Month: October 2020

Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

Yesterday’s post included an article written by Henry C. Tryon and published in the “Chicago Tribune” on Dec. 28, 1884 (page 14). The headline was “SCENE-PAINTING. An Art Which Has Been Neglected and Allowed to Retrograde in Chicago.” On Dec. 19, 1884, Tyron wrote penned a response to a letter entitled “Violations of Taste in Scenery. His response was published on Dec. 21, 1884, the “Chicago Tribune” in the Amusements section (page 24). Enjoy.

AMUSEMENTS.

Why Scenery in Chicago Theatre is Shabby and in Bad Taste.

THE DRAMA.

A Reform in Scenery.

An article on the subject of scenery which was published in these columns last week protested chiefly against outraging the fundamental principle of dramatic art by mingling real with unreal conditions, and incidentally pointed out other violations of taste in matter of stage accessories. In this connection a local scenic artist writes an interesting letter wherein he supplements criticism by facts from the workshop and throws light upon the practical phases of an aesthetic question. From what he says it must be plain that artistic scenery is likely to be revived only with the stock system, and that many of the present abuses are to be attributed to the vulgar ambitions of mercenary motives of managers. Any idea that will occur to many after considering his statements is that the names of scenic artists should be put on the programs of the theatres. The letter, which in the opening sentences draws the inferences that are somewhat strained, is as follows:

“Chicago, Dec. 19.-[Editor of the Tribune]-

“As there was nothing in the dramatic line during the last week which calls for particular attention – no plays worth discussing and no acting of any consequence- the subject of scenery must be lightly touched upon.”

This is the introduction to an article in the amusement column of last Sunday’s Tribune, headed, “Violations of Taste in Scenery,” which reads as though the writer did not consider the matter of scenery to be of sufficient importance to be noticed on its merit, but simply as a means of filling his space, lacking other material.

It seems too bad that so important an element of theatrical representations should be considered to be so little of general interest, but it is a sign hopeful for scenic improvement that he has taken occasion to write on the subject whatever the cause of his doing so. He has evidently given it considerable thought, and in the right direction too. The points he makes are all true, but he possibly errs in his location of the responsibility for “violations of taste in scenery.”

He says that “since Mr. Irving’s tour through this country managers have awakened to the importance of providing the stage with suitable accessories,” and regrets “that so laudable an intention cannot be fully carried into execution.” Why not? Who is to blame? If the managers are desirous of mounting plays in an elegant manner, why don’t they do it? Because the public don’t appreciate it. And as managers conduct their business for profit, they are naturally not disposed to spend money in producing art work which will not be noticed by the public or by the press.

For eight years at one of the theatres in this city plays were mounted in a manner superior to that of any house in America and the painting was not excelled in the world. Yet it is doubtful whether 5 per cent of the play-going public of Chicago were aware of the fact – well known and universally conceded by the entire theatrical fraternity. Probably not 1 per cent of the patrons of that house knew the name of the artist or cared. The newspapers certainly took no great pains to direct attention to him or his work.

Every person in this country at all interested in theatre, whether he has ever been in New York, or not, from frequent newspaper repetition is familiar with the fact that plays are magnificently mounted at the Union Square Theatre. Here is a case where the newspapers and the public value genuine art work, and the management, finding that it is looked for an appreciated, is willing to spend the money necessary to produce it; and the artist at that house, with his three or four assistants (each a competent artist), has three months, and sometimes more, in which to get up the scenery of a piece. How is it in this city? Three or four days is the usual time left after the ‘scene plots’ are placed in the artist’s hands, and he considers himself lucky if he gets a full week.

But this is not the worst difficulty of the artist. Canvas and lumber are expensive, and the manager is not willing to provide them; consequently, the artist is obliged to use the old stuff. A general overhauling is made of the stacked-up scenery, and anything will do which is near the size of what is required – the shape doesn’t matter. It is put on the frame and it is the artist’s business to paint a row of tents on a square piece of stuff and get along the best he can. Of course, no artist can alter the form of the set piece to deceive the public. It is still obtrusively a square piece of framework and canvas. The same set pieces have done versatile duty in most of the theatres here for years.

Again, the traveling combinations get most of the money that comes into the house, and if they cannot draw on their own merits the manager feels that it is not justifiable business policy to increase his expenses when this will not add proportionately to his receipts. How can the public expect proper scenic mounting under such circumstances?

If the newspapers in this city would notice scenery in detail, giving proper credit to the artist, naming him when he does something well, and condemning him if he does something badly (if it is his fault, which the dramatic critics should take pains to ascertain) they would soon and that the public eye would be turned in the same direction, and managers would then be glad to do what your dramatic critic thinks they are now anxious to do, but which they are not.

As long as the public pass unobserved as artistic production and applaud a trick, managers whose business it is to cater to the public will give them what they want. Audiences will clap their hands with delight at a skillful mechanical change of scene or an illuminated boat crossing the stage on “set waters” with the wheels turning around; a locomotive running across the stage, or the moon passing behind the clouds with the flicker on the water – mechanical tricks which have nothing to do with art. They don’t care anything about art. They don’t know it when they see it. Was Malmsha appreciated here while he lived?

A boxed-in parlor, with a multiplicity of angles loaded with “properties” like a bric-à-brac shop, pleases the public, therefore pleases the manager, and consequently has to please the artist. It goes that way, anyhow, whether he likes it or not.

An artist may paint an arch ever so characteristic and beautiful. Nine time out of ten his manager or the manager of the visiting combination will insist upon hanging curtain in front of his architectural work. The draperies borrowed from some furniture store and the elegant brass rods which sustain them must be displayed to their best advantage, and the protests of the artist are unheard.

No matter how an interior may be painted, if it is literally covered with elegant borrowed furniture, covering all the character in the scene, the “set” delights all. No matter how elegant and artistic the scene may be, without this trumpery it attracts no attention from anybody, and this is the first time any newspaper in Chicago has noted this. The artists are glad of it, even though it has been made the occasion for an undeserved attack upon their taste.

In Europe and in the leading theatres in the East the scenic artist has entire charge of everything that makes up the stage picture, limited only by the requirements of the “business” of the play. This properly and naturally, should be the case in this city, but practically he is overruled just enough to call forth the objections of right-thinking and discerning critics. Your dramatic editor has got the correct idea, and he has only to note violations of taste and encourage managers and artists by also noting exhibitions of taste as they occur, and he will influence the theatre people to take such care as in the Eastern cities.

Could the managers be assured of the same recognition of true art work as the Union Square Theatre constantly received there is no doubt but they would be glad to make the same efforts here, and the public would then find that the artists are here, and have been all the time, and it is not their fault nor their lack of ability that has prevented the proper mounting of plays heretofore. If the artists now in Chicago could have the opportunity of producing anything like what we are capable of doing the discerning public would be astonished at their artistic ability, now practically latent.

It is undeniable that our people have made great strides in art culture in the last few years, and if their attention is properly directed in the matter there is no doubt but that they will soon become as appreciative of true art in stage pictures as they are now in home decorations.

-H. C. Tryon

On the same page of the “Chicago Tribune” article above, an announcement reported, “Apropos of the subject of scenery, The Haverly Theatre recently burned a large number of old “sets,” their destruction being the only guarantee that they would not at some time be pressed into service.” (21 Dec 1884, page 24).

To be continued…

From September 21-27, 2020, Dr. Wendy Waszut-Barrett led a group of local volunteers to document historic stage settings in the attic of the Tabor Opera House, in Leadville, Colorado. These stage artifacts should be considered much more than “old scenery.” Much of the historic scenery collection is comprised of large-scale artworks painted by nationally recognized artists.

Below are two shutters painted by scenic artist and theatre architect Tignal Frank Cox for the Tabor Opera House in 1888.

These shutters formed a backing for stage stage. Rolled together, shutters were a perfect solution for theaters that did not have room to raise backdrops out of sight. Wings and shutters slid on and off the stage in grooves to form scenic illusion on nineteenth and twentieth century stages across the United States.

Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

For the past few days I have been sharing some articles pens by Henry C. Tryon in the 1880s. Simultaneously, I am writing about the life and career of Tryon’s one-time partner, Henry E. Burcky as part of “Travels of a Scenic Artist and Scholar” after identifying Burcky’s scenic art for the Tabor Opera House in Leadville, Colorado.

In 1884 Tryon returned to Chicago, accepting a position at Sosman & Landis scene painting studios.  Previously, he had worked as the scenic artist for both the Tabor Grand Opera House in Denver and the Salt Lake City Theatre in Utah.

On Dec. 28, 1884, “Chicago Tribune” published an article submitted by Tryon about the scenic art industry (Chicago, Illinois, 28 Dec 1884, page 14). The headline reads, “SCENE-PAINTING. An Art Which Has Been Neglected and Allowed to Retrograde in Chicago.” The next two subheadings of the article state, “An Important Accessory of the Theatre Which Managers and Public Alike Disregard. Turning Out So-Called Art Work by Wholesale – Culture in Europe and America.” This is possibly the most insightful article that I have located to date, written by someone who was a Sosman & Landis employee. Tryon not only tales aim at scenic studios, but also examines the root of many problems in the industry.

Although it is quite long, this 1884 article is well worth reading. Here’s Tryon’s article in its entirety:

“Are audiences when viewing a stage picture, distant 100 feet or so from their seats, aware of the immense difficulties under which the artist labored when painting it? Are they aware that he was compelled to stand within three or at most four feet from his canvas and unable to see more than a few square yards at a time? Do they realize the accurate knowledge of drawing, composition, perspective, and color required to enable hi under such circumstances to produce and effect which will be realism to them? The artist must carry in his mind’s eye the completed scene as it will appear from the auditorium, and make no error in the relative proportions and harmonies of the different piece which compose the set and which are placed on his frame one or two at a time to be painted.  The theatrical and artistic character of theatres is especially governed by the stage appointments, Beauty of scenery is the most interesting and attractive kind of theatrical decoration.

No richness of auditorium will compensate for its absence.

The qualities required of a first-class scenic artist are of a much higher order than is generally supposed, and many technical difficulties are to be overcome before he can produce any brilliant effect whatsoever. One of the chief difficulties arises from the fact that his colors “dry out” several shades lighter than when they are applied. (Moisten a piece of wall paper in a room and the difference in color will illustrate this difficulty.) The artist is compelled to paint with one color while thinking of another.

Then the effect of a night light is a serious drawback. Everybody must have noticed that some colors are heightened, and others dimmed be being brought under the yellow gaslight. The scene-painter working in the broad glare of day must consider with every mark he makes the effect of this gaslight on his color. A brilliant effect by daylight may under an artificial  light be entirely destroyed, and also the reverse is true; but the scene-painter must not depend upon accident in the matter.

DEAD COLORS.

Stage scenery and drop curtains are never painted in oil colors. As the effect of realism is to be attained, all glare must be avoided. The artist is limited to the use of dead color and must get his brilliant effects by skillful harmonies and combination.

Scenery then, being painted with water colors, the danger from fire is much less than s popularly supposed. The canvas is much less combustible than it was before being painted. Scene painted on both sides are almost fireproof.

The scene-painter seldom has leisure to do work at his best, and has neither time nor opportunity to correct his errors. When a picture is painted in an artist’s studio, before being finally finished and exhibited the artist will see where a change here and there will enhance the value of his painting, and he can perfect it. The scene=painter is (of necessity) denied this advantage, and his first chance to even see his completed work properly set and lighted is when he is one of the audience.

The result of seeing his work as he proceeds with the eyes of the audience is that, as he acquires knowledge, experience, and consequent skill, he gradually gets to using larger brushes, so that he is enabled, with the roughest and apparently most reckless “swashes” of the calcimining brush, to produce effects as soft, tender, and full of appropriate meaning  as is done on smaller surfaces by many landscape painters.

The popular impression is that because scenes are thus painted with broad, bold, rough marks it is scarcely more than a grade or so advanced beyond mechanical work; but really it is this which makes it indisputably art and not mechanical skill.

In scene painting as in any other art, it is only the novice who takes the life out of his work by petty, contemptible smoothing down with small brushes. “Picture are made to be seen, not smelled,” said Reynolds. In decorative painting mechanical finish is the important requisite, but in scene painting this is no more an excellence than is mechanical finish in any other art.

METHODS.

The “modus operandi” of designing, painting, and arranging a set of scenery for the stage is about as follows: A descriptive “scene plot” is sent to the artist, locating the position of such portions of the scene as will be necessary to or in harmony with the “business” of the play and of the dramatic people. This plot also states the piece and period for which the scene is to be painted. The artist is not aided in his composition by the plot, but he is limited by it, the scenery, of course, being an accessory to the play and the acting. The “scene-plots” being in the artist’s hands he proceeds to study out the entire picture as it will appear when set before the audience, making a rough charcoal drawing as he thinks and composes. When his ideas have been condensed into form, he makes a cardboard model to a scale of such pieces as are required, ending his work with the “set pieces,” which were made while his work was progressing on the large canvases. His assistants having “primed” the canvas with a coating of “size” water and glue, and this being dry, he sketches in his work roughly with charcoal in a large porte crayon fastened to a large bamboo fish-pole. Having satisfactorily located the leading lines of his drawing, he corrects and gives it character with ink-marks, using a small brush. (These ink-marks will show though his color just enough so that he will not lose his drawing.” He is now ready to paint. His colors are in water pails and in paint-pots, besides which he has a palet board – a table on wheels – about eight or nine feet long and three feet wide, painted with white oil-color, and the surface polished like glass. Along one side of this palet are boxes about five inches wide for different crude colors as they come from the store. With the colors already mixed and varied by such as he wishes to get from the palet he lays in the general tone and color of his scene. This dries almost as fast as he applies it – if the weather be not too cold or damp – so that he can soon, by the assertion of culminating lights and shadows, give character to his work (before somewhat chaotic), and also make his effects of color more brilliant and his pictures more spirited.

The different portions which make up the scene having been made and painted, they are the night of the performance set on the stage and the gaslights arranged under the direction of the artist, and this arrangement is carried out thereafter by the stage carpenter under the direction of the stage manager. This is the way it is done in such theatres as the Union Square, Wallack’s, and Daly’s in New York, and the Boston Museum and Boston Theatre.

In Chicago, of the painter’s work be well done, the management is praised and artist’s individually overlooked, just as if the keeper of a picture gallery were given credit for the canvases displayed.

PICTURES.

The means employed by the masters in landscape-painting are similar to those of the best scene-painters, and it is only great artists – picture-painters are here spoken of – whose technique bears a resemblance to scene-painting. The nearer a theatrical scene is like a correct and beautiful picture the more artistic and meritorious is the scene. Much of the knowledge that scene-painters lack could be supplied them by studio artists, and studio artists could obtain from scene-painters knowledge of means to improve their own “technique”  that of the best scene-painting being the best possible for their own pictures.

With their ideality in composition and boldness and facility in execution and expression, the scenic artist needs only closer study of the outdoor nature to enable him to fully demonstrate his ability to successfully compete in all respects on his immense surface, with the productions of our best landscape artists on their smaller canvases.

The method used in Continental Europe of this making up a scene with arches,” “drops” and “set pieces” is one important cause of the nobility and beauty of the spectacular scenes which have been imported here from time to time. These effects of grandeur-produced by means the most simple and natural 0 have also been shown at the operatic and dramatic festivals in Cincinnati by American artists.

In an artistic sense “flats” which run in grooved across the stage are an abomination. They require an immense width of stage to run in, and narrow the scenery to small dimensions. For instance, in one of the theatre here the “flats” are twenty feet high and twenty-eight feet wide, while the “drops” are thirty feet high and fifty feet wide, so that the full width of the stage and the height of proscenium opening are only shown when the continental method is used. Even in interior sets the apparent height of rooms would not be too great when painted on a large drop if as much stage space as necessary were taken up with the ceiling in perspective, as is done in Europe. We already use their method of elaborate exteriors. The society drama is responsible for the continuance in theatres of “flats,” and the increased height to “rigging loft” or ceiling in modern theatres makes the further use of “flats” unnecessary. It will certainly be eventually abandoned if the influence of scenic artists prevails.

FOREIGN NOTES.

In Europe each scene-painter studies and practices exclusively certain branches in his art and is not required or expected to do any scenic work outside of the field which he has made his special study. One artist there paints landscapes, foliage and exteriors; another architecture, figures and drapery, and so on. In Paris, certain artists are exclusively engaged in designing “models” of scenes which other artists paint. The perfection which these artists reach is wonderful, and this, with the care and deliberate thought which they are allowed to give to a scenic production. Is, of course, followed by grand results. In America each scene-painter is expected to excel in all these specialties.

In New York here, four, or six artists are engaged on the scenery for one play, and each painter has his own scene, for which he has to receive praise or blame.

In Chicago one scene painter is required to paint all the scenery for a play in less than a week, and when he has longer time the amount of work called for is so much greater proportionately that he must force himself to do it with too great speed and with too little thought to do him justice and his ability anything like justice.

The discerning public of Chicago perceive the scenery is not prepared for them with the same care and elaboration that they were accustomed to see exhibited in theatres a few years ago. They feel that something is amiss, but wat it is they can only surmise.

LOCAL DRAWBACKS.

The obstacles to adequate scenic mounting of plays here are numerous, but none of them are insurmountable. The “run” of pieces is brief, managers of combinations are negligent about sending their scene plots in time for proper preparation, and sharing terms will not always justify the local manager in incurring expense, experience having taught him that there is not sufficient additional patronage to repay him. The attention of the public is entirely engrossed by the dramatic features, so that very little attention is directed to the scenery. The management is not criticized by the press for lack of care in this direction, except spasmodically, and consequently the public, who are influenced by the press, take less notice of scenery here than they do in some other cities, notably the East, and in San Francisco, where the scenic artist upon producing genuine art work finds it recognized by the public and his individuality as fully stablished as is that if a favorite actor, The careful and excellent system of stage management of leading Eastern theatres is not exercised here, all attention being given to the auditorium end to the business policy of the house. Theatres here do not have stage managers, and although the artist – theoretically – has absolute control of every feature that has an influence on his scene, practically the stage-carpenters, property-men and managers of combination set things according to their own ideas. The artist is rarely consulted in the matter. His opinions of the fitness and harmony of things from an artistic standpoint are too esthetic for the practical (?) ideas of those who have the handling of productions.

These scenery for the regular theatres is constantly being changed, and much of the work done is only retained during the run of the play for which it was painted, but in the provincial towns, where no artist is regularly employed, the house being once “stocked,” the same scenery is seen over and over again by the audience for six or eight years, until they grow weary of even artistic work long before it is worn out, and scenery which is cheap becomes absolutely disgusting even to those unlearned in art.

Cheap art is valueless, but is in altogether too great demand in the provincial cities in this country. One man is not as good as another in science, literature or art. A picture by Meisonnier will sell for $50,000. Because John Smith or Peter Jones paints a similar subject and use as much or more paints, it is not considered a logical reason why the works of Smith or Jones are equal to those of Meissonnier. This is self-evident, and a little thought would make it self-evident that the same idea applies as well to scene painters.

SCENE FACTORIES.

It is known to those interested in such matters that an opera-house or a public hall is being erected, and at the proper time applications are made for the contract for furnishing the scenery. Competent scenic artists are too modest and reticent in speaking of their abilities, while competing for “outside” work. The greater their abilities and reputations as artists the less are their chances of success, outside of the regular theatres. They erroneously suppose that an engagement in a first-class theatre is sufficient evidence of their capabilities, but this goes for little with nontheatrical people who construct theatres. With them the cheapest man or the shrewdest businessman has the best chance.

Artists rarely possess business talent, but it would seem that a business man engaging one would understand that it is art ability he should employ to do art work.

The agent of a scene-factory makes his bid and his figures are so much lower than those of the capable artist that he usually secures the contract, The competing artists have based their bids in their intentions of producing genuine art work, while the successful bidder has no such idea.

The proprietors of the “factory” known nothing about art and care less. They know nothing about the requirements of a theatre, as they have never had any experience in one. They, however, succeed in obtaining the contract, and the agent having taken the various measurements, goes back to the factory, where the work is all done, to have the stuff rushed out as fast as possible.

Yet these establishments employ some really capable artists, who hate their work and despise themselves for being compelled to do it. The methods are such as effectually to crush out all their art feelings, and they themselves have nicknamed the place in which they work, “the slaughterhouse.” All these methods are ruinous to a noble art.

Scenery should always be painted in the theatre in which it is used. The conditions vary so much in different houses than an intelligent knowledge of them should be ever present in the mind of the artist who is engaged upon the scenery for each. The proprietor should select an artist who is known to be competent by theatre men, one whom they themselves would employ. He should be paid enough money to warrant him cheerfully giving all the time and thought necessary to produce the best work in his power, and after having made his contract he will forget all other interests except his purely artistic ones. This will advance him as an artist. He has a reputation to gain or lose; his pride is stimulated to the advantage of his employer, and the results are sure to be bountiful in satisfaction to both parties, and consequently to the advantage of the community.

These factories are not recognized in any way by Chicago managers, but so successful have they been in driving legitimate scenic artists from the provincial field that their  owners openly boast that in a few years they will be supplying all the scenic requirements to our city theatres. How do the play-going public like the prospect?

The solution of the question, “How can scenery be produced as elegantly here as possible with the means available?” sums itself up simply in the employ  of more artists, absolute authority of those artists in their own domain, with the burden of responsibility attached, greater expenditure of money by the managers for material to paint on, and careful, critical, and discriminating notice in detail by the public press.

PROGRESS OF CULTURE.

The advance of ideas among scene-painters in this country has kept pace with the general advance in art. What would have been regarded as “high art” a generation ago would hardly be tolerated now. Scene-painting is now studied, thought of, and handled as an art. All good artists have their distinct characteristics, each painting according to his individual nature and feeling.

The advance of steel-engraving in America far beyond that reached in Europe was the result of the demand for it, caused by the multiplicity of the “wildcat” banks and stock enterprises. The absorbing interest of the whole people in pictorial reproductions of incidents of the War was probably the main cause of the advance in wood-engraving, which has also reached its highest production here. Theatrical posters and lithographs are now works of art, as are also the labels upon the wares of merchants. Demands upon art ability have always been fully supplied by the talent of Americans. Business houses, banks, and public buildings are now expensively and tastefully decorated. The general art education has advanced and is still advancing with strides. Auditoriums of theatres are elegantly and artistically decorated. One step remains – the only one. The public will demand, recognize, and appreciate the highest art excellence behind the prosceniums of the theatres. Managers and artists must then do their best, and the result will be increased attraction of the theatres and an influence from them which will elevate the general tone.

-Henry C. Tryon”

To be continued…

Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

There were two events held the 1880s that drew scenic artists together in America – the Cincinnati Opera Festival (1881) and the Scenic Artists Show (1885). Henry E. Burcky participated in both events.

In 1880, Henry E. Burcky was a scenic artist Hooley’s Opera House in Chicago. At the time, he was working with Charles E. Petford. The two were credited with the scenery for “The Hearts of Oak.” A review in the “Chicago Tribune” reported, “Hooley’s scenic artists -Petford and Burcky- have spared no pains to present the drama properly. It affords fine opportunity for the painter, and in six elaborate sets we find that the opportunity has been improved. The first act, representing sunset on the coast of Marblehead, shows a cleverly-executed piece of work, and the storm, the sighing of the wind and the sound of the waves beating on the rocks, the wreck, the rescue, the rocket, and the rainstorm fill in a very realistic and effective picture. The mill scene in the second act shows great attention to detail, and the third set represents a charming painted interior of a cottage” (Chicago Tribune, 16 March 1880, page 3).

In 1881, Burcky became associated with another Chicago Theatre; Sprague’s Olympic Theatre on Clark Street, opposite of the Sherman House, featured Burcky’s work. The Inter Ocean reported that “Muldoon’s Trip To Boston” was produced “with entire new scenery by H. E. Burcky, Esq.” (4 April 1881, page 8). At this same time, Burcky’s future partner, Henry C. Tryon, was working at McVicker’s Theatre with C. Louis Malmsha. Both would travel from Chicago to Cincinnati for work on the great festival in 1881. That year, Charles Fox, the distinguished scenic artist of Her Majesty’s Theater, London, superintended the painting of the Great Opera festival (Cincinnati Enquirer, 18 Feb. 1881, page 4). After traveling to New York to procure some artists’ materials for finishing the scenery that could not be found in Cincinnati, the newspaper reported, “He returned yesterday and found that two young artists from Chicago, Messrs. Burcky and Tryon, and Messrs. Rettig and Waugh, of our city, had been progressing rapidly with their work. To-day and to-morrow will see all the scenery painted and in its place. To give an idea of the immensity of the work that has been accomplished by these artists, it is only necessary to state that for one opera alone, Lohengrin, eleven large scenes have been painted, and fully that number, if not more, have been painted for each of the other six operas.”

The annual festival in Cincinnati drew theatre artists and crowds from across the country. On April 22, 1883, Chicago’s “Inter Ocean” described the scope of the event, reporting, “Outside of Cincinnati, from lakes to gulf and from ocean to ocean, the whole country seems to be at fever heat in anticipation of this event – that is, if application form the press for courtesies and of excursion parties for hotel accommodations are trustworthy criterions, and they certainly are. All the great papers of the country will be represented by members of the home staff. Hotels are all but overwhelmed with application for rooms, and the railroads will do an immense excursion business during that week. The daily press here has written the matter up industriously, and this week’s Harper’s Weekly has commence picturing it – a work which it has done admirably, as far as it has gone, but which it will supplement next week with some of the principal scenery” (page 5).

A detailed description of the scenic art scene, shows the working environment that encompassed Burcky at this time.  The “Inter Ocean” reported, “There are twelve artists working in scene painting alone, with each at least one helper. Not less than fifty carpenters are busy preparing flats and sets and putting up the proscenium and on the properties about thirty men, boys, and girls are employed. All these, with the painters and common laborers, will make a working force of something near one hundred and twenty-five people, working day and night getting ready. What a workshop they have. Horticultural Hall, 75 feet high, 100 feet broad, and with its appendages, 300 feet long, to say nothing of its corridors and its upper stories, all of which are used by the scene painters and property men. The spectacle of all these busy men, visible at one glance from some points of view in Horticultural Hall, makes an impression not to be forgotten. Here at the west end are a throng of busy carpenters huddled together as compactly as consistent with comfort, framing flats and working out furniture. Next beyond them under the glass roof of Horticultural Hall, in a light which on a clear day artists call wild, are the scene painters on their picturesque aerial bridges, painting away for dear life three scenes side by side; and such scenes for size – just think of it – sixty-six feet long and forty-five feet high; The frame work which supports these scenic artists’ swinging stages looks strong enough and complicated enough to serve for railway bridges…some of the best artists of the country are engaged upon them. Dewitt C. Waugh, Thomas R. Weston, Gaspard Maeder, Charles Murray, Joseph Piggot, and Harley Merry are of the number. They enter into the work with enthusiasm and are doing their level best.”

This was the event that really connected Burcky with Tryon, soon both were headed west and associated with the Tabor Grand Opera House in Denver, Colorado. In 1884 “H. E. Burcky” was identified as “the artist of the Tabor Grand (Memphis Daily Appeal, 19 Nov. 1884, page 2). This is Henry E. Burcky, sometimes spelled Burckey (Feb 1852 – 21 Feb. 1908), whose career spanned from approximately 1875-1908.

During the 1880s Burcky worked as an itinerant artist, yet primarily advertised in Chicago.  Burcky bounced back and for the between Denver and Chicago. Burcky filled dual roles at both the Tabor Grand Opera House in Denver and the Olympic Theatre in Chicago.

In 1885, Burcky was involved with the renovation of Chicago’s Olympic Theatre and several upcoming shows at the venue. On August 16, 1885, the “Inter Ocean” published,

“With the conclusion of the engagement of the Wymans this week at the Olympic Theater the house will be closed until Sept. 7, when it will be reopened as the “New Olympic” by the present lessees and managers, and they state that such extensive and important changes in the place will be made as to entitle it to its name. The lobby will be changed to permit the addition of a foyer, with heavy velvet curtains shutting the body of the theatre from the foyer and lobby. In the theater and foyer will be hung twelve crayon pictures 4×7 feet with gaslight effects, arranged by Bressan, the artist. Other pictures and statuary will be added. The floors will be newly carpeted, walls repapered, entire woodwork repainted, and the roof and exits repaired and changed. H. E. Burcky is painting new scenery and a drop curtain, and there will not be a scene, border, or wing used that is not entirely new” (16 Aug. 1885, page 13).

At the Olympic Theatre, Burcky painted scenery for Mortimer & Weaver’s Dramatic Co. production of “The Colleen Bawn” at the Olympic Theatre. Chicago’s “Inter Ocean” reported, “New sets of scenery, showing the Lakes of Killarney, the cave by the seas, and other beautiful bits of scenery incidental to the play have been painted for the occasion by H. E. Burckey, the scenic artist” (9 Aug 1885, page 13). Burckey painted scenery for another Olympic Theatre production that year, Alfred Trumball’s “Custer,” starring William J. Fleming. The production included a series of scenic effects that ranged from shimmering waters to brilliantly lit skies. The “Chicago Tribune” advertised the show as including “realistic  stage effects and the great battle scene by H. E. Burcky” (26 July 1885, page 6).

1885 was another significant milestone for Burcky, as well as and many other scenic artists. An event was planned to exhibit and sell distemper works by scenic artists.  On August 1 , 1885, the “Inter Ocean” reported, “The scenic artists of this city held a meeting this week at Parker Galleries and determined to hold an exhibition and sale of works in distemper at those galleries early inn September. Among the artists present were: Ernest Albert, John Mazzanovich, Walter Burridge, David A. Strong, John Howard Rogers, Henry Tryon, George Dayton, Thomas Moses, John Howell Wilson, H. C. Burcky, Charles Ritter, and others” (page 4).  

On October 12, 1885, there was the first exhibition of Water Colors by American scenic artists from all over the country. John Moran wrote an article about the Scene Painter’s Show for the “Art Union, a Monthly Magazine of Art” (Vol. 2, No. 4, 1885, p. 85):

“The Scene Painters’ Show. Chicago, October 12th, 1885

The first Exhibition of Water Colors by American Scenic Artists has been open free to the public for some weeks past, in this city, and the eighty-four examples hung on the walls of Messrs. Louderback & Co.’s galleries include some praiseworthy and valuable works. Such a collection proves that the broad pictorial treatment requisite for adequate stage effect does not incapacitate a man for the finer and more delicate manipulation essential to good aquarelles, and shows, moreover, a healthy progressive spirit among scenic artists. The name of Matt Morgan has long been gratefully familiar to us, and he is represented by diverse and facile contributions. “Alone in the Forest Shade” (1), shows lumbermen with their load descending a wild ravine flanked on either side by towering pines. The feeling of solitude and gloom is forcibly conveyed and the tree forms and foliage broadly yet carefully handled. “The Lost Comrade” (27), and “Waiting for Death” (14), are strong and weird aspects of prairies life, the former representing a horseman, lasso in hand, who has come upon the skeletons of a horse and rider among the pampas grass, and the latter a bull calf standing over the moribund body of a cow, striving with futile bellow to keep advancing wolves at bay. A nude figure, “The New Slave” (71), standing expectantly against a rich low-toned drapery, is exquisite in drawing and color and charmingly beautiful in suggestion. Mr. Walter Burridge runs the gamut of landscape figure and decoration and is good in all! His “Spring” (9), “Autumn Leaves” (39), and “Old Mill” (49), are deftly washed-in landscapes, true to nature and aerial in quality, while “My Assistant” (16), a study of behind the scenes life, and a “Ninety Minute Sketch” (83), of his friend Mr. Ernest Albert, show character and a nice sense of texture. Mr. Ernest Albert’s “Winter Twilight” (12), is full of sentiment of the season and excellent in composition, and his “October Morning” (31), “moonrise” (40), “Sunset” (79), and “Autumn” (80), are severally individual as transcripts and prove his mastery over the vehicle he uses. “A Decorative Flower Piece” (84), by the same artist, groups of roses, pansies and forget-me-nots in a most artistic and harmonious manner. “Nobody’s Claim, Col.” (65) and “Near Racine, Wis.” (76) By Mr. Thomas G. Moses, are among his best examples and are freely treated and with fidelity to locale character and sky effects. Mr. Albert Operti gives us some reminiscences of his Lapland tour in 1884, which are realistic and worthy, and Mr. J. Hendricks Young, “A Busy Day on Chicago River” (38), which together with the local bits by Mr. Moses, Mr. C. E. Petford and Mr. Burridge, is of historical value as it is skillfully painted. “Rats, you Terrier” (59), by the same hand, is a “snappy” and bright treatment of a dog’s head and fully catches the spirit of the English. Mr. Henry C. Tryon’s “Source of the Au Sable” (34), powerfully conveys a sense of somberness and grandeur, and though ample in detail loses nothing of the vastness and breadth, which such a landscape motion calls for. Other works deserving of notice are Messrs. George Dayton, Sr., George Dayton, Jr., the late L. Malmsha, C. Boettger, Chas. Ritter, H. Buhler and John Howell Wilson, whose “Country Road” (76” is especially fresh, verdurous and bright. It is to be hoped that this is only the forerunner of many like exhibitions and it marks a decided growth in the national art spirit.”

To be continued…

Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

When scenic artist C. Louis Malmsha (18 Aug. 1845- 19 October 1882) passed away, the American theatre industry mourned his loss. At the time of his passing, this Swedish-American was principal artist at McVicker’s Theatre in Chicago. Malmsha died at his residence on October 19, 1882, suddenly seized with hemorrhage while painting at his home. He passed before his wife could reach him from the adjoining room (Inter Ocean, 21 October 1882).  There is a monument to Malmsha in Stoughton, Wisconsin, at  Riverside Cemetery, “erected by his Wife and his Friends.” We are six days away from the anniversary of his passing, and I leave in about an hour to drive to Wisconsin. I will be only thirty minutes away from his gravesite and am compelled to try and visit.  

Henry C. Tryon, worked closely with Malmsha and wrote a tribute to his friend that appeared in the “Salt Lake City Herald” on October 22, 1882. As I am in the midst of examining the writings of Tryon this week, it seems like a perfect time to include his tribute to Malmsha.

Tryon worked with Malmsha at Wood’s Theatre in Cincinnati and later at McVicker’s Theatre in Chicago. The title of Tryon’s article was “Louis Malmsha. A Tribute to the Great Scenic Artist.” Although I published this article years ago, I am reposting it today.  There are a few reasons for my choice today. First, we are coming up on the anniversary of Malmsha’s death and it is a fitting memorial.  Secondly, the article also provides insight into the life and career of Tryon, his friendship and loyalty. In light of Tryon’s 1883 article that I posted yesterday about his perception of art, it seems fitting to include an article by Tryon and his characterization of Malmsha who he deemed, “…entirely an artist, and used none but purely art means to accomplish even a mechanical object.”  Those who we respect and remember are a direct reflection on our own character.

Here is Tryon’s article in its entirety:

“Editors Herald: 

Malmsha Scenic Artist of McVickers Theatre, Chicago, Reputed the Best in His Profession, died last night.  The above appears in the Associated Press reports in the morning papers.

The above appears in the Associated Press reports in the morning papers. As an humble follower, ardent admirer, friend, and confrere of this dead artist I felt it my duty to render tribute and homage to his transcendent genius.  He was “the best in the profession.”  Every artist who has seen his work has without qualification given him this position as a matter of simple fact.  I have seen samples from the hands of the best scenic artists in England, France, and Italy, and from what I have seen and learned. I am convinced that Mr. Malmsha was the greatest scenic painter in the world.  His identity appeared to be unbounded.  The most familiar with his work could not guess how he would paint next.  Week after week and year after year his productions were a constant succession of surprises.  He was entirely an artist, and used none but purely art means to accomplish even a mechanical object.  His compositions (the motive of which was ever noble and elevated) were entirely original, and were produced with astonishing rapidity.  He united power and strength with the sweetest, tenderest delicacy, dignity with grace, sublimity with loveliness.  I have yet to see in American any art example which manifest the wealth of genius that this man proved that he possessed.  I am quite certain that had he turned his attention to the painting of pictures, that he would have ranked as the greatest artist that our country has ever produced, for his genius was certainly preeminent.  His position in his profession was an isolated one.  He had no peers.  His place, vacant now, there is none can fill.  We have great artists among our scene painters, but no Malmsha; just as there was but one Charlotte Cushman among many great actors. 

     Mr. Louis Malmsha commenced his career as a scenic artist at Crosby’s opera house, Chicago, in 1865.  He was then a mere boy, and while working in the auditorium under the employ of a fresco painter, he saw the scenic artist painting the scenery for the stage.  He became so infatuated with this (to him) new art, that he could not be kept at his work, spending all of his time from his employers.  From this time forth fresco painting was distasteful to him, and he accompanied the artist to New York.  He there improved his advantages to such a degree that in a few years he was the peer of the best of his brother artists. 

     He returned to Crosby’s Opera House about the year 1869, producing “Hammersmith Bridge” and an English boat race at Putney.  This scene astonished Chicago –(no easy matter) as it was the finest of the kind that had ever been painted there. He remained at Crosby’s for several months, until engaged by Mr. McVicker to paint the entire stock of his rebuilt theatre.  (It was by the study of his beautiful work at this time that I drew my own first impressions of the possibilities of scenic art.)  He remained at Mr. McVicker’s until the destruction of the theatre by the great fire in 1871.  The following fall and winter he was engaged at Woods’ theatre, Cincinnati, returning the next summer to Chicago to paint scenery for Aiken’s Theatre and for Myers’ Opera House. 

His drop curtain at Aiken’s Theatre (Dearborn Theatre) was undoubtedly the finest and most artistic of any in the country.  He then left Chicago for a year or more returning to McVicker’s theatre where he remained until the time of his death. 

     Such is the brief career of this brilliant young man. He was (I judge about) 37 years of age.  For the past ten or twelve years he had been afflicted with consumption so that it was difficult for him to exert himself violently or to do more that two or three hours a day, but as he was for the past few months required to do none but purely artwork, other artists doing all of the preliminary work possible to make his labor easier, he was enabled, no doubt up to a recent period to astonish and delight the audiences at McVicker’s with the exhibition of phenomenal genius.  He will be sadly missed in Chicago, and now that he is dead the general public will join the artists in appreciating as he deserved to have been appreciated during his life.”

On October, 21, 1882, the “New York Times” published comments about Malmsha by David A. Strong. Strong worked at Sosman and Landis and was credited as the “Daddy of Masonic Design” there by Thomas G. Moses.

The “Inter Ocean” published:

“Mr. David A. Strong, scenic artist at Haverly’s theatre, says that Mr. Malmsha, as a scenic artist, had no superiors and only two equals in the country – Marston and Roberts” (page 4). The two artists that Strong stated as “equals” were Richard Marston (1842-1917) of New York and David Roberts (1796-1864), the well-known English artist and scene painter.  Strong was a well-established and well-known scenic artist in both New York and Chicago. He is credited with one of the scenes for the original “The Black Crook” production at Niblo’s Garden in 1866. Malmsha also painted some of the first scenery for “The Black Crook” (Inter Ocean, 21 Oct 1882, page 4).

For some additional perspective, Thomas G. Moses (1856-1934)  began his scenic art career as an assistant to Lou Malmsha. Malmsha was the head designer at Jevne & Almini, the fresco painters. The firm offered Malmsha his first job when he arrived in America (Inter Ocean, 21 October 1882, page 4). Both Moses and Malmsha were introduced to scenic art while working as decorative artist for Jevne & Almini. In Moses’ typed manuscript, he commented on his work for Malmsha there, writing, “He had a number of small panels to paint on paper which were afterwards pasted onto the ceiling.  I was certainly very fortunate, being to green to be fresh in my work.  I was soon working on portions of his work.”

Eventually, it was Malmsha’s after-hours work at McVicker’s Theatre that provided Thomas G. Moses with his first opportunity to paint scenery. 

To be continued…

Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

Henry C. Tryon was a friend and colleague of Thomas G. Moses. During the early 1880s Tryon was working in the western states as a scenic artist for the Tabor Grand Opera House in Denver, Colorado, and the Salt Lake Theatre in Salt Lake City, Utah. In 1884, Tryon returned to Chicago for a year, working alongside Moses at Sosman & Landis Studio on Clinton Street. The two would even take a sketching trip to West Virginia in 1885.

There are many reasons why Tryon was considered an asset to any studio. As a skilled scenic artist, he was well-versed in painting Masonic scenery, having delivered two collections to the Indianapolis Scottish Rite from the onset of their staged degree work. He entered the Masonic scenery scene at a time when scenic studios were starting to identify this new and lucrative client. He also came with connections to theatre managers and artists across the country. Well-known scenic artists on staff helped studios secure contracts.

However, Tryon was considered a fine artist, as well as a trade artist. This would prove to be a challenge for any employer, as profit margins were not always first and foremost in an artist’s mind when creating a masterpiece. As Tryon wrote in 1883, “The true artist will approach nature with awe, reverence and fear. It is audacious of him to attempt to represent with pigments his feeble thoughts.” This would have been difficult to do when painting an exterior scene in a shop with an imposing deadline.

Tryon published his thoughts about art in a “Deseret News” article in 1883 (Salt Lake City, Utah, 9 Feb 1883, page 3). It provides a little insight into this interesting character whom Moses described as “clever, but awfully eccentric.”

Here is Tryon’s 1883 article in its entirety:

“Bright Beams

Artistic Flashes From the Pen of H. C. Tryon

Some time since we published a few flashes from the artistic mind of Mr. H. C. Tryon, scenic artist of the Salt Lake Theatre. We understand that they many of our readers perused them with pleasure. We present another collection of intellectual gems form the same source:

“The higher order of true genius usually manifests itself in the child. It is developed in the man. “Art is long and time is fleeting.” The world’s greatest artists are old men, and with all their power of genius it has required the study and experience of a long lifetime to develop the possibilities. As a rule the artist who early develops his genius never reaches a very exalted position. His precocity promises great results in the future, but they are seldom realized. If we build a pyramid of sand, the height we can reach is proportionate to the width of the base. If that be narrow the pyramid, is soon erected, but it cannot reach a great height. It is so with the human mind. If it is not wide, deep and comprehensive, it cannot rise to great heights or accomplish really great things. What we understand by the title a “smart man” is never a great one.

The true artist will approach nature with awe, reverence and fear. It is audacious of him to attempt to represent with pigments his feeble thoughts. But he cannot help but to symbolize the love and awe which nature impresses on every sensitive soul. He cannot have out door nature in his dwelling, so its counterfeit must suffice him there, but he will forget, when he approaches her, all ideas of egotism and proceed to his task with veneration. “Take the shoes from off thy feet, for the ground whereon thou standest is holy ground.” The simplest object in nature is a thousand times more beautiful than he van paint it. The most common weed he cannot imitate. The stagnant water by the roadside is palpitating with the most exquisite hues.  The pure ethereal blue and the clear brilliant amber he can merely suggest with his crude pigments. But when nature pours its flood of brilliant sunshine over the face of all the landscape, lighting up with its Master Artist’s touch each point of sublimity and beauty, arising out from the delicious mystery of its veils of transparency, glittering gems in the rivulets sparkling among the streaming silver; the grand infinitude of interest bewildering even in its detail, massed and thrown together with such power, such delicate art. Think of the beauty of a leaf of a twig, of a cloud, of any object which is purely nature’s. Think of all this design, this loveliness, multiplied into infinity, and arranged with nature’s matchless art, and then think of man in his puny efforts to get this on canvas.

How poor and pitiful must be the work on the grandest mind in competition! How small a thing an artist seems to himself when he throws aside his vanity and tries to catch some inspiration from nature’s art! I think if we could at all times have nature’s grandest work before us, that no true artist would dare copy her. Whoever saw a real artist that was not ashamed to have you look over his shoulder while sketching outdoor nature? He knows he is guilty of an impertinence, yet cannot help it. He must try. He must study her, he must adore her, and he must realize the pain and humiliation of feeling, how poor are the powers of the human mind. But when he gets that same sketch in his studio, how vain he is, where he has not nature present to show him his feebleness.

The artist should never let sentiment run away with him. He should consider every poetic and sentimental thought to be precious to him and to the world, and use it legitimately on his canvas, never forgetting that this is a practical world, and that tangible and practical means are the only ones that can disseminate sublime and beautiful thought. Is not Shakespeare an example of proof? He put his grand poetic thought into his plays. He did not waste it among the low associates whom he seemed to prefer as companions. I cannot help thinking that if artists would be more practical in their ordinary lives, and more poetic on canvas their influence (being better directed) would be far greater.

Do not sacrifice a grand object for a petty one. It is of greater importance that the graceful, wide spreading undulating infinitude of glittering, twinkling foliage of that grand old elms, be fitly expressed, than that bird’s nest be given conspicuous and undue prominence among the boughs. You did not see it until it was pointed out to you. Nature did not intend that you should see it, still less that you should sacrifice that tree for it. The bird knows where it is; that is enough. Nature intended that you should see the tree. When you paint a tree, paint a tree and paint the nest some other time; but then don’t want the tree. Don’t falsify nature by attempting, with your petty vanity, to improve upon her work. You will fail, because nature as an artist is pre-eminently superior to you.”

To be continued…

Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

Yesterday, I started exploring the life and career of scenic artist H. E. Burckey. Remnants of Burckey’s painting still exist at the Tabor Opera House in Leadville Colorado. In 1890, Burckey painted eight jungle wings constructed by William J. Moon for the venue. Burckey was a scenic artist who grew up and entered the theatre industry in Chicago.

By the age of eighteen, Henry E. Burckey was listed as “scenic artist” in the 1875 Chicago Directory, living at 83 S. Halsted. Little is published of Burckey’s early career, but in 1879 he was credited as the sole artist for “Queen’s Evidence,” playing at Hamlin’s Theatre. The show starred Geo. C. Boniface and advertisements reported, “Every scenic in this play will be entirely new and painted by Henry Burcky” (Chicago Tribune, 14 Dec. 1879, page 16). Five months later, Burckey was credited as the scenic artist for a charity event that included a production of “The Frog Opera.” The “Chicago Tribune” reported,  “This novel extravaganza, which has recently been given in New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore and other cities, will be brought out at the Central Music-Hall on Tuesday and Thursday evening s and Wednesday afternoon this week, for the benefit of the Nursery and Half-Orphan Asylum. Among the cast and chorus of frogs are some of the best actors in the Farragut Boat Club. Special scenery, representing the swamp in the earlier part of the piece, and the old mill in the last act, is being painted by Burkey, the scenic artist. As its title indicates, the Frog Opera is purely an extravaganza, and, with considerable continuity of plot, it describes the wooing on Prince Frog and his experiences with Simple Simon, Baron Rat, Sir Thomas Cat, Baroness Rat, etc. The costumes are made after designs by Mark Waterman, the Boston artist, and are said to be unusually effective” (“Chicago Tribune, 16 May 1880, page 11). His career was on an upward swing, bringing him into contact with other scenic artists, such as Henry C. Tryon who worked at McVicker’s Theatre.

By 1881, Burckey partnered with Tryon, and the two ventured south to paint scenery for the Cincinnati Opera Festival. Their work was very well received, and their departure even made headlines.  The “Cincinnati Enquirer” reported, “Messrs. Burcky and Tryon, the distinguished artists who painted part of the scenery for the Opera Festival, are delighted with Cincinnati; say they were never treated so kindly, and never had so much appreciation shown them. They will probably leave for Chicago this week” (4 March 1881, page 5). Burckey, like most scenic artists of his generation, would travel to secure work. This was often in addition to holding down a seasonal theatre gig.

Western theaters offered wonderful opportunities for artists young and old alike. Soon, Burckey and Tryon two headed west, making a name for themselves in Colorado. In 1882, Tryon settled in Denver and was associated with H. A. W. Tabor’s second theater, the Tabor Opera Grand House. Built only a few years after the Tabor Opera House in Leadville, the Tabor Grand was a massive undertaking. By 1884, Burcky was listed as the scenic artist for the venue. Although Burckey was still listed in Chicago directories throughout the 1880s, he was building a good reputation as quite an accomplished artist. Although Burcky was now listed as the Tabor Grand’s scenic artist, he continued to paint for touring productions and other Chicago shows. The train ride from Chicago to Denver was only a day away, 17 hours and five minutes; a short jaunt with only one overnight. Similarly, Denver to Salt Lake City was only a fifteen-hour trip, explaining the ease of Henry C. Tryon working at both the Tabor Grand Opera House and Salta Lake Theatre during the early 1880s. Rail travel made it possible for scenic artists to hold dual positions in two different states.

While in Denver during 1884, Burckey painted the State’s exhibit for the World’s Industrial and Cotton Centennial Exposition. The States of Colorado constructed a 6,600 square-foot exhibit in the Government & States building. One of thirty-eight states represented at the exposition, the Colorado exhibit was located near the north entrance of the building, and included a realistic representation of the Rocky Mountains, painted by Burckey. As with other exhibits, Colorado’s agricultural products, ores and minerals were set out on display.

The “Memphis Daily” credited Burckey with painting “The Pioneer Car” for the World’s Fair in New Orleans, (Memphis Daily Appeal, 19 Nov. 1884, page 2). The exhibit was described as a “work of art” in the “Memphis Daily Appeal.” The article described Burckey’s work in detail. Here is the article in its entirety:

“Upon its sides are some splendid paintings from the brush of H. E. Burcky, the scenic artist of the Tabor Grand Opera house. These pictures are well worth careful scrutiny.

Upon one side of the car the picture is emblematic of Colorado’s beautiful scenery, her resources and the glory of the South, with New Orleans as the crown of that section. In the center is a large horseshoe, upon the arch of which is the inscription, “Miner’s Cabin.” Withing the arche, formed by the emblem of good luck, is the full-length figure of a miner with pick upon his shoulder, apparently just starting out on a prospecting tramp.

In the right center is a group of two figures, one a farmer binding a sheaf of wheat, while beside him sits his wife with a dinner-pail and basket, evidently resting after her noonday walk with her husband’s lunch. From this scene, the perspective goes back over fertile plains across which a railroad train is gliding, until the plains heighten to a grand view of the Rocky Mountains.

Upon the extreme right of the picture is a splendid view of the Grand Canyon from the mouth of which is approaching a train, the locomotive tender showing the letters D. & R. G.” At the left of the horseshoe, and covering about one-third of the side car, is the Southern scene, with idle darkies lounging around bales of cotton and cut watermelon lying in the foreground, while away to the left of the scene and in the depth of perspective is a river with the city of New Orleans in the distance.

Upon the other side of the car, about one-third of the picture represents a miner’s cabin, with utensils of a prospector’s housekeeping hanging upon its wall, while sitting a little distance in front is the miner with extended hands. In his hands he holds a pan, into which his eyes gaze earnestly for the coveted gold. The remainder of the picture is a sweeping view of snow-capped mountains.

This car and decorations will be a credit to the artist and to Colorado which sends it forth, and is safe to predict that no exhibit which will arrive in the Crescent City will attract more attention before it is opened to view.

The Miner’s Cabin idea and its careful preparation is highly creditable to its agent, Mr. T. E. Boynton, and Mr. Noel May, who so ably assisted in carrying the conception to a reality. Mr. Boynton will accompany the car to-night and Mr. May will follow in a few days.

The car is loaded with contribution of ores and minerals from over 100 different mines throughout the State, to be used in the construction of the “Miners’ and Prospectors’ Cabin,” connected with the Colorado exhibit at New Orleans. This collection includes many rare and valuable specimens of bullion-producing mineral. The “Cabin” is intended to be emphatically a Colorado structure, the mortar used being compressed of a material presented by the Denver Cement Manufacturing Company, and sand taken from the bed of Cherry Creek. Other shipments of ore will follow this car, to be used in keeping the cabin in repair, as well as to constantly ass its attractions.

The train containing the exhibits from the Denver Exposition and some other exhibits will follow, leaving Denver about the 20^th instant. The Denver Exposition display is now nearly all packed ready for shipment. A very valuable addition was made yesterday by the Hon. H. A. W. Tabor, who will send a splendid cabinet containing the specimens from Robert E. Lee and the Matchless mine, and valued at $1000.”

Much has been written about the World’s Fair in New Orleans, but here is a link to the 1885 publication – “Practical Common Sense Guide Book trough the World’s Industrial and Cotton Centennial Exposition at New Orleans”-  http://archive.org/stream/practicalcommons00perkrich#page/26/mode/2up

To be continued…

Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

 “W. J. Moon carpenter and H. E. Burpey [sic.] scenic artist, October 6, 1890” is penciled on the back of a jungle wing at the Tabor Opera House in Leadville, Colorado. William J. Moon was a local resident and Henry E. Burkey was a scenic artist who began his career in Chicago. By 1884, “Harry Miner’s Dramatic Directory” listed “Burckey, Tabor Opera, Denver” as the scenic artist for the Tabor Opera House in Leadville; he was working for both venues. Burckey was still working for Tabor five years later. After completing the jungle wings for the Tabor Opera House in Leadville, the “Herald Democrat” reported his departure for Denver on October 16, 1890, noting “Mr. H. E. Burcky left last evening for Denver.” 

Yesterday I wrote about stage carpenter and stage manager W. J. Moon. Today I explore the life and career of  Henry E. Burckey (1852-1908). Burckey was been a bit tricky to track down, as the spelling of his name greatly varies in newspaper accounts and historical records. Variations included Burckey, Burkey, Bercky, Berkey, and Burcky; I am going with Burckey.

Born in 1852, Henry E. Burckey was the son of German immigrant Frederick Burckey (1813-1902). The 1850 US Federal Census lists that Frederick Burckey was born in “Frankfurt-Main” and emigrated from Germany in 1830. He eventually settled with family in Chicago area where he resided until his passing on October 21, 1902. Frederick was employed as a confectioner until he opened a restaurant with Augustus Berlin. He later worked as a clerk.

The 1870 census listed that Burckey was living with his three sons William, Henry and Charles, ages 16, 13 and 7.  Between 1870 and 1875, Henry entered the theatre industry and became a scenic artist.  He entered the scene about the same time that Thomas G. Moses did, about 1873-1874. By 1875 Henry was listed as “scenic artist” in the “Chicago Directory” living at 83 S. Halsted. Interestingly, Henry’s younger brother Charles followed him into the painting business and was listed as a “painter” in the 1880 Census. Burckey remained in the directory for the next decade, despite working for extended periods of time in other regions. At this time Chicago was a major theatrical hub with equal access to almost all of the country; it was the place to be during the second half of the nineteenth century. Ever-expanding railways provided easy routes for the marketing and shipping of both goods and services. A vast transportation network allowed remote communities access to a variety of services when constructing a performance venue that included scenic art. Many scenic artists, such as Burckey and Moses, made the Windy City their home and constantly traveled to new venues. Even when working for a studio, their lives remained that of itinerant artists.

By 1880, Henry Burckey, painted an old mill scene for the “Frog Opera.” The production toured New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore. By the spring the production played at Chicago’s Central Music Hall (Chicago Tribune, 16 May 1880 page 11). As Burckey made a name for himself, he began to partner with other well-known and respected scenic artists, such as Henry C. Tryon.

In 1880, Tryon was working as a scenic artist at McVicker’s Theatre, where he came in close contact with Thomas G. Moses, as well as Joseph Sosman, of Sosman & Landis. Moses joined Sosman & Landis in 1880 as their first employee, Tryon would follow four years later. There was an abundance of work for many, and the fortunate few secured permanent positions in popular theaters and opera houses.

By 1881, “H. E. Burcky” was listed as scenic artist at Hooley’s Theatre in Chicago. At this same time Burckey partnered with Tryon to provided scenery for Cincinnati’s Opera Festival. They worked alongside some other very respected gentlemen, including Fox, Magnani, Humphreys, Hughes, and Rettig & Waugh. An article in the “Cincinnati Enquirer,” reported, “Messrs. H. E. Burcky and Henry Tynor [sic.], the young and talented artists who came here from Chicago to assist painting the scenery, have been doing excellent work. They are bright, intelligent and rapid worker and but for their assistance it would have been difficult to have the scenery ready by Monday next. Mr. Burcky is scenic artist at Hooley’s Theater in Chicago, and Mr. Tryon at McVickers. They express themselves as amazed at the extent and magnitude of the affair” (“Cincinnati Enquirer,” 15 Feb 1881, page 4).” Burckey and Tryon were applauded for one “Magic Flute” setting, heralded as a “Beautifully painted scene.” The “Cincinnati Daily Enquirer” article described the painting; “…massive rocks in the foreground appear so real as almost to deceive the eye.  Rich masses of dark foliage relieve their barrenness while their golden-yellow color is projected boldly from the deep blue sky.  Two transformation tableaux occur in this scene, the first the ordeal, by fire, remarkable for its brilliancy and warmth of color; the second, the ordeal by water, for its cool and delicious coloring, complete contraries delightfully portrayed” (23 February 1881, page 4).

The opera festival was not only a game changer for each artist, but an incentive to travel westward. By the fall of 1882, Tryon had left Chicago and was working in Denver, Colorado, for Horace Tabor. Even when Tabor traveled to Salt Lake City for work, newspapers listed the artist as “Mr. Henry C. Tryon, of the Tabor Grand Opera House” (“Ogden Standard,” 30 Sept, 1882, page 3).  Two years later, Burckey became known as “H. E. Burckey, the artist of the Tabor Grand” (“Memphis Daily Appeal,” 19 Nov. 1884, page 2). It remains unclear if they worked together on scenery at the Tabor Grand between 1882 and 1884.

Regardless, Burckey became the sole scenic artist at the Tabor opera house by 1884, the same years that Tryon returned to Chicago to work for Sosman & Landis. In 1884, Moses wrote, “Henry C. Tryon came to the studio to work.  He enthused Young and I more than anyone ever had.  He was a pupil of Thos. Moran and James and William Hart and was very clever, but awfully eccentric.” Tryon also joined Moses and John H. Young on a sketching trip to West Virginia in 1885. I will expand Tryon’s story in the next few weeks.

Between 1880 and 1884, Tryon submitted a series of articles about the scenic art profession in papers across the country. On Dec. 19, 1880, the “Chicago Tribune” published “ Scene Painting: Some hints to the Public Regarding a Special Department of the Painters’ Art Not Well Understood” by Henry C. Tryon (page 19). Here is the link to the article as I included it today as part of my “Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar” storyline (part 1087): https://drypigment.net2020/10/11/tales-from-a-scenic-artist-and-scholar-part-1087-henry-c-tryon-scene-painting-some-hints-to-the-public-regarding-a-special-department-of-the-painters-art-not-well-understood/

To be continued…

Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

Yesterday I resumed “Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar” after a short break. Although I returned to the year 1921, an 1884 article prompted me to revisit a friend and colleague of Thomas G. Moses – Henry C. Tryon. This is just one example of the many rabbit holes I get sucked into while doing research. But I have no deadline and can enjoy these sidetracks.

Moses first worked with Tryon at Sosman & Landis in 1884, writing “Henry C. Tryon came to the studio to work.  He enthused Young and I more than anyone ever had.  He was a pupil of Thos. Moran and James and William Hart and was very clever, but awfully eccentric.” In 1884, Tryon left two scenic art positions; one as scenic artist at the Tabor Grand Opera House in Denver, Colorado, and the other as scenic artist for the Salt Lake Theatre in Utah. He returned to Chicago, joining the Sosman & Landis staff for a year.

Now I am in the midst of writing historical analyses, conditions reports, replacement appraisals and collections care programs for the historic scenery collections at the Tabor Opera House in Leadville, Colorado. Some of the scenery is signed and dated, including jungle wings painted by Henry E. Burckey in 1890. Burckey and Tryon partnered in the early 1880s and then both worked at the Tabor Grand in Denver.  Burckey was still working at both the Tabor Opera House in Leadville and the Tabor Grand Opera House in Denver in 1890. You can find more information about Burckey at www.drypigment.net (keyword search “Tabor Opera House” or “Burckey”).

So, I am killing two birds with one stone this week, but there are lots of moving parts. While researching Burckey and Tryon for the Tabor project, I came across a series of article written by Tryon in the 1880s. He describes the scene painting profession, and I am compelled to share them as part of the “Tales of a Scenic Artist and Scholar” storyline.

Here is the first one published in the “Chicago Tribune” on December 19, 1880:

SCENE PAINTING.

Some hints to the Public Regarding a Special Department of the Painters’ Art Not Well Understood.

Chicago, Dec.8.-

Theatrical scenery is painted in “distemper,” dry color being mixed with a vehicle consisting of glue and water, much the same as is used with whiting for calcimining rooms. Stage scenery and drop-curtains are never painted in oil colors. While the color is less brilliant than when mixed with oils (the artist being compelled to get his brilliancy by skillful arrangement of dull color), the glare of varnish and oil is avoided which would destroy the realism of the scene. Scenery, then, being painted in watercolors, the danger from fire is much less than popularly supposed; in fact, when it does take fire it burns very slowly for a long time. The canvas is much less combustible than before being painted. Scenes painted on both sides are almost fireproof.

The qualities required of a first-class scenic-artist are of a much higher order than is generally supposed, and the technical difficulties to be overcome to produce any brilliant effect whatever for the stage are so numerous that, with a thorough knowledge of drawing, color, and composition, and the clearest possible idea on the part of the artist of what he desires to do, he will fail utterly, without great practice, to convey to the audience the effect that he may have already, in his brain, arranged in the clearest and most tangible shape. The artist in oil colors can produce any effect which his mind conceives. The scenic-artist must first overcome many very difficult obstacles. One of the chief difficulties arises from the fact that the colors dry out several shades lighter that they are when applied. (Throw a little water on the floor and the difference in color will illustrate this difficulty). The artist is compelled to paint with one color while thinking of another. He must think with every brush mark how the colors will “dry put.” The difficulty in doing this can be imagined when it is considered that all exterior scenes are painted from a pallet making a constant change of thousands of different tints. Then the effect of a night light is a serious drawback. Whoever has observed the changes in the colors of fabrics from the light of day to the artificial light of gas must have noticed how some colors are heightened and others dimmed by being brought under the yellow gaslight.

The scene-painter working in the broad glare of day must consider with every brush mark the effect of this gaslight on his color. A brilliant effect by daylight may, under an artificial light, be entirely destroyed, and also the reverse holds true; but must not be accident with the scenic-artist.

Do the audience in the theatre ever realize the immense difficulty of painting a scene while within three or at most four feet from the canvas, to produce the proper effect at a distance of from fifty to 150 feet, the artist being compelled to see his work in his mind’s eye this distance, when his first opportunity to dee his entire work is after it has been finished and on stage? The result of constant practice in this direction is, that, as he acquires knowledge, and consequently power and decision, he gradually choses larger brushes, until the skillful artist is enabled with the roughest and apparently most hideous “swashes” of the calcimining brush to produce effect as soft, tender, and full of appropriate  meaning as is done by the most labored, painstaking care on smaller surfaces by many landscape painters. In scene-painting, as in all other art, it is only the novice who takes the life out of his work by petty, contemptible smoothing down with small brushes. “Pictures are made to be seen, not smelled,” said Reynolds. In decorative painting mechanical finish is the important requisite, but in scene-painting it is no more an excellence than is mechanical finish in any other art.

The popular impression is that because scenes are thus painted with broad, bold, rough marks it is scarcely more than a grade or so advanced beyond mere decorative painting; but think for a moment of the knowledge of drawing, perspective, composition, and color required to enable the artist to produce on these large surfaces a scene which to the audience must be realism, when he can only see at any time a limited portion (say ten feet square) of his work – on a “drop” say thirty feet by fifty – while working within three feet of his canvas, and to be seen across a large theatre, The fact is, that a scenic artist is able to paint a small picture with much greater ease and readiness that he can with his theatrical work, because he has the knowledge to paint the small subject without very great obstacles attending his work on the large canvas.

Another thing to be considered in this connection: The scenic-artist does not always – in fact, seldom- have the leisure to do work at his best. He has neither the time nor opportunity to correct his work. When a picture is finished in an artist’s studio the artist sees where a change here and there will enhance the value of his work, and can perfect it. The scene-painter must call his work “a go” and start on the next scene. “We press your hat while you wait,” is the sentiment. The manager comes to the artist, and says we want a street – Paris, 1600 – to-night. He must have it then, though the heavens fall. “Time, tide, and managers wait for no man.” Many times in the experiences of all scenic-painters are they obliged to work thirty-six hours at a stretch,, their meals brought to them, and stopping for nothing else, each of those hours working against time, with no sentiment other than to get through, get out of the theatre and to the rest that exhausted nature loudly demands. Still he must be criticized on this very work. The audience doesn’t know anything about his having worked all day, and all night, and all day.

The great scenic-artists of the world are great artists, and so recognized in the world of art. Poor dead Minard Lewis was the very Prince of scenic artists, and his genius was the wonder and admiration of every artist of every department of art in New York. Yet the theatre-going public who for thirty or forty years had admired and applauded his beautiful work did not know or care to know his name.

The position of scenic-artist in a first-class theatre is one of great responsibility, which is properly recognized “behind the curtain line,” but the general public has no interest in the personality of the scenic artist, supposing in a vague sort of way that the manager paints the scenes. It is no unusual thing for scenery to be lavishly commended by the press and public, the manager receiving the press and praise for his “enterprise, taste and liberality,” while the artist whose brain and hand has created it all is never mentioned or even thought of. Scene-painters, like all other artists, have their ambitions, and are grateful for proper and honest appreciation. Much injustice has been done to them (perhaps through thoughtlessness) by the public press and this is strongly felt by every scenic-artist. If the newspaper dramatic critics would take the same interest in the scene-painters themselves that they do with other individual members of the theatrical business and that they do with other artists, and would find out under what adverse circumstances they generally labor, their sense of justice would cause them to be more discrimination in their reports. If a theatre during an extended period is uniformly negligent in the matter of scenic accessories, it would be but simple justice for the public critics to inquire whether it is due to the incompetency of the scenic-artist or to the economy of the manager. The truth in this matter can always be easily discovered, and when blame is laid, as it frequently is, it should not be done in loose and indiscriminate manner which injures most the artist who is frequently not to blame. If the dramatic critics would visit and become acquainted with the scenic-artists they would be welcomed, and would perhaps gain in the interest of dramatic art and progress some ideas from that unknown and unthought of portion of the theatre 9the paint gallery) that would be a revelation to them. The sooner the press and public recognize the scene-painters as artists and deal with them individually as with other artists – commending or condemn them on their own merits, – the better it will be for the elevation of scenic art.

            -Henry C. Tryon

To be continued…

Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

For additional installments, go to www.drypigment.net

It is often difficult to identify the work of nineteenth-century stage carpenters, seldom did they sign their work. When you factor in natural disasters, building renovations and changes of ownership, the challenge increases exponentially. Last month I evaluated a collection of nineteenth-century stage settings at the Tabor Opera House in Leadville, Colorado. Tucked away in the attic were dozens of wings, shutters and borders, placed there when the building was renovated over a century ago. On the back of one jungle wing was written the name of a local stage carpenter – W. J. Moon. Penciled in near the frame was “W. J. Moon stage carpenter and H. E. Burpey scenic artist, October 1890.” A bread crumb. It just takes a small bit of information to point the way.

The stage carpenter was William J. Moon and the scenic artist was Henry E. Burckey. There is no question that scenic artist “H. E. Burpey” was actually scenic artist “H. E. Burckey,” as newspaper accounts place Burckey in Leadville during October 1890. Burckey also worked as the scenic artist at the Tabor Grand Opera House in Denver, Colorado. His scenic art connection to both the Tabor Opera House and Tabor Grand Opera House is noted in theatrical guides too. The earliest mention of Burckey’s role as scenic artist for the Tabor Opera House in Denver was in 1884. Although there is no indication as to when Burckey began working part-time in Leadville during 1890, he departed town on October 16. The “Herald Democrat” reported “Mr. H. E. Burcky left last evening for Denver.” Again, the jungle wings for the Tabor Opera House are also dated October 1890.

This is the first of several posts about the Tabor Opera House’s nineteenth-century scenery collection. The stories of Moon and Burckey are quite complicated, each intersecting individual characters explored in past posts at www.drypigment.net.

I am starting with the life and career of William “Willie” James Moon (1867-1920). The 100th anniversary of his passing is only eleven days away, and that was my sign to start with Moon.

“Willie” Moon was a local resident of Leadville, Colorado, moving to the area as a child. Historical records list Moon’s parents as Jasper O. Moon (1831-1880) and Charity Peterson Moon (?-1895). Born in Missouri, there is no indication of the Moons’ eastern roots or why the family moved west. However, the promise of wealth associated with mountain mining camps was often enough to uproot anyone.

The 1870 US Federal Census listed the Moons as living in Granby Township, Missouri. The household included thirty-year old farmer, Jasper, living with his wife Charity (30 yrs. old), son William J. (3 yrs. old), daughter Elva (1 yr. old) and Mary J. Peterson, Charity’s twenty-year old sister-in-law.

The 1880 census listed a 13-yrs. old William living in Leadville with his mother and uncle, John Peterson; Peterson, like Jasper, became a miner. William, Charity and John lived at 318 3rd Street, a few blocks away from the newly constructed Tabor Opera House on Harrison Avenue. The 1880 Leadville Directory listed Jasper O. Moon living next door at 316 W. 3rd; how odd.Moon spent most of his life in Leadville living very near the Tabor Opera House, only a few blocks away. While I was working in Leadville this fall, I was also living on 3rd St, just a little closer; only ½ block from the opera house.

Moon began his theatrical career as a performer before transitioning to a stage manager and stage carpenter. In 1882, W. J. Moon traveled with the Tennessee Jubilee Singers and performed throughout Colorado. It is possible that he was picked up while the troupe was on tour in the region, like running away with the circus. On Sept. 2, 1882, Moon was listed as staying with the group at the Windsor Hotel in Fort Collins, Colorado. At the time, he would have been 15 years old. Other Tennessee Jubilee Singers at the time included Lew Johnson, Harry Mannaford, Z. A. Coleman, Ed Hawkins, Josh Bell, Effie Allen, Lottie Reno and Nellie Mark (“Fort Collins Coloradoan,” 2 Sept. page 4). Moon was still performing in 1884 when he toured Kansas with the Nashville Students, performing at Painton’s Hall. By this time, he was listed as the lead tenor in the minstrel production “Old Shady am Gwing up North,” featuring southern songs and dances (Weston Herald, Girard, Kansas, 8 May 1884, page 3). In 1885, the Nashville Singers were still touring and featured “original Jubilee and Plantation Melodies, as sung by the children of bondage in their own peculiar manner in religious and social meetings and on the plantation” (“The Record-Union,” Sacramento, California, 16 July 1885, page 2). Moon played the roll of “Pete (a young pickaninny).”

It was this same year that Moon returned to Leadville and was listed twice in the city directory. “Willie” Moon was listed as the stage manager at the Opera House, residing at 121 E. 7th Street, while William J. Moon was still listed at him previous home residence – 318 W. Although “Willie” would not be listed again, William’s home residence would remain on 3rd street in the 1885, 1886 and 1887 directories.By 1889 the Leadville City Directory listed Moon as the stage manager for the Tabor Opera House. He was also listed as the stage manager for the venue in 1891 and 1892. In 1890, however, Moon was listed as the stage carpenter for the Tabor Opera House in the Leadville Directory; this matches the jungle wing scenic notation from October 1890. Keep in mind that during this period stage manager and stage carpenter were often interchangeable titles, both being responsible for the construction of scenery and management of the backstage area.

Moon worked as a stage carpenter at the Tabor Opera House for at least a dozen years. The only difference was that the 1899 Leadville City Directory listed Moon as the stage carpenter for the Weston Opera House. For a time, the Tabor Opera House was named the Weston Opera House, initially under the management of Judge Algernon S. Weston and later under the management of his widow Leticia. By 1900, the Leadville City Directory again listed Moon as the stage manager for the Tabor Opera House.The 1900 US Federal census also listed Moon’s profession as a stage carpenter. Regardless of title, Moon was still listed as living at 318 3rd, but now with a wife and two daughters. Moon married Louise Buffer (alt. spelling Bueffehr) on September 11, 1894 in Denver, Colorado. [Note: my husband and I share the same anniversary as the Moons].

Louise actually worked as a dressmaker in Leadville before marrying Moon, although I have yet to discover what drew her westward from Kansas. It may have simply been the burgeoning economy at the time. In fact, the 1894 city directory listed Miss Louise Bueffehr, dressmaker, residing at 314 East 6th street. Louise was born in Big Creek, Kansas, the daughter of two German immigrants, John and Christina Bueffehr. She grew up on a midwestern farm, one of four children born to the couple, her siblings were Anna, John and Charley.William and Louise Moon couple celebrated the birth of two children by the turn of the twentieth century, with Algin arriving in 1895 and Doris arriving in 1897. Interestingly, Doris Marguerite Moon, born Aug. 16, 1897, was baptized in 1909, and at the time her father William was listed as having “no belief.” Her baptismal records also list the spelling of Bueffehr as her mother’s maiden name.

Moon transitioned from stage carpenter to bartender shortly after the opera house changed hands. The Tabor Opera House was purchased by the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks (B.P.O.E.) in 1901 and was renovated during 1902, necessitating new scenery as a fly loft was added to the building. The original wing and shutter scenery was simply placed in the attic and I have often wondered why is wasn’t sold or thrown out at that time. It is possible that Moon was a key individual in saving the old scenery, some of it constructed by both he and Burckey.

The 1902 Leadville Directory still listed William J. Moon as a stage carpenter, but his position soon changed. The 1903 Leadville City Directory listed, “Moon, William J., bartdr. Elks Opera House, rms. 303 Harrison av.” In 1910, Moon was still listed as a bartender in the directory, boarding at home of Julia Ross.Moon died at the relatively young age of 52 on 21 Oct. 1920 at 4:00 a.m. The cause of his death was listed as pneumonia. Moon is buried in the family plot at the Evergreen Cemetery in Leadville. His obituary was published in the “Herald Democrat” on October 27, 1920 (page 5) and in the “Carbonate Chronicle” on Nov. 1, 1920 (page 3).

Here is the obituary in its entirety:

“WILLIAM J MOON

The funeral of the late William J. Moon was held from his residence at 222 West Third Street yesterday afternoon at 2 o’clock and was attended by a large gathering of friends of the pioneer. Samuel Thomas, chaplain of the B.P.O.E. order, presided over the services which were marked by the ringing of three duets by Miss Kate McCoy and Mrs. Frank E. Brown who were accompanied on the piano by Miss Anna McLeod. The hymns were “Beautiful Isle of Somewhere,” “I’m a Pilgrim” and the “Home of the Soul.” [Note: I absolutely love “Beautiful Isle of Somewhere].

The casket was covered completely with beautiful flowers and a bouquet by a surviving daughter, Mrs. G. H. Gordon, of California.William J. Moon was born in Missouri in 1868 and during the period of his young manhood came to Leadville where he has resided ever since. He entered the Elks lodge here as one of the charter members ad in the early days was interested in a great extent in mining. When the great Tabor Opera House was operating under the management of Judge A. S. Weston Mr. Moon became stage manager of the house and served in that capacity for a period of two years.

Mr. Moon is survived by his widow, Mrs. Nellie Moon, a daughter, Mrs. C. H. Gordon of San Francisco, a sister, Mrs. J. Olds, of Basalt.The pall bearers, all of whom were close friends of Mr. Moon and fellow members of the Elks lodge, of which he was a charter member, were S. B. Crosby, Gus Ouren, Joe Mann, Alva Bless, Erwin Lockhart and George Hartung. Interment was made in the family plot at Evergreen cemetery.”

To be continued…