty of living and playing on emotions of men long after the period which produced it has passed. In other words, the classic does not owe its power to the thought of any particular epoch, but must be filled with teachings of real truth which will not change as the centuries roll on.” Of the novel’s characters, the article noted that Uncle Tom was “representative of down trodden humanity.” This again made me ponder the Palette & Chisel Club’s designation of Moses as their “Uncle Tom.”

I cannot read Moses’ entry about his new title without cringing. To look at the group of artists using the term makes it offensive. I cannot think of a single artist in the Palette & Chisel Club at the time that wasn’t white. I cannot think of a single scenic artist mentioned by Moses in his memoirs who wasn’t white, all of which causes me great unease; the same that I felt when I first saw an image of white people in black face makeup. My relatives arrived on the shores of America long after the Civil War ended, yet some of them were racist; some of them still are – and that is a horrifying truth to admit. It was a controversial topic that we discussed in my youth, one that was addressed after many family gatherings. I did not fully understand the extent of racism in my family until during and after the 2016 election. My parents had disagreed with many of the extended family’s views regarding people of color and fought back in various ways over the decades. I was taught that all people are equal. Period. No discussion. I greatly admire my parent s for that, especially my mother, the history teacher, who was very clear about America’s history with slavery and Jim Crowe laws.

Regardless, I am the product of white privilege in the United States and am horrified to witness the current, continued and blatant racial discrimination by our president and some leaders. I am ashamed to realize how many of my family, in-laws, friends, and colleagues continue to discriminate against others based on the color of their skin.

In regard to Harriet Beecher Stowe’s 1851 novel, which humanized the suffering of slavery, a cruel master beat Tom to death because he refused to betray the whereabouts of other escaped slaves. The novel and subsequent stage productions have been repeatedly analyzed over the decades, with varying nuances in each interpretation. However, I have to wonder how the title was intended when gifted to Thomas G. Moses in 1912. Today, Wikipedia notes, “the term ‘Uncle Tom’ was also used as a derogatory epithet for an exceedingly subservient person, particularly when that person is aware of their own lower-class status based on race. The use of the epithet is the result of later works derived from the original novel.”

Was the title “Uncle Tom” intended as a compliment or slight for Tom Moses in 1912? We will never know.

To be continued…

In 1912, Thomas G. Moses wrote that he designed scenery for two Minnie Palmer productions. However, there were two Minnie Palmers recognized for their theatrical contributions in 1912.

One Minnie Palmer (1857-1936) was an American actress who made her stage debut at the Park Theatre in Brooklyn, New York on June 8, 1874. Palmer was known for both her dramatic and singing abilities, and especially her starring role in “My Sweetheart” that toured both England and the United States. In 1912, “The Pittsburgh Press” included an article on two well-known actresses from the past, Minnie Palmer and Estelle Clayton. The article recalled their careers twenty-five years prior  (19 March 1912, page 18).

A second Minnie Palmer emerged after the first; this was actually Minnie Marx (nee Miene Schönberg), mother and manager of the Marx Brothers and sister of comedian and vaudeville star Al Shean. Minnie used the last name of Palmer as an alias as a manager to her sons and other shows. The Marx family resided in Chicago during this time, making the connection to Sosman & Landis studio even more probably, especially through mutual ties with McVickers Theater. There is a fascinating history about the Marx family and their life in the windy city written by Mikael Uhlin for his Marxology blog (https://www.marx-brothers.org/marxology/chicago.htm).

As an aside, Moses worked with the Marx Brothers on a project in 1926. Of them, Moses wrote, “Made several sketches for Marks Brothers.  I have no faith in them.  I think them very cheap.” He would have some perspective if he had worked for their mother on other shows.

Minnie Palmer managed the Marx Brothers and other well-known vaudeville attractions. In 1912, shows produced by Minnie Palmer included, “The Six American Beauties,” “Minnie Palmer’s Golden Gate Girls,” “Minnie Palmer’s 1912 Cabaret Review,” and “Running for Congress.”

“The Six American Beauties” was advertised as the “costliest act ever played” (The Daily Gate City, Keokuk, Iowa, 31 July 1912, page 3). “The San Francisco Call” reported “Music is their forte, reinforced by natural beauty and skill in acting. The violin, cello and harp are handled with remarkable effect and a novelty is introduced when a girl wanders through the house playing a violin solo” (3 Nov 1912, page 46).

In 1912, Palmer also organized a new act known as “Minnie Palmer’s Golden Gate Girls.” Palmer’s “Golden Gate Girls” employed 17 people for their touring show as it crisscrossed the country (Lansing State Journal, 12 Oct. 1912, page 6). The show was part of the “Big Laugh Show, Duke of Bull Durham.”  Advertised as “a musical comedy farce with a plot” and “gigantic hurricane of fun, “show posters promised a “carload of scenery and effects”

Palmer’s “Cabaret Review of 1912” was described in an article from the “San Francisco Call,” as another big scenic production (30 Dec. 1912, page 18). The article reported, “‘Cabaret Review of 1912,’ Minnie Palmer’s sparkling little musical comedietta, is the headliner of the new bill which opened at Pantages yesterday. The scene of the review is in a café on the gay ‘white way.’ The usual after midnight crowd assembles, giving Will Staton an excellent chance to impersonate a joyous reveler. Staton’s capers during the whirlwind revelry reveals him as a character actor of no mean merit.”

Palmer had a fourth show on tour on tour in 1912 too. “Running for Congress” was a political show managed by Palmer with a company of 20 people (The Times, Munster, Indiana, 30 Dec. 1912, page 2). It too traveled with a carload of scenery.

The confusion between the two Minnie Palmers intensified by 1918 when actress Palmer returned after being abroad in 1918, resuming her acting career, as well as producing theatrical shows. This caused confusion with Minnie Marx, aka. Minnie Palmer, who continued to work as a manager. However, Marx was dealing with several business issues and the onslaught of WWI. To avoid her sons being drafted, however, Minnie Marx bought a farm in La Grange, Illinois, as she understood that farmers could be exempted from the draft.

To be continued…

Yesterday, I mentioned the two reels of famous “Kinemacolor pictures” that were part of the new Empress Theatre’s vaudeville program in 1913. When movies were first introduced, they appeared as an act, one of many on the vaudeville stage. However, a shift occurs in the theatre industry, slowly nudging moving pictures to the forefront of popular entertainment on stage. This had a major affect on the construction of other entertainment venues, subsequently decreasing the demand for painted scenery. In a sense, the appearance of Kinemacolor Theaters albeit short lived signally the beginning to the end for Sosman & Landis and other firms founded on the production of painted illusion. I am going to explore the construction of Kinemacolor theaters today.   

Kinemacolor was advertised as “the perfection of animated photography.” It is noted as the most successful of the so called “natural color processes” in early cinema, using an additive process operated with alternating red and green filters that were applied to the shutter in front of the camera and in front of the projector. Popularized by George Albert Smith and Charles Urban. Kinemacolor flourished in theaters during the decade before WWI. The principle of recording color separations with revolving shutter filters was not invented by Urban. German Hermann Isensee is credited as one of the individuals who first experimented with the process during the 1890s.  By 1899, Frederick Marshall Lee and Edward Raymond Turner patented an early version of the system.

In short, the three-color records (wheels) used by Lee and Edward proved to be impractical, and yet the earlier two-color system failed to produce the entire color spectrum; blue to violet hues and whites had a yellowing tinge. It was Smith who proposed adding blue-violet filters to the projection light for a more satisfying result.  As I was reading about the various filters, it was hard not to think of the red/green/white border lights that were installed in some Scottish Rite theaters during this same time period (see past posts, as I have addressed the lighting approach).

The popularity of the short films resulted in the construction of Kinemacolor theaters. On Oct. 9, 1911, the “Courier-News” reported the Historic Mendelssohn Hall was leased to the Kinemacolor Company of America as a permanent home for the colored motion pictures in New York and renamed the Kinemacolor Theatre (Bridgewater, NJ, page 3). The article noted, “Kinemacolor Theatre will be unique, and to New York what the Scala Theatre, with a similar exhibition, is to London. Abroad Kinemacolor has become the rage of Royalty, and on average of once a fortnight their majesties King George and Queen Mary visit the Scala, and as well have a private exhibition set for the children of the Royal family. For the first time in New York the complete series of Coronation pictures will be present for a limited engagement at the Kinemacolor Theatre, which opens its doors on Saturday evening.”

That same year, a Kinemacolor theater also on the west coast of the United States. Tally’s Broadway was in Los Angeles soon featured the new color films and was briefly renamed the Kinemacolor Theatre.

The Island Amusement Company in 1913 constructed another Kinemacolor Theatre in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. On February 20, 1912, the “Vancouver Sun” reported “As its name implies the Kinemacolor theatre will feature the famous colored motion pictures prepared under the Kinemacolor system, but it will also present a musical programme including an orchestra of nine pieces under the direction of Mr. Joseph Kos and noted soloists brought here at considerable expense and changed twice weekly. Each day’s performance will be continuous from 12 noon to 11 o’clock at night. There will be seven numbers in the night bill occupying upwards of an hour and a quarter for consecutive presentation. The night charges will be 25 cents to the lower floor and 15 cents to the balcony, while for the benefit of children and their parents the charge of all parts of the house form noon to 6 p.m. will be only 10 cents”  (page 7).  

By the summer of 1913, newspaper headlines boasted, “Kinemacolor Breaks Film Speed Record.” The “News-Herald” of Franklin, Pennsylvania, reported “The Kinemacolor broke all records for quick motion picture reporting the day the Impersonator docked by exhibiting the pictures a little over six hours after arrival. It is the first time that natural color photographs have been taken, developed, printed and exhibited with such speed and satisfactory results” (28 June 1913, page 7). Film footage taken at noon was shown in the Kinemacolor exhibition theatre by 6 p.m. that evening. All seemed to be on the upswing, but the demand for new films outpaced those who produced and processed them. At the time, the model was unsustainable to deliver new subjects to the Kinemacolor Theaters. The novelty wore off.

On October 21, 1913, the “Victoria Daily Times” reported “Kinemacolor Closed Up. Victoria’s Newest Theatre Proved Unprofitable Venture and Policy Will Be Changed” (21 Oct, 1913, page 17). The article continued, “The colored pictures never proved a great attraction in any part of Canada and the company behind the films has been reported in difficulties in some months past.” By 1915, the venue reopened at the Colonial Theatre.

Widescreenmuseum.com explains one of the flaws to Kinemacolor (http://www.widescreenmuseum.com/oldcolor/kinemaco.htm), “Like all sequential color processes, Kinemacolor suffered from color fringing when objects moved, since the two color records were not recorded at the same time. In projection, a filter wheel, similar to that in the camera, added the red and green tints to the successive frames. Many color processes used this approach and all suffered from fringing on moving objects, dark images, and untold grief if the film was not loaded in the projector in appropriate sync with the color wheel. None of the two-color processes could reproduce blue or pure white, but various tricks were used to fool the eye into thinking it was seeing a neutral white…Kinemacolor was quite successful in Europe and promised to grow and improve. However, two events ultimately killed the company. First, William Friese-Greene sued for patent violation. Friese-Greene claimed to have invented virtually everything relating to motion pictures but he lost his suit through all the lower courts in England. He finally did win when he appealed the lower court decisions to the House of Lords. This didn’t get Friese-Greene anything but it did open up the Kinemacolor technology so that anyone could take advantage of it. The second event was World War I, which nearly destroyed all the European film companies. By the time Europe started to make a comeback Kinemacolor was nearly defunct and Technicolor in Boston, Massachusetts had taken the lead in producing a workable color process.”

To be continued…

In 1912, Thomas mentioned three projects at Sosman & Landis, writing, “A nice little order from Charlotte, N. Car., Minnie Palmer, two shows, full stock for the Empress Theatre, Fort Wayne.”

The Empress Theatre was located at the intersection of Wayne and Clinton streets in Fort Wayne. In addition to an auditorium and stage, the building included gentlemen smoking rooms, ladies rest rooms, and a nursery. Of the Sosman & Landis installation, local newspapers described fire prevention measures.

On March 8, 1913, the “Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette” reported, “The stage is fitted with the finest scenery that has ever been brought to Fort Wayne. The curtain arrangement is also something new to Fort Wayne. Two asbestos curtains will be used with a water curtain in the center, which makes the matter of a fire upon the stage the next thing to an impossibility. The curtain will be raised and lowered automatically, sliding through a metal groove which also makes it an impossibility for fire, if there should be one to get through the curtain and out into the auditorium.” (page 7).

Previously, “Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette” reported, “In matter of exits, the Empress will boast pf being one of the safest theaters in the middle west. Constructed almost entirely of concrete and steel, it is practically fireproof and being equipped with sixteen exits, open on all four sides, the place can be emptied in less than three minutes” (February 23, 1913page 15). The industry was still reeling from the Iroquois Theatre fire, with new theaters now citing how quickly an auditorium could be evacuated. Fort Wayne residents had also witnessed the Aveline Hotel Fire of 1908, a devastating tragedy for the town. The Empress Theater’s opening drew many men prominent in vaudeville to be in attendance.

Although Sosman & Landis completed the scenery in 1912, the official opening of the Empress Theatre was on March 9, 1913. With a seating capacity of almost 1300, advertisements promised, “every modern convenience known to theatre building.” The theater’s policy was three performances every day, with five hundred “choice seats” being available for ten cents. Matinees started at 2:30 and were followed by two evening shows at 7:30 and 9:00 P.M. Girls were used as ushers for the evening performances and on Sunday. For matinees, patrons were expected to seat themselves.

The opening billing included Lew Field’s “Fun in a Boarding House” as the headliner. The stage setting for the show included the section of a house, six rooms in all. Fields, of the firm Weber & Fields, was engaged to produce “fun” acts exclusively for the Sullivan & Considine theaters nationwide.

In addition to the headliner, there were four other acts and two reels of famous “Kinemacolor pictures” as part of the new vaudeville theater’s program. The Kinemacolor pictures were changed twice weekly – on Sunday when the entire bill was changed – and on Thursday (Fort Wayne Daily News, 10 March 1913, page 8).The May 8, 1913, “Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette” article reported, “Kinemacolor pictures will also be shown, which is something new in the motion picture art in Fort Wayne. The Empress controls the sole right to these pictures in the city, therefore they will be shown at no other place in Fort Wayne. The pictures are educational in a way and also amusing.”

An advertisement in the “Fort-Wayne Journal-Gazette” stated, “The Empress theatre has instituted the new and marvelous Kinemacolor moving picture machine, which reproduces on the screen the same colors and shades that are present when the picture is taken. The colors are true to nature in every respect, and, although the system of mechanism is carried out in a very complicated manner, yet the color scheme is most simple, entirely like the doctored and painted films of the black and white machines. A filter wheel, divided in four parts, two of which are filled with a red filter and the other two parts with green filter, forms the foundation and basis of the new system, The great, yet simple, law of nature , that all colors of the rainbow can be made from three colors – red, yellow, and blue- is taken advantage of, and two colors, yellow and blue are so blended in the filter as to produce the shade of green desired. The film is sensitized so that the darker colors are shows through the green filter and then lighter shades are projected through the red filter, thus making a segregation of colors that are true to nature. The method of producing such a high degree sensitiveness on the film is the same as the other methods of film making ways, only a picture for the Kinemacolor machine must be taken out in pure sunlight, whose rays alone are strong enough to produce the desired sensitiveness on the negative. The red and green filter wheel is placed in front of the negative when the picture is taken and the rays passing through the filter form a color value on the film. Then when the film is put into the machine, a high-powered Arclight throws its strong rays through the filter onto the film and out through the lens, forming a segregation of colors that exactly reproduce the picture. The machine utilizes three times as much candle power as the black and white machines, and, being run by a one-horsepower electric motor shows forty pictures in a second, while the other machines, most of which are run by hand, project and average of sixteen pictures per second.  The inventor of the machine is an American, Charles Urban who has resided in England for the past fifteen years. The machine has been in England for the last six years, but only in America for three years. It has been largely accepted by all the large theatres of the east, and its success is due to its value. The machine is merely leased to the companies, and the Empress is the only one in the city at present that will use it “(8 March 1913, page 7).

More on the Kinemacolor theaters.

To be continued…

In 1912, Thomas G. Moses, wrote, “A good contract for Milwaukee Majestic.”

Milwaukee’s Majestic Theatre was located at 219 W. Wisconsin Ave, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; the Majestic Theatre was dedicated on April 22, 1908. The theater was housed in a fourteen-story building, managed by theater lessees Hermann Fehr of Milwaukee and C. E. Kohl of Chicago.

In 1908, the Majestic Theatre was one of eight theaters in Milwaukee listed in Julius Cahn’s Official Theatrical Guide. Milwaukee’s population at the time numbered 325,000.  The other venues included the Davidson Theatre, the Bijou Opera House, the Alhambra, the Pabst Theatre, the Schubert Theatre, the Star Theatre and the Gayety Theatre.

On March 1, 2002, Jim Rankin provided insightful information regarding Milwaukee’s Majestic Theatre at cinematreasures.org. I am passing this along so the information will not get lost. Rankin wrote,

“The MAJESTIC Theater was a 1908 vaudeville house with its auditorium at right angle behind its 14-story MAJESTIC office building. The box office and lobby occupied the center bay of the office building and one proceeded through it to the white marble foyer of the auditorium behind, unless one went to the gallery in which case he had to use the déclassé [?] gallery box office and staircase off the alley. The center of the gallery rail was occupied by a half circle projection on which was placed the incandescent follow spotlight with its six-color revolving light filters. In the auditorium one found 1900 some seats in a wide house with six boxes on each side of the stage with curving fronts enriched with gilded fruit festoon moldings. Bentwood chairs with padded seats filled each box, each of which was draped in a simple rectangle of a fringed lambrequin. Three levels of leather seats faced a spacious stage the arch of which was adorned with molded festoons and Greek key designs. The switchboard backstage was the old marble-faced type, but the double row of footlights and other abundant lighting was adequately served, and the fully rigged wood-covered concrete stage saw use for much Vaudeville until 1930.The 20 dressing rooms served by a back stage elevator were complemented by the cellar under the alley for keeping the animal acts.

Orpheum vaudeville made frequent use of this theatre until they commissioned the architects who designed it, Kirchoff & Rose of Milwaukee, to create a much larger and fancier venue just a block eastward in 1928: the RIVERSIDE theatre. The MAJESTIC may have been glamorous 20 years earlier, but the movie palaces coming upon the scene with their elaborate decors and stages suitable also for vaudeville, made the MAJESTIC look like an unadorned old dowager. It struggled with hastily installed movies for two more years before it was demolished to become a parking lot for the very office building in front of it! That office building still stands as part of the Grand Avenue mall, but the theatre is long forgotten but for an old timer I met on the street one day who had a tear in his eye as he recalled the many years of his youth when he had enjoyed shows in the once MAJESTIC.”

The construction of the fire curtain at the Majestic Theatre in Milwaukee was credited to the S. H. Harris Co of Chicago and listed in and advertisement for the “Manual of Inspections: A Reference Book for the Use of Fire Underwriters in General (William Dennis Matthews, Jan. 1, 1908, Insurance Field Co.). In light of yesterday’s post about fires, S. H. Harris Co. manufactured steel faced fireproof curtains that complied with the Fire Insurance Underwriter’s requirement. Moses frequently mentioned the difficulty of painting on these steel curtains at various theaters. Other theaters that used S. H. Harris curtains in 1908 included the Academy of Music (Brooklyn, NY), Lyric Theatre (Philadelphia), Majestic Theatre (Chicago), Star & Garter Theatre (Chicago), Star Theatre (Chicago), American Theatre (St. Louis), Day’s Theatre (New York City), Forest Theatre (Philadelphia), College Theatre (Chicago), Empire Theatre (Chicago), and the Majestic Theatre (Des Moines). Many if these venues used stock scenery manufactured by Sosman & Landis.

To be continued…

From 1905 until Al Ringling’s passing in in 1916, Thomas G. Moses completed several designs for the Ringling Bros. grand circus spectacles.  In 1912, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “Went to Sterling to catch Ringling to collect $1,200.00.  As I went to the tent to find Al Ringling, I discovered everyone watching a fire – a stable at least four blocks away.  A spark was blown towards the tent, the top of which is prepared with paraffin to make it waterproof.  It soon ignited from the sparks and in less than thirty minutes the big tent was destroyed.  The rest of the tents were saved.  It was mighty fortunate there were no people in the tent.  Some of the animals in another tent started some noise when the smelled the smoke, but they were soon quieted.  I sneaked away without making myself known.  There was no money for me, that I guessed.” This would not be the first or last fire for the Ringling Bros. On July 6, 1944, a huge fire engulfed the Ringling Bros. Circus tent in Hartford, Connecticut. The tragedy killed 167 people and injured hundreds more.

Fire was a constant threat for not only circuses but also theaters. Theatre practitioners still site the horror of Chicago’s Iroquois Theatre tragedy as an impetus for many of today’s fire codes. It is not that we were unaware of how to prevent theatre fires. As an industry, there were fire curtains and other preventative measures in place at many nineteenth and twentieth century theaters. The architectural firm of McElfatrick & Sons placed most of their theaters on the ground floor and increased fire exits. By 1876, Dion Boucicault was testing various methods to fireproof scenery.

The problem was a lack of regulation and safety enforcement. I always think back to the Triangle Shirt Factory and all of the women leaping to their deaths to escape the flames; profits remained a priority over people for many companies, even after court-appointed safety measures were demanded of business owners. This is when the reinforcement of state and government regulations to ensure public safety is a necessity, as some companies refuse to spend money on safety. For the theatre industry, it took the seeing piles of dead women and children on the streets of Chicago after fire broke out during a matinee performance.

I have several books about the Iroquois Theatre Fire, one being “The Great Chicago Theatre Disaster” by Marshall Everette published in 1904.  The publication included “the complete story told by the survivors” and was “profusely illustrated with views of the scene of death before, during and after the fire.” The Publisher’s Preface noted, “While the embers are still all but glowing of one of the most heartrending fires of modern times, its history has been caught from the lips of the survivors and embalmed in book form. The deep and far-reaching effects of the Iroquois casualty will not be eradicated, if much softened, for another generation. That this is true must be realized, when it is remembered how large a majority of the victims were in the early dawn or flush of life, and their friends and closer kindred can the less readily be reconciled to the sad reality than the loss had fallen among the mature, whose end, in order of nature, would not be far away.” Everett added, “While this book is intended to be a fitting memorial in commemoration of that tragic and historic event, I am in firm in the conviction that its wide circulation will be instrumental in accomplishing much good. It calls special attention to the defective and dangerous construction of theaters, public halls, opera houses and other public buildings all over the land; bold evasions and reckless disregard of life-saving ordinances by managers and owners whereby thousands of precious lives are constantly in imperiled. It will thus arouse public sentiment and emphasize the supreme importance of safeguarding people who congregate in such buildings and prevent the possible loss of thousands of lives in the future. What has happened in Chicago is liable to occur in other cities and towns unless precautionary measures are adopted.”

Mrs. Emma Schweitzler described the first appearance of the fire, stating, “As soon as the drop curtain came down it caught fire. A hole appeared at the left-hand side. Then the blaze spread rapidly, and instantly a great blast of hot air came from the stage through the hole of the curtain and into the audience. Big pieces of the curtain were loosened by the terrific rush of air and were blown into people’s faces. Scores of women and children must have been burned to death by these fragments of burning grease and paint. I was in the theater until the curtain entirely burned. It went up in the flames as if it had been paper and did more damage than good.”

When Moses visited Ringling in 1912, he had already witnessed his share of burned stages. Sosman & Landis frequently provided replacement scenery for venues that replaced previously burned theaters. It was not until I began researching the life and times of Moses that I began to understand how frequently fires cured in the United States. We all know of their existence, yet many of us cannot comprehend the frequency of the events. And yet, people kept walking through the doors of early twentieth century theaters, hoping that all precautions to prevent fire had been implemented for their safety.

By 1908, the “Manual of Inspections, A Reference Book for the Use of Fire Underwriters” by William Dennis Matthews included a section on theaters:

“THEATERS. Heating? Footlights, border-lights and overhead stage lights – open? How guarded? Scenery – painted with watercolors or oils? Arrangement of switchboard, dimmers, etc.? Spot Lights? Sciopticons? Stereopticons? Smoking on stage? Dressing rooms – candles? Swinging gas jets? Heaters? (Fires are caused frequently by electrical apparatus carried by traveling companies, which is generally poorly constructed and installed). Carpenter and paint shops – care of oils, paints, refuse, etc.? Space under auditorium used as a catch-all of old papers, etc.? Posters- where stored (subject to spontaneous combustion when stored in piles, owing to the oxidation of printer’s ink)? General care and cleanliness?

Note: The spread of fires in theatres is usually very rapid, owing to the height of ceilings and the arrangement and nature of scenery and flies in stage end. Fires occurring during performances nearly always cause panics in which more or less people are injured or killed. It should, therefore, be plain to all concerned that devices which might cause fires should be eliminated as far as possible and that those which are necessary should be safeguarded in every practical way. The question of protection is a most important one – some cities require the stage end to be of fireproof construction, all scenery to be fire-proofed, the opening in proscenium wall to have a fireproof curtain, and the dressing rooms, property rooms and paint and carpenter shops equipped with automatic sprinklers. There should be a good supply of chemical extinguishers on the stage and working galleries, in dressing rooms, paint and carpenter shops and property rooms, and throughout the basement; large stationary chemicals with piping to these various rooms and hose attached would, of course, be preferable.”

To be continued…

In 1912, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “June 1^st, 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 19^th 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 19^th 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…