Drypigment.net

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 390 – Clarkston Frederick Stanfield and his Moving Dioramas

Part 390: Clarkston Frederick Stanfield and his Moving Dioramas

The Grieve family’s scenic work for Covent Garden was considered to be exceptional due to their use of transparent glazes, a technique first developed by John Henderson Greive. The Grieve family of scenic artists remained at the top of their profession utilizing this technique until others were able to emulate it, and improve upon it; Clarkston Frederick Stanfield (1793-1878) and David Roberts, R. A. (1796-1864) were two such scenic artsts. Stanfield and Roberts entered the scenic art picture in 1822 when they first started working at the Drury Lane Theatre. It was Stanfield, however, who would introduce movement to the wonderful scenic illusions at the Drury Lane. Roberts was a fine architectural draftsman and scenic artist draughtsman, by the spectacles produced by Stanfield surpassed both Roberts and the Grieves family triumvirate.

By 1823, Stanfield was in the lead at the Drury Lane, creating a succession of ‘moving dioramas.’ In this context, diorama does not refer to the current understanding of a partially three-dimensional painted scene, but a theatre device. Moving dioramas became features of Stanfield’s English Christmas pantomimes during the 1820s. Stanfield’s moving dioramas (what we now may term moving panoramas) were introduced into each of his successive pantomimes; they were considered artistic triumphs and fueled the competition with other scenic artists such as Roberts.

In 1871, E. L. Blanchard wrote that Stanfield “first distinguished himself at Drury Lane by the scenic effects with which he illustrated the opera Der Freyschutz, produced on that stage in 1824.” From that time he remained the chief of the Drury Lane painting-room while Roberts joined the Covent Garden team. Some of Stanfield’s earliest scenes of this kind were in “Harlequin and the Flying Chest,” and his Crystal Grotto in” Harlequin and the Talking Bird” Blanchard reported that they “created a marked sensation” (“Scenery and Scene-Painters” by The Era Almanack, 1871). Pantomimes, or Pantos, appealed to audiences not only for their favorite actors, but also for the processions, tableaux, staged spectacles, and transformation scenes. Stanfield’s moving panorama were enhanced by the use of two moving panoramas that moved simultaneously.

One moving diorama was rolled between two cylinders on the stage. Certain sections were transparent and backlit to suggest the effect of sunrise, sunset, illuminated windows, fire, or other effects. Stanfield’s use of two canvases, one placed in front of the other allowed additional elements to enhance the three-dimensional effect and potential for visual spectacle. The downstage canvas had cut out sections revealing the upstage composition and placing additional elements in the scene. Between the two canvases, profile pieces moved; one example is a sea ship. Stage machinery and the new medium of gas lighting greatly enhanced the painted illusion. Stanfield’s design for “Zoraster” at Drury Lane incorporated a moving diorama that measured 482 feet long.

By 1825, Stanfield produced the great panoramic display titled “Naumetaboia” for a Jack of all Trades (Christmas, 1825), showing the adventures of a man-of-war, from the launch at Dover, its encounter with a gale, the wreck, and the towing into a foreign port. That December, “The Times” theatre review predicted that both Stanfield and Roberts would ‘become highly eminent as contributors to those institutions which have been established for the encouragement of painting in this country’.

Other notable productions mentioned by Blanchard included the 1826 Man in the Moon, that further supported his excellence as a marine painter, with two remarkable scenes called “England’s Pride” and “England’s Glory.” In 1827, Stanfield painted a “fine reputation of Portsmouth in a Gale of Wind for Harlequin and Cock Robin. In 1828, Stanfield painted a moving diorama for Harlequin and the Queen Bee.

Playbill for “The Queen Bee,” listing the scenic effects painted by Clarkston Frederick Stanfield

Playbill for “The Queen Bee,” listing the new moving diorama painted by Clarkston Frederick Stanfield

The audience was taken on a sea voyage from “Spithead at Sunrise,” past the entrance to Portsmouth Harbour, the Dockyard, Gosport, Mother Bank, Isle of Wight with the Royal Yacht Club, Cowes Regatta, the Needles by Moonlight, the Ocean, the Rock of Gibraltar and ending with a “Grand View of Constantinople.”

Roberts was famous for his dioramas, but never produced works which equaled Stanfield’s, such as “the moving diorama of Alpine scenery, or the memorable views of Windsor and the neighbourhood, which included the sparkling tableau of Virginia water, wherein the real element was so effectively introduced” (The Era Almanack, 1871, page 37). Stanfield introduced unbelievably realistic elements on the stage that were supported by the new gaslight. Roberts left the Drury Lane to join the Grieve family triumvirate of John, Thomas and William Grieve at the Covent Garden Theatre by 1828.

Stanfield’s 1829 pantomime Jack in the Box was distinguished by his diorama depicting the pass of the Simplon, the Valley of the Rhone, Domo D’Ossola, and Lago Maggiore, with the Boromean Islands. An exceptional scene in 1831 was reported to be his diorama of Venice for Harlequin and Little Thumb. The following year he created a magnificent painting of the Falls of Niagara, as seen from the approach to Buffalo on Lake Erie, and the Horse Shoe and Great American fall from Goat Island for Harlequin Traveller.

Stanfield’s painting for the 1833 Christmas equestrian spectacle, St. George and the Dragon was “rendered remarkable by his Egyptian diorama, commencing with the great cataracts and showing the ascent of a pyramid.” The next year he depicted Penrith and Carlisle “in the days of yore” for King Arthur; reviews reported on his “admirable scenery.”

In 1837, Macready became lessee of Covent Garden, and produced the pantomime of Peeping Tom of Coventry, for which Stanfield painted a diorama comprising a series of views in the north of Italy, Savoy, the Alps, and through “French Flanders” to the sea. A special paragraph in the play-bill recorded how the distinguished artist had, “as a sacrifice and in the kindest and most liberal manner, quitted for a short time his easel in order to present the Manager with his last work in that department of the art he has so conspicuously advanced to mark his interest in the success of the cause this Theatre labours to support.”

Two years later, Stanfield created the scenery for the revival of Henry the Fifth, including panoramic illustrations of the Storming of Harfleur, the Battle of Aginciurt, and a view of Southhampton with the departure of the Fleet. Stanfield also furnished the exquisite Sicilian views, illustrative of Acis and galatea, that would become the artist’s last “labours for the stage.”

The Grieve family’s contribution to scenic art in England was the pictorial landscapes gracefully worked up with a series of glazes. Stanfield brought the movement and excitement when he set these beautiful painted settings in motion.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 389 – Clarkston Frederick Stanfield

Part 389: Clarkston Frederick Stanfield

In 1889 W. J. Lawrence listed some prominent English scene painting families – the Greenwoods, Grieves, Stanfields, Callcotts, Dansons, Fentons, Gordons, and Telbins. This installment looks at the Stanfields (The Theatre Magazine, July 13, 1889).

Clarkston Frederick Stanfield was the youngest of five children born to James Stanfield and Mary Hoad. He is sometimes erroneously referred to as William Clarkston Stanfield. Like other scenic artists, he came from a theatrical family. Stanfield was born in Sunderland, County Durham, above a shop that was located at the intersection of Playhouse Lane (later known as Drury Lane) and Sunderland High Street. Behind their building was the local theatre.

His father was a merchant seaman who later became a provincial actor, traveling and playing in a variety of performance venues that included theatres, barns, and at race meetings. His appeared on stages from Edinburgh to Scarborough. Some suggest that that Clarkston was encouraged to try his hand at scene painting for his father’s shows, others suggested that it was his mother who encouraged his earliest artworks for the stage. While on the road with his father, he also performed in minor children’s roles. W. J Lawrence included an interesting tidbit in his 1889 article: “Very few people nowadays seem to have any knowledge of the fact that Clarkston Stanfield’s father was not only a capital scenic artist, but a man with some pretensions to literary fame. From his fluent pen came the popular Freemason’s song, “Friendship and Love.” That will be a tidbit tucked away for a future post!

Stanfield’s mother was both an actress and artist. She not only taught painting, but also published a children’s book. She passed away in 1801, when Clarkston was only eight years old. Soon after her death, his father remarried a much younger woman – one who had been his ward. The subsequent arrival of several additional children from the union are often attributed to the “farming out” of the older children for various trade apprenticeships. In 1806, Clarkston became apprenticed to a heraldic painter in Edinburgh. His mentor specialized in the decorative painting of coaches. This apprenticeship lasted approximately two years, until the living and working situation became unbearable for Clarkston. He ran away at the age of fifteen and left for sea on a merchant ship, later becoming pressed into service for the navy by the age of 19. Even on the seas, Stanfield continued to paint. Whether he worked on a small projects assigned by his captain or backings for amateur theatrics on board ship, he continued to hone his artistic skills while at sea. At one point he was even sent ashore to do some painting for an admiral’s ballroom.

Stanfield was discharged from the navy after an accident left him unfit to remain in service; this provided him with the opportunity to re-enter the theatre profession. From his father, he possessed many of the necessary contacts to obtain his first work at the East London Theatre (formerly the Royalty Theatre) in Wellclose Square. Although he did not have the benefit of a scenic art apprenticeship, his career soon flourished in both London and Edinburgh after he proved his worth.

It was rough in the beginning, as his colleagues often forced him to work apart – even banning access to the Scene Painting room where he could warm his size-kettle. However, Stanfield’s talent was recognized and he gradually earned the acceptance of his fellow artists. By 1817 he was earning a salary of £3 a week as a principal artist and had acquired an apprentice of his own – Robert Jones. Stanfield was well respected for the speed at which he painted, his endurance, and the quality of his work. To gain additional funds during this time, he continued to work as a decorative painter in the area.

His specialty was maritime scenes and soon met who would become his lifelong friend and fellow artist, David Roberts, R. A. (1796-1864). By 1822, both were both working as scenic artists for the Drury Lane theatre, a venue lit with the new medium of gas lighting.

An article in “The Times” (Dec. 28, 1828) commented on the stunning transformation of the painted settings and Stanfield’s contribution to Drury Lane. The article also mentioned that the prior to Stanfield’s arrival depicted “water as opaque as the surrounding rocks, and clouds;” it was “not a bit transparent.” Stanfield was credited with bringing “a knowledge of light and shade which enabled him to give his scenes great transparency.” In other words, Stanfield was employing the glazing technique as introduced by John Henderson Grieve during the first decade of the eighteenth century. Stanfield had figured out how to replicate the Grieve technique.

Stanfield married twice. His first marriage was to Mary Hutchinson in 1818, producing two children. Sadly, the marriage only lasted until 1821, when Mary died only a month after the birth of their second child. He remarried three years later, taking Rebecca Adcock as his second wife in 1824 and the couple had ten children; his second son, George Stanfield, followed in his father’s footsteps as an artist.

It was reported that the loss of his good friend Roberts in 1864 greatly affected the remainder of Stanfield’s life and his ten years were spent in poor health with rheumatism and a bad leg. He was housebound for long periods of time and unable to work. Stanfield passed away on May 18, 1867, at the age of 73.

To be continued…

There is an extremely well-written article on Stanfield by Dr. Peter van der Merwe, MBE, DL, General Editor and Greenwich Curator, Royal Museums Greenwich. Here is the link to his article: http://www.victorianweb.org/painting/stanfield/biography.html#5

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 388 – The Grieve Family

Part 388: The Grieve Family

The Grieves were a family of scene painters who worked at various London theatres during the late-eighteenth through nineteenth century, producing theatre scenery, spectacles and pantomimes. The Grieves had long been famous for the “brilliancy of their style” and the “strong feeling of reality that they communicated to the spectator.” In 1866, the Era reported, “in the taste and artistic beauty of their landscape compositions, they have since had few rivals, and have never been excelled. The Covent Garden Pantomime of ‘Aladdin’ honored Thomas Grieve. The last scene of The ‘Master of Ravenswood,’ at the Lyceum, with the storm effects introduced, was cited as a credit to Grieve’s powers (Gossip About Scenery and Scene Painters from “The Era” 4 February 1866).

The Era Almanack, 1871, reported, “The Grieves had long been famous for their Pantomime scenery, and in the brilliancy of their style, the strong feeling of reality which they communicated to the spectator, and in the taste and artistic beauty of their landscape compositions, they have since had few rivals and never been excelled” (“Scenery and Scene-Painters” by E. L. Blanchard, page 37).

John Henderson Grieve (1770-1845) was the patriarch of the family whose scenic art was primarily associated with Covent Garden. Of Scottish origin, J. H. Grieve was both a painter and draughtsman, born in 1770. Early on in his career, he moved from Perth to work as a scene-painter in the smaller London theatres. By 1794, he was employed by Richard Brinsley Sheridan at Drury Lane. By 1817 he was the lead scenic artist working for the Covent Garden. He remained there throughout the duration of his career, with the exception of extended two absences from 1835-1839 and 1843-1845.

John Henderson Grieve from “Grieve Family Collection of Theatre Designs” at the Senate House Library Archives, University of London. https://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/search/archives/3b0cd6e4-22b9-3af4-aa6c-18adba974cc5

John’s two sons were Thomas (1799-1882) and William (1800-1844), each began their scenic art careers at the Covent Garden Theatre, both training and working for their father. The three remained painting together anformed the famous scenic triumvirate at Covent Garden. Thomas was later assisted by his own son, Thomas Walford Grieve (1841-1882), and together they were credited with contributing to the development of scenic art from romanticism to realism. In 1871, the Era Almanack reported, “To Mr. T. Grieve, and his son Mr. Walford Grieve, the modern stage has been largely indebted. Several drop scenes for the late Theatre known as Her Majesty’s, though coloured by the later William Grieve, were drawn by Pugin, the great restorer of ecclesiastical Gothic

Thomas Grieve from “Grieve Family Collection of Theatre Designs” at the Senate House Library Archives, University of London. https://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/search/archives/3b0cd6e4-22b9-3af4-aa6c-18adba974cc5

Thomas was particularly known for his work on Shakespearean revivals. Born in 1799, he began working with his father at Covent Garden by the age of 18. When Mr. and Mrs. Charles Mathews became the lessees in 1839, Thomas Grieve was chosen as the principal scenic artist, painting the scenery that accompanied their Christmas pantomimes. After his father’s death, he continued working at Covent Garden, but also painted for the Drury Lane, and at Her Majesty’s Theatre. He was one of the leading artists who supplied Charles Keen with scenery during his time at the Princess’ Theatre, Oxford Street, from 1850 to 1859.

In addition to working for his father, Thomas Grieve worked with the artists who created exhibits for panorama halls. He worked in conjunction with William Telbin and John Absolon to create a panorama depicting the campaigns of Wellington, the Crimean War, Ocean Mail, and Arctic Regions. Like his father, Thomas’ style was known for its brilliancy and realism. His landscape compositions were considered to reign at the top of his profession, and he worked until his passing in 1862. He married Elizabeth, daughter of Robert Goatley of Newbury, by whom he had two children, Thomas Walford Grieve and Fanny Elizabeth “Bessie” Grieve. Thomas Walford, began working with his father in 1862. He also painted for the Covent Garden and the Lyceum, working, for many years under the title “Grieve and Son.”

Thomas Walford Grieve from “Grieve Family Collection of Theatre Designs” at the Senate House Library Archives, University of London. https://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/search/archives/3b0cd6e4-22b9-3af4-aa6c-18adba974cc5

Thomas Walford Grieve, Aged 11 by Alfred Corbould, from the Paintings Collection; http://www.artuk.org/artworks/thomas-walford-grieve-aged-11-31333

John H. Grieve’s younger son, William, was born followed the same career course as brother, and made his debut as a scenic artist at the King’s Theatre (later known as Her Majesty’s Theatre). He remained in the venue as a scenic artist stayed until his early passing in 1844, leaving a large family. William was well respected and primarily known for his transformation scenes, especially his moonlight effects. He was reputed to be the first scenic artist called before the curtain to receive the applause of the audience for his contribution to Robert le Diable at the King’s Theatre in 1832.

The three generations of Grieves were credited with not only the introduction of the glazing technique, but also as leading the transition from romanticism to realism in painting for the stage.

To be continued…

There is the “Grieve Family Collection of Theatre Designs” at the Senate House Library Archives, University of London. It is comprised of 655 original scene designs and three folders of slides that include panoramas and watercolor ‘cut-outs’ (profile pieces) by members of the Grieve family. The compositions depict various revival productions of Shakespeare plays, along with works by Isaac Pocock, M.R.Lacy, Thomas Otway, Michael Costa, Samuel Beazley, Douglas Jerrold, G.Meyerbeer, Charles A.Somerset, Edward Fitzball, Rossini and others that were staged at the Theatre Royal (Drury Lane), the Theatre Royal (Covent Garden) and Her Majesty’s Theatre, 1813-1857). Here is the ink: https://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/search/archives/3b0cd6e4-22b9-3af4-aa6c-18adba974cc5

Planes, Trains and Automobiles

I am still in transit to teach historical scene painting techniques at Cobalt Studios today. The long journey started yesterday afternoon. Between the Minnesota snow storm, the torrential rains in Newark and the ice storms near Cobalt, I am still in transit. I’ll return to my blog Friday, April 20, 2018.

Here is a link to this fantastic scene painting school: http://www.cobaltstudios.net/

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 387 – Trade Secrets, or the Initiation into the Mysteries of Size and Whitewash

Part 387: Trade Secrets, or the Initiation into the Mysteries of Size and Whitewash

In 1889 W. J. Lawrence commented on the English scenic artists’ contribution to the theatre (The Theatre Magazine, July 13, 1889). He detailed the evolution of “the old odor of disreputability” associated with scenic art in the 1830s, noting the condescending characterization of “daubing,” “white washing,” and “paper-hanging.” He briefly mentions the contributions of Clarkston Frederick Stanfield (1793-1867), David Roberts (1796-1864), William Leighton Leitch (1804-1883), and Joseph William Allen (1803-1852). However, he holds up William Roxby Beverly (1810-1889) as being “the first great scenic artist who knew how to uphold the dignity of the profession,” later describing those who were “initiated into the mysteries of size and whitewash” while acknowledging that most abandoned the paint frame for the easel. Lawrence quotes Chaucer in regard to the scene painting profession, “The lyfe so short, the craft to long to lerne.”

Lawrence goes on to explain that most notable English scenic artists originated from a long lineage of scene-painting families, “so habituated to the scene-loft from their youth upward.” Prominent among these scene painting families were the Greenwoods, Grieves, Stanfields, Callcotts, Dansons, Fentons, Gordons, and Telbins.” Lawrence wrote, “It comes somewhat as a reversal of the usual order of things to find a son beating his father at his own game, and completely effacing his identity by dint of superior genius.” This is a significant statement as it suggests that every generation improved upon the foundations of the previous one, as one would hope in the world of art. Lawrence also credits many of the English scenic artists as possessing a variety of other theatrical skills. He refers to Stanfield’s father as one specific example:

“Very few people nowadays seem to have any knowledge of the fact that Clarkston Stanfield’s father was not only a capital scenic artist, but a man with some pretensions to literary fame. From his fluent pen came the popular Freemason’s song, “Friendship and Love.”

This really accompanies his use of the “initiation into the mysteries of size and whitewash.” I immediately thought back to the 1881 Minneapolis newspaper article that mentioned Charles S. King and his being “initiated into some of the mysteries of stage mechanism.” Any initiation into a special group was founded on the keeping of secrets. In the case of scenic artists and stage machinists, it was the continued practice of innovating techniques that were kept secret from their competitors.

There were scene-painting families that functioned in the similar manner to that of earlier guilds. These groups of artisans closely safeguarded their painting techniques, as these were trade secrets and set them apart from the rest of their colleagues; not all scenic artists were cut from the same cloth, and some were simply better than others. Some also had taken years to master techniques that they would never hand off to a competitor. They expected any new apprentice to slowly acquire an understanding of a skill, as there were no shortcuts, or fast tracks, to becoming a master scene painter.

In London, as well as other places, the “scene-painting fraternity” practiced the ‘exclusive’ system or a closed shop, barring those who had not gone through an apprenticeship. Again, not everyone had the talent, connections, or training to make the cut. The apprenticeship system monetized on a specific artistic approach, as this was a direct attribution to their success, especially when it involved new techniques or technology.

A print depicting some merchant guild emblems.

I think about the Mosaic families in the East and how each group specialized in a unique Mosaic pattern that was passed down from father to son, or master to entered apprentice. I also think back to the cathedral builders and the close kept secrets of masonry and construction techniques. Operative masonry had a specific body of knowledge safeguarded by individual, lodges, masters, passwords and grips to identify a member of their group prior to entry in any meeting. Guilds were never intended as a free resource for inspiring artists, or any artisan who happened to pass along. The function of a guild was not to share resources, but to maintain a standard, adding skills for those who only helped your group surpass the competition. Competitors would attempt to replicate techniques, but it was unlikely that they would ever access the original formula; leaving them to create only poor imitations of the originals. Think of the generic version for a prescription medication. Almost the same, but not quite.

So, lets get back to the introduction of English glazing and its use abroad. The technique in scenic art is credited to a member of the Grieves, a well-known scene painting family in England. This is what set the Grieves apart at the Covent Garden Theatre. They established a new trade technique within their family, that brought them to the top of their profession as noted by Lawrence in 1889. In approximately 1810, John Henderson Grieve was credited with revolutionizing the “ordinary methods of scene painting” by introducing a glaze in lieu of solid colors. He is using a series of translucent layers to create a vibrant depth to the overall composition and it was an instantaneous success with the public. Grieve’s son William, also used the family practice of glazing, and eventually was recognized as the first English scene painter to whom the public paid tribute with a “call” before the curtain in 1832. This scene painting technique was eventually replicated and employed as the accepted technique by English scenic artists by the mid-nineteenth century.

So who were the other families who contributed to English scenic art tradition and eventually beat the Grieves at their own game? Tomorrow, we will start with the background on the Grieves and move to the other families.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 386 – For the times they are a-changin’

Part 386: For the times they are a-changin’

“Come gather ’round people
wherever you roam,
and admit that the waters
around you have grown,
and accept it that soon
you’ll be drenched to the bone.
If your time to you is worth savin’
then you better start swimmin’
or you’ll sink like a stone.
For the times they are a-changin’.”

Yesterday I quoted an author who used the term “patent medicine scenery.” He was referring to the painted product produced by scenic studios such as Sosman & Landis. The author went on to describe that studio drops were “produced almost entirely by mechanical means,” meaning a very specific formulaic approach to color application. During the late-nineteenth century, Chicago was a major manufacturing center for theatrical goods and Sosman & Landis Studio dominated the market. Their work was received with rave reviews and their marketing techniques remained unequalled. Soman & Landis represented the American school of scenic art that employed solid colors in an opaque manner. Their painted compositions were worked up from dark to light. At this time in America, there was a rivalry between two schools of scenic art. Scenic artists working along the eastern seaboard had a tendency to employ the English technique of glazing. Midwestern artists used a much more opaque application of colors.

Original 1890s Scottish Rite scene for the Little Rock Scottish Rite by Sosman & Landis Studio. The backdrop was enlarged in 1902 and later resold to the Pasadena Scottish Rite in the 1920s.

Detail from same Little Rock scene depicting the brevity during paint application, hence the term “slapdash.”

The minimal use of highlights on a dark background is very realsitic when viewed from a distance. It allows the eye to fill in the missing information. It is the dramatic separation of colors that allows this type of painting to work exceptionally well for the theatre.

Detail from same scene that shows the rapid speed of the artist when painting the composition. Under the red tassel there are drips left from the “slapdash” method of marble painting.

The application of light dark on paint that is stunning from a distance, yet the technique “falls apart” upon close inspection.

Detail of backdrop that shows the rapid rate of the artist’s speed.

Thomas G. Moses gives us some insight into the rapid growth of Sosman & Landis and their techniques to quickly turn out scenery installations, describing that when he started with the company in 1880 he was always on the road. He and Sosman traveled a great deal in the beginning, rapidly filling orders immediately after Landis secured the work. It would take six months before Moses even meet Landis, as the company salesman was constantly crossing the country to drum up work. They had a great marketing formula – a salesman on the road with a crew who followed and completed the orders. Work was nonstop for the company.

At first, Moses was employed for a weekly rate of $18, knowing that he could make between $35.00 to $45.00 per week at other theaters. This situation directly contributed to the overall growth and success of Sosman & Landis; it meant that they were hiring an employee at half any competitor’s rate and maintaining a higher profit margin that would allow the company to remain solvent. This also enabled the studio to keep Landis on the road, securing even more work. Of their painting, Moses wrote, “My work might not have been as artistic as some I saw in the theatres, but it pleased the people who paid for it.” He was referring to the rapid painting technique employed by the Sosman & Landis studio and the application solid colors? Keep in mind that the “slapdash” technique mentioned in regard to the Sosman & Landis studio was still very effective from a distance, and that was all anyone really needed to make a sale.

The times were certainly changing for theatre manufacturers and supply companies during the second half of the nineteenth century. Product needed to be quickly produced and reach the appropriate venue. As W. J. Lawrence wrote in 1889 “it is not unusual for these firms to receive an order by telegraph in the morning for a scene…which will be completed dried, and sent on its way to the purchaser before nightfall” (The Theatre, July 13, 1889, page 371-374). This was a time when the Midwestern region of the United States was experiencing a period of unprecedented growth. The scenic artists and their solid colors were currently winning, but their success would not last.

“Come writers and critics
who prophesize with your pen,
and keep your eyes wide
the chance won’t come again.
And don’t speak too soon
for the wheel’s still in spin,
and there’s no tellin’ who
that it’s namin’.
For the loser now
will be later to win
for the times they are a-changin’. ”

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 385 – Sosman & Landis – “Working Slapdash Fashion”

Part 385: Sosman & Landis – “Working Slapdash Fashion”

In 1889 W. J. Lawrence suggested that the English school of scenic art in America was superior when he wrote the article “Scenery and Scenic Artists” for “The Gentleman’s Magazine.” It was republished in “The Theatre” (July 13, 1889, page 371-374). Lawrence wrote, “Not only are English scene painters, at the present day, unrivalled in the several departments of their art, but instances are not wanting to show that they have improved the technique and carried their reformation into other countries.” The “improved technique” was the practice of glazing that had replaced the application of the European technique solid colors on backdrops in some schools, but not all American scenic artists adopted the glazing technique.

Two years later, the American scenic artist Arthur Palmer suggested that the English school of scenic art in America was far superior to that from any other country, writing, “English scenic artists as a class possess a breadth and freedom of style that are unequaled by those of any other nationality. These qualities, which are the highest excellences in scene painting, are especially noticeable in their landscapes, which are simply unapproachable, possessing, as they do at once a beauty, a realism and a fidelity to nature which we look for in vain in the work of the scenic artists of any other land” (“The Morning Call,” San Francisco, CA, 22 February 1891, page 13).

Palmer’s and Lawrence’s comments are part of the growing evidence that suggests there was the not only the development of two distinct schools of scenic art in America, but also the competition between the schools. There were those who were adhered to the English school of glazing and those who adhered to the Central European tradition of solid colors, and “never the twain shall meet.” By the late nineteenth century, the Central European school was the predominant one in the Midwestern United States, and subsequently, driving the market. By the 1890s, Chicago was major theatrical manufacturing center, remaining steeped in the European traditions of solids colors. When considering the thousands of backdrops produced by Midwestern scenic artists, it is apparent that they were guiding the accepted aesthetic in the region by sheer volume. If you also consider the influx of immigrants from Europe and Scandinavia to the Midwest at this time, there is a further support of the European painting traditions. Remember that in 1885, twenty of Europe’s top panorama artists were brought to the Milwaukee to work for the American Panorama Company (see installments #276-281). Many scenic artists would work as both theatre artists and panorama artists during the late-nineteenth century. This migration also points to the development of large studios that employed dozens of artists, all needing to worked together and share a similar approach.

In Lawrence’s article, he also commented about the work of scenic studios, and he was not complimentary about the rapidity of their process or the final product. The last section of Lawrence’s article specifically addresses the hundreds of stock scenery installation by the scenery by the firm of Sosman & Landis. Here is what Lawrence wrote in 1889:

“Paradoxically enough, America enjoys at once the somewhat equivocal honor of having elevated scene painting to the highest pitch of artistic excellence on the one hand, and degraded it to the lowest level of mechanical production on the other. While the leading scenic artists, attached or otherwise, have improved the technique by a judicious blend of the various European systems, commercial enterprise and the universal custom of touring have occasioned the upraising of several scenic depots where orders from the innumerable small theatres which abound in the States are completed “with promptitude and dispatch.” Under existing circumstances it is conceivable that the lessee of every miserable little “opera-house” (Americanese for lecture-hall) in Southern America cannot afford to keep a scenic artist on the premises. To meet the demands for the new stocks of scenery which are generally laid in when the little theatre is first erected, several scenic firms have sprung up in St. Louis, Chicago, Kansas and elsewhere, which employ artists of marked inferiority and turn out work which bears as much resemblance to the genuine article as a chromo does to an oil-painting. Produced almost entirely by mechanical means, no wonder it has been facetiously dubbed “patent medicine scenery.” In this way the firm of Sosman and Landis of Chicago, which employs about twenty-five “artists,” has in the course of nine years supplied upwards of a thousand places of entertainment with complete stocks of scenery. That such work falls short of the domain of art is clearly proven by the fact that it is not unusual for these firms to receive an order by telegraph in the morning for a scene, say thirty feet square, which will be completed dried, and sent on its way to the purchaser before nightfall. So far as the scenic depot is concerned the days of glazing and second painting are gone forever. What matters is that the adoption of the broadest system of treatment possible – working slapdash fashion in a full body colors- makes the painting crude and garish? All the more merit: for the average provincial American gives his vote for gaudiness and plenty of it.”

Ouch.

Sosman & Landis “Great Scene Painting Studio” catalogue for the 1894-1895 season, Chicago.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 384 – Sosman & Landis – A Leading Firm in Their Line

Part 384 – Sosman & Landis – A Leading Firm in Their Line

Yesterday, I listed Sosman & Landis scenery installations that were delivered between June 1881 and July 1882. Only nine years earlier the same Macomb Journal reported, “our young friend Joe Sosman” was assisting the “eminent artist T. B. Harrison, of Chicago” (Macomb Weekly Journal, 17 April 1873). Harrison had worked as the scenic artist and produced the stock scenery for the Moore’s Opera House in Nevada, Missouri; Lamar Opera House in Lamar, Missouri; and the New Odeon Theatre in Maquoketa, Iowa (Harry Miner’s Theatre Directories 1884 and 1887).

In Macomb, Illinois, Sosman was Harrison’s assistant when they were painting scenery for the stage – “the focal point” of C. V. Chandler’s Opera House. Of Sosman, the Macomb Journal reported, “Joe has superior abilities, and our citizens will wake up some fine morning and find in him, that Macomb has a first class artist.”

Here is the Macomb Journal 1882 article titled, “SOSMAN & LANDIS – A Leading Firm in Their Line in Chicago – The Senior a Macomb-Raised and Educated Boy” (The Macomb Journal, 13 July 1882). Here is the article in its entirety:

“Nearly all the county readers of the Journal know “Joe” Sosman, and that he is in Chicago in the scenery-painting business, but few, if any, are aware of the prominence of the firm of which he is the senior partner. “The News Letter,” a paper devoted to the theatrical interest, in an article not long since, gave some account of the prominence and business of the firm, which article we append below. We know it will be perused with interest by hundreds of the “Journal” readers, who have a lively solicitude not only for Mr. Sosman, but for every McDonough county boy who goes out in this great world to carve his fortune, his head and hand being his only capital. Here is the article:

“One of the surest indications that Chicago is fast becoming one of the most important dramatic centers in America is the evidence before us, that in all matters pertaining to the theatrical profession Chicago has become, so to speak, a manufacturing center. Theatrical printing, etc., have long been staple industries, but of late years, matters which hitherto might have been considered as peculiarly belonging to the great metropolis of the East, have taken prosperous root in Chicago. Among the industries we refer to is that of fitting up opera houses and out of town theatres.

Some five years ago, Messrs. Sosman & Landis, a firm composed of a couple of enterprising young fellows established in this city what they termed a scenic studio. The beginning gave them a good deal of hard work, but in the period we have mentioned above, their business has grown from comparatively nothing to being one of the most important of its description in the United States. This all speaks volumes for Chicago as a theatrical center, and say what we may, there is no disavowing the fact that next to New York city, Chicago is without a question the most important locality in America in all matters pertaining to general amusement affairs.

Perhaps no better recommendation could be given to the firm we have referred to above than the information which is contained in their circulars to managers, and which tells the actual number of houses they have fitted-up since the first of June, 1881. We give the list as a matter of curiosity as much as anything else:

New Opera House, Rockford, Illinois

Academy of Music, Minneapolis, Minnesota

Grand Opera House, Richmond, Indiana

Hill’s Opera House, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Humblin’s Opera House, Battle Creek, Michigan

Union Opera House, Kalamazoo, Michigan

Russell’s Opera House, Bonham, Texas

Brownsville Opera House, Brownsville, Texas

My Theatre, Fort Worth, Texas

Leach’s Opera House, Somerville, Tennessee

Kahn’s Opera House Boliver, Tennesse

King’s Opera House, Jackson, Tennessee

Stummer’s Hall, Washington, Georgia

Vicksburg Opera House, Vicksburg, Mississippi

McWhinney’s Opera House, Greenville, Ohio

Yengling Opera House, Minerva, Ohio

City Hall, Athens, Ohio

Freeman’s Opera Hall, Geneseo, Illinois

Odd Fellows Hall, Peshtigo, Wisconsin

Hyde’s Opera House, Lancaster, Wisconsin

Klaus’ Opera House, Green Bay, Wisconsin

Storie’s Opera House, Menominee, Wisconsin

Holt’s Opera House, Anamosa, Iowa

King’s Opera House, Hazleton, Iowa

Opera House Nanticoke, Pennsylvania

Opera House Athens, Georgia

Opera House Gainsville, Texas

Opera House Reidsville, North Carolina

Edsell Opera House, Otsego, Michigan

New Opera House, Howell, Michigan

Stouch Opera House, Garnett, Kansas

Germania Hall, Blair, Nebraska

Bennett’s Opera House, Urbana, Ohio

Klaus’ Opera House, Jamestown, Dakota

Opera House, Westville, Indiana

City Hall, Mineral Point, Wisconsin

City Hall, Lewisburg, West Virginia

Opera House, Denison, Iowa

Opera House, Nevada, Ohio

Opera House, Hoopeston, Illinois

Opera Hous,e Cambridge, Illinois

Turner Hall, LaSalle, Illinois

Kolter’s Opera House, Wausau, Wisconsin

Opera House Moberlv, Missouri

Krotz’s Grand Opera House Defiance, Ohio

Opera House, Montague, Michigan

Opera House Eutaw, Alabama

Opera House, Greyville, Illinois

Opera House, Carthage, Illinois

Masonic Hall, Macomb, Illinois

New Hall, Good Hope Illinois

Music Hall, Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Temperance Hall, Seneca, Illinois

Opera House, Jefferson, Iowa

Opera House, Waupaca, Wisconsin

Soldiers’ Memorial Hall, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Opera House, Mexia, Texas

Opera House, Wilson, North Carolina

Opera House, Newbern, North Carolina

Opera House, Goldsboro, North Carolina

Grand Opera House, Cheyenne, Wyoming

Cosmopolitan Theatre, Miles City, Montana Territory

Arbeiter Hall, Ludington, Michigan

Opera House, West Bay City, Michigan

Opera House, Detroit, Minnesota

Opera House, Lockport, Illinois

Opera House, Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin

Opera House, Grass Lake, Michigan

Opera House Demopolis, Alabama

Opera House, Unionville, Missouri

Opera House, Harrodsville, Kentucky

Opera House, Hancock, Michigan

City Hall, New London, Ohio

Opera House, Stevens’ Point, Wisconsin

A visit to the studio of Messrs. Sosman & Landis, in this city, reveals the fact that these gentlemen at this time give employment to five of the best scenic artists in the United States, and that their facilities for turning out first-class work with promptitude and at reasonable figures is unequaled by any establishment in America. At this very moment these gentlemen are actively employed in fitting-up the interior of one or two of the best theatres in the West, and their large corps of artists and stage carpenters are constantly kept busily at work.

We take some little pride in the success of these gentlemen. It has always been, and still is, our ambition to see Chicago ahead in all matters pertaining to western dramatic affairs, and the unusual success which has attended the venture of Messrs. Sosman & Landis is a feather in the cap of our wishes.

It is true that much of the success attended these gentlemen has been due to the fact that they have proved entirely reliable in all their transactions, and that their work has always been of the very best. They take contracts to fit up the entire stage of any new house in course of erection, and we venture to say from undoubted information that no contract that they have ever undertaken has proved aught but most highly satisfactory. With their success the success of Chicago as a dramatic center is blended, and we are more than glad to see that to-day, in nearly every opera house in the West which is under erection, the contract for fitting up the stage has been let to Sosman & Landis.”

From 1880 to 1889, Sosman & Landis outfitted 1000 thousand theatres. By 1889, the company employed twenty-five individuals. By 1894, the company’s brochures advertised that 4000 places of amusement were using scenery made by their firm. This scenic studio was shaping the industry and they were painting with solid colors as in the Central European approach.

In 1880, Thomas G. Moses wrote that he and Sosman traveled a great deal in the beginning and Landis was always away, traveling to secure orders; Sosman and his crew painted what Landis sold. It would take six months before Moses even meet Landis after being hired as he was constantly traveling across the country to drum up work. Interestingly, Thomas G. Moses left the Sosman & Landis studio for the first time during May 1882, just a few months before this article was published. He left the firm to partner with Lemuel L. Graham. Graham would later found Kansas City Scenic.

To be continued…

Historic Stage Services LLC

For three decades, I have worked as a scenic artist and designer. My focus remained the study of historical scenic art techniques, especially for Masonic theaters. My passion to preserve theatre history led me specialize in the repair and restoration of painted scenery for historic theaters, opera houses, public halls, and Scottish Rite stages. After years of solely focussing on the restoration of scenery, I recently formed a new partnership – Historic Stage Services LLC. We are much more than a scenery restoration business.

We offer a unique service – the only one of its kind in North America.

Our mission is to provide historic theaters with the information that they need to make important decisions about their future. Our team specializes in historic stages, scenery, stage machinery, and how to make them work to today’s needs. We offer a new approach to old problems.

Click on the new permanent link above to check our website and new brochure at www.historicstageservices.com

Here is a sneak peak at our brochure:

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 383 – The Battle Between Two Scenic Art Traditions

Part 383: The Battle Between Two Scenic Art Traditions

I believe that a battle between two American schools of scenic art commenced in earnest during the 1870s – the English school of glazing and Central European school of solid color application. Each school held a fierce loyalty to their respective traditions and techniques.

*An example of the glazing technique, characteristic of the English School. This approach to scenic art is detailed in yesterday’s post, part #382.*

*An example of the solid color technique, characteristic of the Central European School. This approach to scenic art is detailed in yesterday’s post, part #382.*

The 1870s was the time when many scenic artists traveled west following the rapid expansion of the country – there was work to be had throughout the region. They moved to Chicago where opportunities abounded after the great fire in 1871 and the area became a major manufacturing center for theatrical scenery and stage machinery; destroyed theatres were rebuilt and new ones popped up everywhere. Scenic artists working in Chicago and the west gravitated toward a system of efficiency, even more so than before. This refined Central European approach in scenic art did not include multiple layers of glazing. The artists in the Midwest needed a refined system of paint application that allowed a quick turn around. They needed to produce hundreds of drops over an extremely short period of time; this was capitalism at its finest and the audience took no notice of the aesthetic shift that was occurring before their eyes.

Each approach, whether painting with glazes or solid colors, is valid. However, there is one a distinct difference – speed. Remember that I speak from the tradition of the Central European approach, so my perception is subjective. Glazing relies on a series of thinned paint application that take more time to dry than the simple layer of solid color. Painting a dark composition when starting with a light base can be extremely time consuming. Large areas may need to be glazed repeatedly, and this takes time. The final effect is stunning, airy and ethereal. However, it may be labor intensive, remaining on a paint frame too long, taking up valuable space in a studio with limited paint frames. When using solid colors in an opaque manner, you layout large areas of color and each additional layer takes up lest space as you are going from dark to light. For example, dark areas of color that form the basis of a treetop are quickly defined with a few brush strikes suggesting leaves.

At the end of the nineteenth century, J. W. Lawrence took a jab at the quick application of solid colors as practiced by the scenic studio artists. He further commented on the rapidity of scenic artists who did not employ the glazing techniques, writing, “the days of glazing and second painting are gone for ever. What matters is that the adoption of the broadest system of treatment possible – working slapdash fashion in a full body colors- makes the painting crude and garish? All the more merit: for the average provincial American gives his vote for gaudiness and plenty of it.”

Lawrence continued, “To meet the demands for the new stocks of scenery which are generally laid in when the little theatre is first erected, several scenic firms have sprung up in St. Louis, Chicago, Kansas and elsewhere, which employ artists of marked inferiority and turn out work which bears as much resemblance to the genuine article as a chromo does to an oil-painting.” I have to chuckle as I think what he is really saying is “if it doesn’t take a long time to paint, the backdrop has no merit.”

He was taking issue with the fact that several “scenic depots” had risen to prominence in the Midwestern region of the United States. One “depot” was the Sosman & Landis studio, Lawrence even mentioned this scene painting firm by name and reported that the company had provided stock scenery collections for one-thousand small opera houses over the brief span of nine years. Sosman & Landis, as other studios in Chicago, Kansas, and St. Louis employed the scenic art techniques associated with Central European tradition of painting with solid colors for a rich opacity.

He who painted the most scenery won; and the Midwestern artists were ahead of the game during the late nineteenth century as their approach to painting was faster. One way for the Eastern artists to attack their competitors was to diminish the mass-production of painted scenery in the Central European tradition as a “slapdash fashion in a full body colors of solid colors.” Yet this approach to scenic art was appearing in hundreds of opera houses across the country; it was establishing a standard in the American theatre market.

Glancing at Julius Cahn’s Official Theatrical Guide from 1896-1897 illustrates just how much of the market had been gained by Sosman & Landis. Their name dominated the list of any other competitor. They produced out a ridiculous amount of scenery in a relatively short period of time. To further explore their productivity, a newspaper article listed how many venues Sosman & Landis fitted up from June 1881 to July 1882.

New Opera House, Rockford, Illinois

Academy of Music, Minneapolis, Minnesota

Grand Opera House, Richmond, Indiana

Hill’s Opera House, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Humblin’s Opera House, Battle Creek, Michigan

Union Opera House, Kalamazoo, Michigan

Russell’s Opera House, Bonham, Texas

Brownsville Opera House, Brownsville, Texas

My Theatre, Fort Worth, Texas

Leach’s Opera House, Somerville, Tennessee

Kahn’s Opera House Boliver, Tennesse

King’s Opera House, Jackson, Tennessee

Stummer’s Hall, Washington, Georgia

Vicksburg Opera House, Vicksburg, Mississippi

McWhinney’s Opera House, Greenville, Ohio

Yengling Opera House, Minerva, Ohio

City Hall, Athens, Ohio

Freeman’s Opera Hall, Geneseo, Illinois

Odd Fellows Hall, Peshtigo, Wisconsin

Hyde’s Opera House, Lancaster, Wisconsin

Klaus’ Opera House, Green Bay, Wisconsin

Storie’s Opera House, Menominee, Wisconsin

Holt’s Opera House, Anamosa, Iowa

King’s Opera House, Hazleton, Iowa

Opera House Nanticoke, Pennsylvania

Opera House Athens, Georgia

Opera House Gainsville, Texas

Opera House Reidsville, North Carolina

Edsell Opera House, Otsego, Michigan

New Opera House, Howell, Michigan

Stouch Opera House, Garnett, Kansas

Germania Hall, Blair, Nebraska

Bennett’s Opera House, Urbana, Ohio

Klaus’ Opera House, Jamestown, Dakota

Opera House, Westville, Indiana

City Hall, Mineral Point, Wisconsin

City Hall, Lewisburg, West Virginia

Opera House, Denison, Iowa

Opera House, Nevada, Ohio

Opera House, Hoopeston, Illinois

Opera House, Cambridge, Illinois

Turner Hall, LaSalle, Illinois

Kolter’s Opera House, Wausau, Wisconsin

Opera House Moberlv, Missouri

Krotz’s Grand Opera House Defiance, Ohio

Opera House, Montague, Michigan

Opera House Eutaw, Alabama

Opera House, Greyville, Illinois

Opera House, Carthage, Illinois

Masonic Hall, Macomb, Illinois

New Hall, Good Hope Illinois

Music Hall, Eau Claire, Wisconsin

Temperance Hall, Seneca, Illinois

Opera House, Jefferson, Iowa

Opera House, Waupaca, Wisconsin

Soldiers’ Memorial Hall, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Opera House, Mexia, Texas

Opera House, Wilson, North Carolina

Opera House, Newbern, North Carolina

Opera House, Goldsboro, North Carolina

Grand Opera House, Cheyenne, Wyoming

Cosmopolitan Theatre, Miles City, Montana Territory

Arbeiter Hall, Ludington, Michigan

Opera House, West Bay City, Michigan

Opera House, Detroit, Minnesota

Opera House, Lockport, Illinois

Opera House, Fort Atkinson, Wisconsin

Opera House, Grass Lake, Michigan

Opera House Demopolis, Alabama

Opera House, Unionville, Missouri

Opera House, Harrodsville, Kentucky

Opera House, Hancock, Michigan

City Hall, New London, Ohio

Opera House, Stevens’ Point, Wisconsin

Sosman & Landis utilized the Central European tradition and immediately succeeded by sheer volume of drops that they produced. There remain remnants of this past rivalry today, as “experts” compare the installations of local artisans in the east and studio artists in the west. There continues to be the perception that mass-produced compositions by large studios are “less” than anything created by a marginally-skilled local artist at a small social hall. There is the idea that backdrops produced in a large scenic studio carry less artistic merit than a one-off by a small-time local artisan. It is difficult for me not to take into account that many of the scenic artists in the larger studios would later achieve international recognition as fine artists, yet the battle continues to rage on.

*From the beginning in 1877, Sosman & Landis Studio had an aggressive marketing campaign, run by “Perry” Landis.*

*This 1894-1895 Catalog presents “Some Reasons Why” new venues should stock their theatre with Sosman & Landis painted scenery and stage machinery.*

To be continued…