Copyright © 2019 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett
In 1913, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “On the 20th of May, I completed in less than eight hours, a dark wood drop, 24×40, without any help. That is something I never accomplished before – that much in that time. Sosman was pleased with it. I didn’t wait for anything to dry – worked in the wet.” We can get some sense of Moses’ woodland composition for the stage at the time. Many of his landscapes still hang in in Scottish Rite theaters across the country, including his 1912 setting for the Santa Fe Scottish Rite that Jo Whaley photographed for our book “The Santa Fe Scottish Rite Temple: Freemasonry, Architecture and Theatre” (Museum of New Mexico Press, 2018).
Moses was 57 years old in 1913, with almost four decades of experience as a scenic artist behind him. His specialty remained landscapes, particularly picturesque woodland scenes with babbling brooks or small waterfalls running through the composition. He was very good and very fast by this point in his career.
Moses’ reputation was built on his speed, a skill set that he remained proud of until his passing. He was certainly a workhorse and asset to any project, or studio. As a young scenic artist he wrote, “I was full of ambition and hustle. If I had been endowed with a like amount of ability I would have set the world on fire… The others were able to draw more, because they were better in the artistic end, but I had it over them when it came to speed.”
In the end, it was a scenic artist’s speed that turned a profit at any studio. It was speed that initially secured Moses a position Sosman & Landis, and speed that elevated him to the position as Sosman’s right-hand man. Moses’ innate drive resulted in the rapid production of painted settings at Sosman & Landis throughout his duration there, amassing large profits for the stakeholders. This is one of the reasons that Sosman pleaded with Moses to return to the studio in 1904 and supervise all design, painting, construction and installation from that point on; his drive would ensure success. Moses left his growing business in New York City (Moses & Hamilton) and returned to Sosman & Landis’ main studio in Chicago.
In the end, Moses expected all of his colleagues to work at his same rapid pace. I completely understand where he is coming from as I also expect that of my fellow artists too. Moses’ impatience with slower co-workers is very apparent throughout his memoirs. For example, in 1907, he commented on the speed of fellow scenic artist Ansel Cook who was the shop manager at Sosman & Landis’ annex studio on 19th street. Moses wrote, “We opened our annex studio at 19 W. 20th Street in July, and Ansel Cook went there as a manager…He did some very good work but was a long time doing it, which, of course, didn’t pay us.” Moses divided his time between Sosman & Landis’ main and annex studios that year and after one extended absence wrote, “Took charge of the 20th Street Studio on my return weeks. Cook did $750.00 of work in three weeks. My first three amounted to $3,500.00, some difference. I hustled while he talked art and what the firm ought to do to get business.” In Moses’ eyes, anyone that didn’t “hustle” couldn’t pull his full weight at the studio.
I too have built a reputation based on quick turn around times and high productivity. Much has to do with my individual drive and incentive; the other reason is that I don’t like stopping for breaks or slowing down. I hate sitting still and frequently forgo breaks or meals maintain my pace and productivity. I often don’t want to stop until the end of the day. For me it is difficult to watch any co-worker puddle around or stop mid-way in a project to take a fifteen-minute break.
I have also noticed that one slow person can drop the overall productivity in any shop, reducing any group speed to match that of the slowest worker. So, I sympathize with Moses, sharing his views of those who did not “hustle.” Any supervisor of a shop looks for an excuse to drop the dead weight, which Moses touched upon in 1913 when commenting on a Union strike.
Moses wrote, “The Union called a strike because Sosman refused to sign a new scale of wages. I prevailed upon Sosman to sign as I disliked any labor trouble. It only results in being obliged to weed out some of the non-producers.” Weed out some non-producers. That says a lot and may have been Sosman’s main goal. Sosman was also known for his speed, as were most of the top scenic artists of the day. An artist working at a snail’s pace gouged the profit margin of any project.
Moses also touches upon an interesting perspective regarding union strikes; providing an opportunity for a company to “weed out the non-producers.” As the vice-president of the company and supervisor of all Sosman & Landis activities, Moses was on the front line, not Sosman. Regardless of Moses’ desire to make peace with the staff, Sosman still controlled the administrative end of the business and held a tight fist on wages. In 1913, Moses was in charge of all design, construction, painting and installation at the main studio and annex studio in Chicago, but not the wages.
If the strike ended poorly, Moses was the one who would have to continue supervising a group of disgruntled workers, realizing the potential problems if a significant number of the scenic artists were to leave “en masse.” Moses would have been left holding the bag and scrambling for their replacements, all the while understanding the deep-seeded sentiment of his fellow artists. He was really caught in the middle during 1913, and his fear of a group of journeymen artists leaving the studio would happen seven years later. In 1920, six scenic artists left the Sosman & Landis studio to form Service Studios. This would have caused more than a ripple in the shop, especially is a large project was in the studio at the time. The former Sosman & Landis employees even marketed black and white photographs depicting Sosman & Landis designs as their own, carefully compiled in sales books. This is really the beginning of the end for Sosman & Landis. The shift in demand for painted scenery, the rise of the modern designer, the pressure of the union, and the desires of stock holders are just a few factors that are all at odds during this time. Sure, business will keep pouring in, but the challenges will continue to gain ground and suddenly seem insurmountable after Sosman’s death in 1915.
To be continued…
