Author: waszut_barrett@me.com

Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

Henry C. Tryon worked as the scenic artist at the Tabor Grand Opera House in Denver, Colorado, from approximately 1881-1883. Henry E. Burky also worked there by 1884. Tryon and Burcky were both Chicago artists who intially partnered together in 1881. They painted scenery for the Cincinnati Opera Festival.

In addition to this storyline about Burcky, I am also writing about life and career of Tryon in “Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar.” For Tryon, I am currently exploring his work in the 1870s. His timeline complements that of Burcky and provides context for the lesser-known scenic artist. And the main reason that Burcky entered the picture is because of his scenery for the Tabor Opera House and Tabor Grand Opera House.

Last month I documented a scenery collection at the Tabor Opera House in Leadville, Colorado. There was one jungle wing stored in the attic that caught my eye as it was signed, “W. J. Moon carpenter and H. E. Burpey [sic.] scenic artist, October 6, 1890.” This information provided a creator and manufacture date for the entire set of eight jungle wings. The “Herald Democrat” confirmed his stay in Leadville at the time, reporting his departure from Leadville for Denver. On October 16, 1890 the newspaper announcement reported,  “Mr. H. E. Burcky left last evening for Denver.”  Burcky was also listed in the 1890 Denver Directory, but only for that year.

As an itinerant artist Burcky appeared in many city directories, including the Chicago Directory (1875, 1877, 1885, 1887, 1889), as well as the Cincinnati Directory (1893, 1894, 1895, 1897, 1888, 1889, 1900) and the Camden, NJ, Directory (1905). Although Burcky began his career in Chicago, he worked as an itinerant artist at theaters across the country. In 1884, “Harry Miner’s Dramatic Directory” listed “Burkey” as the scenic artist for the Tabor Opera House in Leadville.  However, in the listing, he was noted as, “Burckey, scenic artists, Tabor Opera, Denver,” suggesting that he worked for both venues that year. The 1884 Denver directory also listed “Berky” as the scenic artist for the Academy of Music. Additionally, a scenic artist named “Burck” was credited in the same directory for the Masonic Temple in Louisville, Kentucky; likely Burcky, as theatrical directories are full of misspellings. In short, Burcky traveled to any place where he could secure work, crisscrossing the country by rail.

In 1888, Burcky was credited with scenery for “The New Karl. “ A comedy starring Charles A. Gardner, the Karl character was a peddlar. Gardner was advertised as a “great German comedian” who sang and danced. The “Wheeling Sunday Register” mentioned Burcky’s involvement with the production, reporting, “Scenic artist Burcky deserves credit for several new scenes which he painted for the play” (Wheeling Sunday Register, 19 Feb 1888, page 6). The following year Burcky painted scenery for another Karl production that played at Havlin’s Theatre (The Independent, 27 Aug 1889, page 4).

In 1888 Burcky settled in Cincinnati; well, as much as possible for an itinerant scenic artist at that time. On June 26, 1888, Burcky married Elizabeth “Lizzie” Smith. The following day, the “Cincinnati Enquirer” reported, “Henry Burcky and Lizzie Smith were married yesterday by Squire Hauser.” Louis Hauser was a justice of the Peace and this was not a first marriage for Lizzie. Here is where it gets a bit confusing. Lizzie’s maiden name was Clemmons. She married John J. Smith (b. 1850) in 1870; Smith worked as a janitor and there is no indication of a death, separation or divorce for the couple. In regard to Lizzie, some historical records list her birthplace as Pennsylvania and others Louisiana, but the year seems to remain consistent as 1853. While together, John and Lizzie Smith celebrated the birth of six children. Five of the six children included Charles (b. 1871), George Arthur (1875-1950), Thomas J. (1880-), Florence (m. Meehan, 1881-1964) and William Milton (1882-1914, m. Florence Holmes); one child possibly died in infancy. Lizzie and Henry Burcky celebrated the birth of a daughter in 1895. On Sept. 20, Marie “Alva” Burcky (1895-1969) was born in Hamilton, Ohio.

After Lizzie and Henry’s marriage in 1888, everyone was still living together. The youngest Smith child at the time took his step-father’s name and became William “Milton” Burcky. In 1889, the Chicago Directory listed “Henry E. Burcky, artist 254 Ogden Av.” Interestingly, he was also listed in the 1889 Lake City Directory: “Henry E. Burcky, scenic artist, r. 6611 Halsted, Englewood.” That same year his father Frederick Burcky and William E. Burcky were also listed in the Lakeside Director, each living at the same address as Burcky at 6611 Halsted. It is possible Henry forgot to notify the directory of his moved from Halsted to Ogden, or vice versa.

By 1890, Burcky was listed in the Denver Directory, suggesting that there was enough work to prompt a permanent address for a year. He is also absent from the Chicago and Cincinnati directories in 1890, 1891 and 1892. In 1892, Burcky is credited as painting scenery for Keene’s “Richard III” (“Saint Paul Globe,” 13 Nov. 1892, page 11).  “The Springfield Leader and Press” credited “the well-known scenic artist, Berkey,” as one of the artists for Keene’s touring Shakespearean productions that included “Richard III,” “Hamlet,” and “Othello” (4 Dec. 1892. Page 4).  

In 1893 and 1894, Burcky was living in Newport, Kentucky, with the Cincinnati Directory listing: “Henry E. Burcky, scenic artist, Walnut Street Theatre, res. Newport.” He remained employed Cincinnati’s Walnut Street Theatre throughout 1893 and 1894. In 1894, the Covington, (Kentucky) city directory listed “H. E. Burcky, scenic artist, h. 936 Putnam.” By the way, Covington is across the river from Cincinnati. It was in the mid 1890s that Burcky’s career hits some sort of snag.  He shifts from scenic art and works as a lithographer and paper hanger. In 1895, he is listed in the Cincinnati Directory as “Burcky, Henry E. lithographer, wks. 11 8^th nw Main.  In 1897, he is listed as “Burcky, Henry E., scenic artist, h. 330 E. 5^th”.  At this same time, he is listed as living at the same address as his step-sons Thos. J. Burcky and Geo. A. Burcky, both paperhangers too. By 1898, Burcky is again listed as a scenic artist, but still living with Thomas and George, each still employed as paper hangers. The listing was, “Burcky, Henry C., scenic artist, h. flat 7, 337 E. 5^th. The “C” becomes another issue in tracking down Burcky, as the cursive “E” was often misread as a “C.”

The 1900 US Federal Census listed Henry and Lizzie living with five of their children, as well as Mattie, their daughter-in-law. Mattie was the wife of Thomas. The theatrical business was a family affair, with both Henry and his stepson Milton (18 yrs. old) working as scenic artists. George (24 yrs.) and Thomas (19 yrs.) were paper hangers, and Charles (age 27) was a carpenter. Interestingly, in 1899 Charles Burcky was previously listed as a paperhanger in the Chicago Directory.

Of the children, it was George A. Smith (m. Julia Anna) who remained involved with the theatre in various roles, including theatre electrician. His obituary noted, “George A. Smith, for many years employed at the Cox and Schubert theaters as stagehand manager, died yesterday at Bethesda Hospital. He was 75 years old. Mr. Smith is survived by two sisters, Mrs. Florence Meehan and Mrs. Alva Tigue, both of Paterson, N.J.; a brother-in-law, William Mack, Cincinnati, and an aunt, Miss Dena Eckhart, 2344 Wheeler Ave., with whom he made his home. His wife, Julianna preceded him to a grave. Mr. Smith was a member of the Oolah Kan Grotto, the Stage Workers Club and Robert Burns Lodge, F. & A.M. Services will be held at 10:30 a.m. Wednesday at the Vitt and Sterner funeral home, Fairmont Burial will be in Spring Grove” (Cincinnati Enquirer, 9 Oct. 1950, page 12).

Shortly after the turn of the twentieth century, the Burcky family eventually moved east. By 1905, Henry Burcky was living in New Jersey, listed in the Camden Directory. Alva Burcky was baptized in New York on April 20, 1907 at St. Jerome’s Church, Bronx, New York City.  It remains unclear exactly when the family moved, or which members remained in the area after Henry’s passing in 1908. On February 21, 1908, Henry E. Burcky passed away in Manhattan, New York. Listed in the Episcopal Diocese of New York Church Records, he was buried at 377 3^rd Ave, Mt. Olivet on February 26, 1908. Interestingly, church records list his age as 60, conflicting with previous documents that suggest a birth year of 1852. I have yet to locate any obituary for Burcky, or memorial.  He seems to have passed in relative obscurity.

His daughter Alva ended up living in Manhattan by 1910. The US Federal Census listed that Thomas Smith was living in Manhattan with his wife Mattie, daughter Mildred, and “sister-in-law” Alva Burke. At the time Thomas was employed in a blacksmith shop as a “horseshoer.” It is difficult to track down much information about Alva, as she was listed by both first and middle name in historic records. Regardless, Alva married Patrick Tigue in 1918, listing her parents as Elizabeth Clemmons and Henry Burcky.

When Alva passed away in 1969, the obituary listed her mother as Elizabeth Williams Burcky, and not Elizabeth Clemmons Burcky. “Williams,” may simply have been a typo.

To be continued…

Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Rae Waszut-Barrett

Here is a double-painted flat from the nineteenth century; one side depicts a rocky mine setting (with diamond dust for silver veins) and the other side depicts a cloud setting (with gold paint outlining the clouds).

The rocky mine setting included three pieces, but only one was double painted with clouds. The other two flats were back painted with a garden scene and will be posted tomorrow. All of these pieces were created for the Tabor Opera House in Leadville, Colorado, ca. 1879-1890.When the Leadville Elks (BPOE) purchased the building and renovated the stage and auditorium (1901-1902), the original scenery was replaced with new; the older collection tucked away in the attic. In September 2020, I led a group of volunteers to document the attic scenery and lower many pieces to the stage floor. I have yet to identify the scenic artist for this particular piece.

For more information about historic scenery collections at Tabor Opera House in Leadville, Colorado, or the Tabor Grand Opera House in Denver, use the keyword search function and type in “Tabor.”

Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

The 1870 US Federal Census lists Anna Maria (Hammer) Hoornbeck as living in Chicago her sons Dell and Spencer in Chicago. At the time of the census, Henry B. Hornbeck, alias Henry C. Tryon, was likely traveling as an itinerant scenic artist. In 1870, Tryon was associated with Aitkin’s Museum in Chicago, but was also working in Michigan, and delivered new scenery for a theatre in Manistee, Michigan. There, he was listed as “late scenic artist of Aitkin’s Museum, Chicago, Ill.” (New York Clipper, 11 June 1870). The “New York Clipper” article reported, “Messrs. Ferris and Hensberger have fitted up a nice little theatre, which was formally opened on the 26^th., the bill of the play being “The Charcoal Burner” and “Thumping Legacy,” with C. W. Collins and Fanny Dempster in the principle characters, the latter being credited by a correspondent with being a gay and vivacious artist. “Octoroon” was played all last week. Besides the above, the company includes Mrs. J. R. Creed, J. W. Whitley, Harry Cotton, A. A. Armstrong and others, not forgetting Henry C. Tryon late scenic artist of Aitkin’s Museum, Chicago, Ill.”

By the fall of 1870 Tryon was listed as a scenic artist at D. R. Allen’s Globe Theater in Chicago. He was working with James. H. Rogers and John M. Kaufman. Of the Globe’s opening, the “New York Clipper” announced “Allen’s Globe Theatre, a new edifice, situated on what is termed the “west side” in Chicago, Ill., on Desplaines street, between Washington and Madison, is announced to be opened for the regular season this evening, Nov. 21^st… James Howard Rogers, John M. Kaufman and Henry C. Tryon, scenic artists” (26 November 1870).

As most other artists at this time, he established a permanent residence, or theatre, for correspondence and then traveled to outfit new venues with scenery. There was a significant amount of construction as railways expanded ever westward. Tryon found a substantial amount of work in Kansas, including Frazer’s Hall in Lawrence.

The Great Chicago Fire occurred from October 8 to 10, 1871, killing approximately 300 people, and destroying approximately 3.3 square miles of the city. 100,000 residents were left homeless. Miraculously, Allen’s Globe Theatre survived the destruction, so Tryon remained associated with the venue.

As the Windy City recovered, a group of scenic artists painted a large panorama of the horrific event – Alderson’s Great Panorama of the Chicago Fire. The piece immediately toured the country, accompanied with musical performances and descriptive recitations. While in San Francisco, California, an advertisement for Platt’s Music Hall described “3,700 feet of canvas from actual views and drawings by Henry C. Cross of the Academy of Design; J. Howard Rogers, scenic artist of McVicker’s Theatre; Henry O. Tryon, scenic artist of Wood’s Museum; Henry Dressel, scenic artist of the Globe Theatre, and Thomas Megann, scenic artist of Crosby’s Opera House” (Figaro, 31 July 1872, page 1).  Scenes described in the advertisement included: Chicago before the Fire; The Conflagration; Thousands of Houses in Flames; The scenes of the Old Cemetery; The Ruins; Views of Principal Streets; Public Buildings, Printing Offices, etc.; Ruins of Churches; Something About Mrs. O’Leary’s Cow; Music, Songs, Stories, Recitations; and Descriptive Lecture and Dramatic Ballad.

Tryon also worked as an assistant to Mr. R. H. Halley’s assistant, painting scenery for the Wyndam’s Comedy Co. in 1872 (Chicago Tribune, 5 May 1872, page 7). Tryon could not have picked a better individual to study with at this time; Halley had an excellent reputation and connections. On April 5, 1872, the “Chicago Tribune” reported, “R. H. Halley, the eminent English scenic artist, whose brush added so much to the attractive features of Crosby’s Opera House and the Dearborn Theatre, has just reached New York from Europe, and will soon visit Chicago. He will paint scenery for Myer’s Opera House, building on Monroe street, directly in the rear of McVicker’s Theatre” (page 5). By the fall, Halley was also credited for painting the new Aiken’s Theatre drop curtain and scenery, completing the project with C. Louis Malmsha.  A “Chicago Tribune” article noted that both artists were “schooled under the artistic Telbin, of London, and others, and reflect lustre on their names as men of merit and talent” (Chicago Tribune, 18 September 1872, page 4). Tryon later worked with Malmsha at Wood’s Theatres (Chicago and Cincinnati) and McVicker’s Theatre (Chicago), eventually writing a passionate tribute to Malmsha upon his passing (October 19, 1882).

Advertisements placed by Tryon in the “New York Clipper” during 1872 announced, “Henry C. Tryon, late scenic artist Woods’ Museum, Chicago is prepared to paint Scenes and drop curtains for theatres, public halls, &c. Address 363 West Indiana street, Chicago” (18, May 1872). Tryon would primarily advertise in the “New York Clipper” throughout the duration of his career.

Work over the next two years included new scenery for the renovated Academy of Music in Indianapolis, Indiana (Indianapolis News, 28 Jan. 1874, page 4). For the 1874 renovation, the newspaper noted, “In lieu of the advertising drop curtain, that has been sent to the rear of the stage,” Tryon painted “an original conception, representing the voyage of Lallah Rookh to the castle called Shalimar” (The Indianapolis, New, 30 Aug 1875, page 3).

In 1875 Tryon delivered new stock scenery for Grand Opera House, in Cincinnati, Ohio. An article in the “Cincinnati Daily Star” reported that the scenic department for the Grand Opera House was “in the hands of Charles Blackburn and Henry C. Tryon (4 Aug. 1875, page 4).

The second half of the decade would find Tryon establishing a partnership with Lemuel L. Graham. There will be more on that tomorrow.

To be continued…

Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

While doing some last-minute research on scenic artist Henry C. Tryon in the “New York Clipper,” the heading “Stage Machinery” caught my eye. Eureka! What makes this discovery so exciting that the 1877 stage was referred to as “an engine of motion.” The article suggests that the stage resembles “those great engine-houses which have iron galleries and flying bridges all round.”

Below is one of the most detailed descriptions of nineteenth century stage machinery that I have read to date, identifying the shift from wings, shutters and roll drops to fly scenery.

The article was published in the “New York Clipper” on January 6, 1877.  It provides a wonderful perspective during a time when fly drops began replacing shutters and roll drops. Here is the article in its entirety:

“STAGE MACHINERY .

A stage proves to be a very different thing from what the popular eye, gazing from pit or boxes , presumes it to be. A great arch , a sloping floor, pierced here and there with traps ; cellars below, regions above, grooves at each side, in which scenes glide forward or back; rollers stretching across, on which the “cloths” behind are rolled up—such is the popular ideal. But the stage of one of the “grand” houses offers a different spectacle . There is neither floor nor ceiling proper; but above there is a number of light galleries running round in tiers, while, instead of a floor or stage, properly so called , there is a vast expanse of open grating or cage-work, one below the other, the bars of which are parallel with the seats of a pit. The whole, therefore, is not “clear” from top to bottom, resembling one of those great engine-houses which have iron galleries and flying bridges all round. A large stage looks imposing enough from the boxes; but few, perhaps, are aware that below it, in a grand opera-bouse, there is a space of about the same height as the stage, and above more than twice that extent. Thus, the space devoted to performance is really no more than a seventh or eighth of a part of the unseen regions above, below and around it . The stage and the floors below (in a large theatre there are often four) thus appear like a series of gridirons , one beneath the other. This has been found a necessary arrangement, owing to the great scenes, stretching the whole width of the stage, that must ascend or descend, and have a clear passage. As these openings may be required at any part of the stage, the only mode is to make the entire stage an open frame covered with panels , which can be drawn away. A “trap” can thus be opened at any spot, as one of these panels containing the trap and its machinery can be inserted. Few persons are aware of what is the traditional and established engine of motion in all the great theatres , or how it is that in some ambitious transformation scene a huge iron frame, laden with fifty or sixty figures, can be raised aloft . The agency of windlasses and such mechanical powers would entail a vast expenditure of human strength, which, indeed, it would be found impossible to concentrate at a fixed point. The motive power behind the scenes is wonderfully simple, and even scientific, and has been in use without change for more than a century and a half. It consists in a permanent arrangement of great balance-weights always ready mounted, and with which the object to be raised can be readily connected. A child could raise a ton weight to a particular height if the cord passing over a pulley be balanced by another ton weight. Roof and basement, aloft and below, are filled with enormous rollers, each furnished with wheels something like that of a ship’s rudder. To these are attached a series of concentric drums, much like the cone-shaped wheel upon which a watch-chain is wound, for the purpose of allowing cords to be wound upon them. The balance-weights are hung ln grooves next the walls; while the cords attached to run them up to the root pass through pulleys and are then brought down to the drums, to which they are attached. When some slowly evolving transformation is in progress, to be crowned by the ascent of some glorified frame stretching the whole width of the stage, on which a number of ladies are bestowed, its ascent is thus contrived. The weight of the machine and its burden is roughly found; it is then attached to the counterpoises, the ropes in their course being made to pass over the drums of the windlass. The men who lower or raise it have therefore only a few pounds weight to deal with, and hence that smooth, even motion always to be seen in stage changes. In fact , the counterpoises, being slightly heavier, raise the machine itself, and have only to be controlled or checked by the men at the drum. So, too, is the heavy drop-scene made to ascend or descend, and with such motion that it can be made slow or rapid; so figures ascend through trap-doors . Even the great chandelier that lights the hall is thus balanced . —New Quarterly Magazine .

To be continued…

Here are some examples of nineteenth-century scenery created for the Tabor Opera House in Leadville, Colorado. When the Elks (BPOE) purchased the building and renovated the stage (1901-1902), the original scenery was replaced with new; the older collection tucked away in the attic. In September 2020, I led a group of volunteers to document the attic scenery and lower many pieces to the stage floor. There were three scenic pieces
depicting rocks for a mining setting, painted sometime between 1879 and 1890. I have yet to identify the scenic artist. Diamond dust was liberally sprinkled in the rock to simulate silver veins. Keep in mind that H. A. W. Tabor was known as the “Silver King.” For more information about scenery created for the Tabor Opera House in Leadville, Colorado, or the Tabor Grand Opera House in Denver, keyword search “Tabor.”

Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

Thomas G. Moses pasted an article about scenic artist, Henry C. Tryon, in his scrapbook. I first encountered the clipping as an undergraduate while creating an index of Moses’ diary and scrapbook; it was part of an independent study project with Lance Brockman. For quite some time I have looked for additional information about Tryon, never discovering much more information than was cited in the tattered old newspaper clipping. This week I discovered the reason; Tryon changed his name when he was twenty-five years old.

On September 19, 1872 Chicago’s “Inter Ocean” newspaper reported, “Petition of Henry B. Hornbeck. Petition to change above name to that of Henry C. Tryon. Petitioner is an artist, and has been known by the name Tryon among his friends and in business, and it is important that he should retain the name. A notice of his application for the above purpose, which has appeared for three weeks in the Legal News, is appended to the petition. Willett & Herrings, solicitors” (page 6). He had been working for some time with the stage name of Tryon, yet was still listed in city directories as Hoornbeck, and Hornbeck.

The 1870 Chicago Directory listed Henry Hoornbeck at 384 W. Lake. He was living with his mother and brothers, Dell and Spencer. As a scenic artist, he became associated with Allen’s Globe Theatre in Wood’s Theatre. Like other itinerant artists, by 1871 Tryon was painting scenery across the country. One of his projects included the stock scenery collection for Frazer’s Hall in Lawrence, Kansas. On February 25, 1871, the “New York Clipper” reported, “Frazer’s Hall, Lawrence, Kansas, has just been fitted up with an elegant and complete set of scenery, painted by Henry C. Tryon, of Chicago. Best hall in the city for any and all purposes.”

The 1872 Chicago Directory listed “Henry C. Tryon, scenic artist” residing at 128 W. Randolph. At the time, he was living with the sculptor Horatio Tryon (b. 1826) and Horation’s wife, Estella Tryon. It is unclear as to when Henry met the Tryons or the exact nature of their relationship was in 1872. However, the 1872 business section of the Chicago Directory listed both Horatio L. Tryon and Henry C. Tryon in the “Artists” section, each residing at 128 W. Randolph. In print, it looks like a father and son partnership.  Six years later, Henry was still boarding with the Tryons, now residing at 198 W. Lake Street. Interestingly, a William P. Tryon was part of the household, also boarding at the same place. Keep in mind that William Patterson Hornbeck was a brother of Henry B. Hornbeck. Henry’s younger brother, Spencer Hornbeck, also adopted the name Spencer Tryon while working with his brother out west a decade later.

In 1883, “The Salt Lake City Herald” credited a scene painted by Mr. W. C. Morris and Mr. Spencer Tryon, elaborating,  “Mr. Spencer Tryon is a brother and pupil of Henry C. Tryon, the artist of the Salt Lake Theatre. He is very talented, and although scarcely more than a boy in years, has produced some very fine work here and at the Tabor Grand Opera House, Denver” (30 June 1883, page 8). Again, all roads lead back to the Tabor in this story. In addition to Henry C. Tryon and Henry E. Burkcy, Spencer Tryon was also painting scenery for the Tabor Grand in Denver.

In regard to the Hoornbeck’s adopted family, Horatio Tryon was an artist and sculptor. He made a name for himself in the East before moving to Chicago, working in New York during the 1850s. The 1857 New York Directory listed, “Tryon, Horatio, marble, h. 270 W. 31^st .”

By 1863, Horatio Tryon’s Civil War Draft Registration listed him working as a sculptor in New Haven, Connecticut. Shortly after registering for the draft, Tryon relocated to Chicago, soon being listed in the 1864 directory at 221 Washington. Horatio Tryon remained in Chicago for the remainder of his life, passing away in the late 1870s. By 1878 Estella Tryon was listed as a widow by 1878, but again, still living with Henry C. Tryon.

HenryB. Hoornbeck not only created a new name, but also a new birthplace and background story.  Years later, the article about Tryon pasted in Thomas G. Moses’ scrapbook provided the following information:

“Henry C. Tryon. Born in Chicago in 1847.  After graduating from the public schools, and while o his 17^th year, he enlisted in the army in a regiment attached to the Second Army Corps, Army of the Potomac, serving until the close of the war. Afterward was a pupil of the Pennsylvania Academy of Design, with the purpose of becoming a landscape painter, drifting there by choice and mostly by accident into scene painting, which he has practiced in nearly every State in the Union. Was an artist at Wood’s Museum at the time of the great fire, and afterward at McVicker’s Theater. He is better known in all the other large cities than in Chicago. Has been a pupil of the eminent artists William Hart, N.A. and Thomas Moran, N. A. and accepted an associate member of the Chicago Academy in 1874. He earned a 2^nd degree and is a member of the Grand Army of the Republic. He had a large and varied practical experience, is a close student, has a fine education, and has given considerable attention to newspaper writing on art and theatrical subjects. His most noticeable points of excellence and perhaps free and carefulness in the handling of foliage brilliancy and quality of color and the delightful shape of them.”

Here is the history for Henry B. Hornbeck (Hoornbeck) that I have uncovered to date: Henry was born in Huron, Ohio, the son of Jacob Hoornbeck (1813-1864) and Anna Maria Hammer Hoornbeck (1824-1892). In 1850, the family was living in Portland, Ohio. Henry’s siblings included William Patterson (1848-1907), Mary (1851-1854), Sarah (1854-1858), Dell (1855-?), and Spencer (1863-?). In some historical records, Henry C. Tryon, was listed as Spencer’s father; possible with the sixteen years age spread. The patriarch of the family, Jacob Hoornbeck, passed away in 1864. At some point during the 1860s, the Hornbeck family moved to New York.It remains unclear what prompted the move.

Civil War Muster Roll Abstracts list a Henry B. Hornbeck, enlisted in New York on February 16, 1865 and mustered as a private in the 69^th Infantry on that same date. He was reportedly 19 yrs. old at the time, with his birth year noted as 1846. Military records list his occupation as a clerk, describing Henry as 5’-3 ¼” with light hair, blue eyes and a fair complexion.

In Chicago, the earliest mention of a Henry C. Tryon in the newspapers appears in 1868. That year a “Henry C. Tryon” was listed as playing the role of “page” in “Elizabeth,” starring Mrs. Lander (Jean Davenport) at the opera house (“Chicago Tribune,” 11 Feb., 1868, page 4). Two years later, Tryon was listed as one of the scenic artists for Allen’s Globe Theater in Chicago. He was also painting for Wood’s Museum, working there up until the great fire of 1871. As most other artists at this time, Tryon was worked as an itinerant artist, especially in the west. During the winter of 1870, Tryon found additional work in Lawrence, Kansas. The “Daily Kansas Tribune” reported, “Mr. Henry C. Tryon, from Allen’s Globe Theater, Chicago, is at present painting the scenery for the stage in Frazer’s Hall” (The Daily Kansas Tribune, 28 Dec. 1870, page 3). The installation consisted of “drop curtain, seven sceneries, tormentor wings and front drapery, representing a garden, palace, landscape, kitchen, prison, parlor, plain chamber and street, with wings and borders complete.

He also worked in Topeka, Kansas, that year. On January 31, 1871, the  “Kansas State Record” reported, “Mr. H. C. Tryon, the scenic artist from Chicago will commence painting scenery for “Esther,” to-day. Look out for something beautiful. Mr. Tryon is one of the finest artists in the West” (Topeka, Kansas, page 4).

1872 advertisements in the “New York Clipper” announced, “Henry C. Tryon. Late Scenic artist Woods Museum, Chicago is prepared to paint scenes and drop curtains for theaters, public halls, etc. 363 W. Indiana St. Chicago, Illinois” (13 April 1872, page 20). By summer of 1872,  advertisements about Tryon still appeared in the “New York Clipper,” but with a new address – 210 Clark Street.

To be continued…

In 1884, scenic artist Henry C. Tryon (1847-1892) wrote: “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… The same set pieces have done versatile duty in most of the theatres here for years.”

Here is an example of what Tryon was talking about. A previous door flat was flipped on its side and repurposed for a garden scene, despite the door. I have also included some remaining pieces of the scene as it no longer exists in its entirety. The repainted door flat was again repurposed for the wall of a shack.

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…