Drypigment.net

Both Ernest Albert and Walter Burridge worked for Harley Merry at his Brooklyn Studio. Burridge started in 1870, just prior to Merry’s involvement with the Brooklyn Theatre. Albert started in 1877, after Merry had been let go from his position at the Brooklyn Theatre.

Merry was well-known as both a performer and scenic artist in England and Scotland. His birth name was Ebenezer J. Britton, and he performed with his wife Louise M. R. Britton (1844-1914). There is some confusion about the spelling of their last name as historic records use both Britton or Brittain. Louise used the stage name of Adelaide Roselle, and also later Adele Roselle Merry.  She was a fairly successful actress, having performed with many well-known personalities, including James O’Neil and William Crane. Merry first traveled to the United States in 1869, permanently moving his family by 1871.  He initially worked in  New Orleans and Chicago before settling in Brooklyn, New York, where he became associated with the Brooklyn Theatre and Academy of Music. He produced scenery for a variety of well-known actors and producers in New York, including Conway, Sothern and Marlowe.

Merry became known for his painted illusions and spectacular stage effects the included the 1872 production “The Son of the Night.” It was advertised as a “Grand Marine Panorama and Sea Fight between the Pirate and the Spanish Fleet, painted expressly by Harley Merry, covering 5,000 square feet of canvas” (The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Vol. 33, No. 287, pg. 1). He also provided all of the new scenery for “The Naiad Queen, or the Mysteries of the Lurleiburg,” a production that ended with “the grand transformation scene [that] designated the Silver Temple of Brilliant Plummage in the Elysium of Air Songstresses” (The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, vol. 33, No. 135, pg. 1). This design was dedicated to Conway “as a farewell souvenir” prior to Merry’s departure for London. He returned the following year and resumed both his acting and artistic career, performing as Mr. Barnaby Bibbs in the farce, “The Quiet Family.”

From 1871 until 1874, Merry designed for Conway at the Brooklyn Theatre. The company had initially performed at the Park Theatre, but early in 1870 Kingsley, Keeny and Judge McGue (who owned the property on the corner of Washington and Johnson Streets) decided to build a theatre.

The Brooklyn Theatre was designed by the architect T. M. Jackson and opened on October 2, 1871 with the comedy “Money.” We know much about the history of the theater from an article published after its fiery destruction in 1876. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle described the interior and those who contributed to the ornate structure during its 1871 opening (Dec. 7, 1876, pg. 2). Five years later, a horrific fire took the lives of 238 individuals when the scenery quickly ignited during a performance of “The Two Orphans.”

The paper recorded that “one of the pieces of canvas out of which trees and so forth are made was broken from its fastenings and hung from the flies immediately over the border lights near the center of the stage. The canvas had begun to smolder and the paint on it to crackle, and the carpenter was directed to ascend to one of the grooves and remove the dangerous object. He could barely reach it with his hand and he drew it hastily up. The rapid motion through the air of the half ignited and highly inflammable canvas, caused it to burst into flame which rapidly spread to the adjoining material, equally susceptible. All efforts to extinguish the flames were aborted, and the carpenter had to retire to save his own life.” Although the actors became aware of the fire, they continued to play their parts, hoping it would pass. This makes me wonder how many fires spontaneously occurred during performances at that time. History records that Mr. Studley, Mr. Farren and Miss Claxton went on with their parts even after flames became distinctly audible. However, sparks began to show overhead and the “unmistaken crackle of fire was heard. Then an ember dropped to the stage, and the canvas which formed the roof of the hut in which the scene was enacted burst into flames.”

Miss Claxton was reported to have crawled over the heads of audience members to later escape. There were 1,200 people in the house before panic ruled and bodies became crushed in the corridors.

Luckily for Merry, he was no longer painting for the venue. His position as scenic artist was terminated upon his return from London in 1874. This incident is an interesting story in itself, one that probably altered his perception of the industry, stage managers, and the artists’ need for representation. Merry brought action against the Brooklyn Theatre’s stage manager Edward F. Taylor. He was attempting to recover $5,000 in damages, stating that Taylor had procured his discharge by false representations that he made to Mrs. Conway of the Brooklyn Theatre. A February 19, 1875, article in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle reported, “Harley Merry, late scenic artist at the Brooklyn Theatre, has begun an action through Messrs. Carson & Hirsch, against Edward F. Taylor, stage manager for having procured his discharge by complaining to Mrs. Conway that he neglected his duties” (page 4).

I thought back to Merry’s involvement in establishing the Actors’ Order of Friendship and the American Society of Scene Painters, specifically their complaints against stage managers. Did his involvement all stem from this particular incident?

UPDATE: Since my initial posting, I have been in contact with Merry’s descendants. Here is a wonderful article about the the Merry’s stage name:

https://heritagefound.com/tag/http-heritagefound-com-harley-merry-lousia-rowe-merry-article-ancestors-with-multiple-names-a-case-study-of-an-19th-century-theatrical-family/

To be continued…

Ernest Albert was also involved in the establishment of a nineteenth-century theatrical organization called the American Society of Scene Painters. On June 26, 1892, the Pittsburg Press noted that that this movement was “first put in motion” by Harley Merry – a mentor of Albert’s. Its membership included some thirty of the most prominent and representative men in the profession. The author of the article further wrote, “The objects of the society are to promote the artistic and practical efficiency of the profession, and consolidate as a whole the dignity of the profession hitherto maintained by the individual artist. Practical reforms in the conduct of the professional business are anticipated.”

Organized in Albany, New York, the executive staff included Richard Marston (Palmer’s Theatre), Henry E, Hoyt (Metropolitan Opera House), Homer F. Emens (Fourteenth Street Theatre), Sydney Chidley (Union Square Theatre), Harley Merry (Brooklyn Studio) Brooklyn and Ernest Albert (Albert, Grover & Burridge).

On July 2, 1892, the Chicago Tribune (page 4) published, “The prominent scene painters in New York have organized under the State law to promote the artistic and practical efficiency of their profession. Their new combination is known as the American Society of Scenic Painters, and they promise that many reforms will result from their united efforts. Their chief grievance, however, borders on the unique, and the scenic painters have adopted an effective way of remedying it. The members of the organization, particularly those who work by the job, as is the case with the best of them, claim that the stage manager is their worst enemy. They say that scenes are set nowadays not with painters direct, but in accordance with the off-hand wishes of the managers, and accordingly much of the most artistic effects of the scenes are lost by the failure to properly display them.

The plan of the new organization is for its members to accept no work from the theaters except on an agreement that the scenes are to be set exactly as they dictate. Harley Merry planned the organization, and among its officers are Richard Marston, President; Henry E. Hoyt, Harley Merry, and Ernest Albert, Vice-Presidents; Homer F. Emens, Treasurer, and Sydney Chidley, Secretary.

Merry was also involved in another theatrical association – the Actors’ Order of Friendship. In 1888, the New York Tribune (Dec. 16, pg. 5) reported Merry’s involvement in the AOOF as the group sought to protect the American actor against foreign competition. He and others instigated a discussion among leading theatre managers nationwide and sought to alter foreign contract labor laws.

The AOOF is often considered to be the first “theatrical club” in America, founded in Philadelphia during 1849. The Edwin Forrest Lodge in New York quickly became the dominant branch of the organization with 187 members by 1890. Joe Jefferson even donated a library to the branch’s 47th Street location where the order met in a residential home. Like many nineteenth-century fraternal orders, it also provided benefits to members and their families if they became incapacitated. The AOOF Shakespeare Lodge of Philadelphia came in as the second largest branch with approximately 30 members. In 1888 an AOOF committee composed of Merry, Louis Aldrich and Frank Sanger not only brought the order to Washington, D.C., but also sought to pass an amendment to the foreign contract labor laws.

A newspaper article noted that there were over 300 dramatic companies that employed about 4,500 professional actors, “who, with their dependent families, may be estimated at 20,000 persons, all looking for their support.” At the time numerous companies played at leading theaters with troupes completely composed of foreigners, brought over by contracts made in Europe. The AOOF complaint was that foreign contracts were contributing to the unemployment of more than 1200 American performers and that they were seeking an amendment of the Foreign Contract Labor Law.

Merry, Aldrich and Sanger appeared before Congressman Ford’s Investigating Committee in Washington D.C. and asked for an amendment that would bring all foreign actors, except “stars,” under the provisions of the statute. New York’s “The Evening World” (Dec. 15, 1888, pg. 2, NY, NY) published that “Actors, managers, agents and everybody connected with the theatrical business in any manner, are discussing the matter at the Rialto, at the dramatic agencies, in the Actors’ Fund rooms, and in the hotels and resorts on ‘the Square:’ and there is but one sentiment among theme – that the foreign actor who comes over here under contract made in Europe must go.”

The order gave rise to the later Actors’ Fund of America, just as the American Society of Scene Painters gave rise to a later Protective Alliance of Scene Painters of America formed in 1895. It prevented stage employees from handling any scenery except that painted by members of the Alliance, stirring up excitement among English managers. George Becker, Moses Bloom, Harry Byrnes, Sydney Chidley, James Fox, W. Crosbie Gill, Frank King, Richard Marston, Harley Merry, John A. Merry, Thomas G. Moses, Arthur Palmer, Seymour D. Parker, Frank Platzer, W. T. Porter, Adolf T. Reinhold, John Rettig, John W. Rough, Horace N. Smith, Orville L. Story, Howard Tuttle, A. G. Volz, Harry Weed, and David W. Weil were just a few of the participants actively involved in the establishment of the alliance.

On April 3, 1896 members gathered in the lodge rooms at 153 West Twenty-third St. for the installation of officers. Six trustees were installed representing New York, Boston, Pittsburg and Buffalo with corresponding secretaries from San Francisco, Cincinnati, Boston, Milwaukee, Chicago, and Philadelphia. During the meeting, the following statement was recorded: “If George Edwards brings a shipload of scenery from England to America he will not be able to get a scene shifter or carpenter in New York to handle it, and the orchestra will not even play slow music. For that matter, no piece of scenery painted by a non-union man will be handled in any of the large cities in this country. We have to protect ourselves against the hordes of fresco men who dabble for a farthing, and some of the managers who care nothing for the art, but only for making money.” They all banded together, but it was not a movement without condemnation and protest.

The American Society of Scene Painters, the Protective Alliance of Scene Painters of America and the Actors’ Order of Friendship were more than just benevolent societies, providing benefits and funeral services for its members. Each organization sought practical reforms in the conduct of their professional business.

To be continued…

After Albert, Grover & Burridge closed their studio in 1894, Ernest Albert returned to New York where he opened up his own shop – Albert Studios. By 1896, he moved to New Rochelle and continued an active scenic art career, producing stage designs for Booth & Barrett, Helena Modjeska, Edward H. Sothern, Julia Marlowe, William H. Crane, Nat C. Goodwin, Maxine Elliot, Fanny Davenport, Ethel Barrymore, Minnie Maddern Fiske, Klaw & Erlanger, and for Charles Frohman.

He was a prolific artist who designed 113 shows for Broadway between 1895 and 1919. New York venues included the Fifth Street Theatre, Casino Theatre, New York Theatre, Greenwich Village Theatre, Cort Theatre, Booth Theatre, Globe Theatre, Hippodrome Theatre, 44th Street Theatre, New Amsterdam Theatre, Grand Opera House, Longacre Theatre, Knickerbocker Theatre, Moulin Rouge, Astor Theatre, Jardin de Paris, Maxine Elliot’s Theatre, Weber’s Music Hall, Herald Square Theatre, West End Theatre, Broadway Theatre, Wllack’s Theatre, American Theatre, Liberty Theatre, Bijou Theatre, Hudson Theatre, American Theatre, Liberty Theatre, Majestic Theatre, Murray Hill Theatre, Thalia Theatre, Academy of Music, Weber and Field’s Broadway Music Hall, Berkeley Lyceum Theatre, Manhattan Theatre, Lyric Theatre, Victoria Theatre, Harlem Theatre, Criterion Theatre, Daly’s Theatre, Hoyt’s Theatre, and Theatre Republic. He also created the scenery for Ziegfield Follies productions in 1911,1912, and 1913. At one point, Albert had eight productions running simultaneously with scenery that he had designed and painted. Some of his more famous designs include “Ben Hur,” “Kismet,” and “Herod.”

In a 1913 issue of “The New York Dramatic Mirror, ” Albert explained his own design process for the stage in an interview with Arthur Edwin Krows. He began a design after receiving “a commission for a scenic investiture in a play. ” The artist was first called into a meeting with the manger and author. He noted that the author usually knew what he wanted and would make a simple sketch “with some angles to represent the walls of a room perhaps, leaving open spaces for windows and doors, and if his artistic education has developed since his previous play, with some queer marks to represent tables and chairs.” Albert continued, “So the artist receives his instruction, act by act, for four or five acts.” He also added that it helped if the artist actually read the entire play manuscript as the author might overlook important details. This was not standard for the artist to read the play, but Albert insisted on it.

After the initial discussions, the artist would refer to his extensive library of clippings, plates and descriptions of every conceivable thing that was relevant to supply the correct details. As an example, he explained spending six months researching the particulars of “Ben Hur” stating, “When the production went on, I knew the exact height of every arch and gateway in Jerusalem.”

Albert then explained that the artist made first sketches of the scene and then a half-inch scale model. The prevailing colors for the each setting were determined, specifically “the general tone of the act for which the set is used.” The completed model would be submitted to the manager and author for final approval. Adjustments were not made to the model, but careful notes were taken and filed away for the actual construction.

It was at this point that the carpenter was sent for to begin construction of the frames for various settings. He would take special care so that they could be readily handled when the set was struck for transportation, especially if the show went on the road. All scenery must be constructed to fit in a railroad car. Once the frames were constructed, the canvas was stretched over and sent to the paint studio. Typically, flats were designed to be folded, with the painted surface inward.

Albert explained that an artist’s function did not cease until the scenery was all installed and the lighting arrangements completed. He commented, “Lighting is within his province, just as groupings are in a measure. An unexpected orange light on violet, for instance, will produce a russet brown that will make everything look dirty. It is true that in the days of gas lighting much softer effects were possible, but I will sacrifice all of the advantages of mellow light for safety. I am a crank on fire regulation. It was very dangerous in the old days with the exposed rows of hot gas lights. It used to be amusing too, to see lights go out every once in a while when an actor would accidentally step on a soft gas pipe. Anyway, we are now avoiding many of the hard qualities of the electric light by greater use of ambers, straw colors, and pinks.” Wow. The artist controlled the lighting and this was still Albert’s standard practice in 1913.

Two years later, he designed a winter scene for the New York Hippodrome’s ice skating ballet under director Charles Dillingham. The painted composition was titled “Flirting at the Saint Moritz” and measured 243’ x 70’ for the attraction “Hip-Hip Hooray.”

Albert was the founder and the first president of the Allied Artists of America (1914-1920). By 1916, he moved to New Canaan, Connecticut, where he began to focus on fine art. His stage design output began to gradually decline. In terms of fine art, Albert initially specialized in autumnal and winter scenes, later focusing on still life subjects. He held exhibitions across the country in New York City, San Francisco, Chicago, and Los Angeles. Albert’s fine art credentials are quite impressive. He belonged to New York’s Salmagundi Club, the Player’s Club, the Paint and Clay Club, the Silvermine Guild of Artists (New Rochelle), the Connecticut Academy of Fine Arts (Lyme, Conn.), the National Academy of Design, the American Watercolor Society, the National Arts Club, and the Grand Central Galleries. He also belonged to the Chicago Art Association and the Chicago Society of Fine Artists, where he served as President.

Albert’s first wife Annie passed away in 1925, but he found love again and married Lissa Bell Walker two years later. He died in New Canaan, Connecticut, at the home of his daughter and is buried in Lakeview Cemetery (New Canaan).

To be continued…

Horace Lewis recalled a visit with Burridge in 1900 writing, “every object, from his devoted wife to the pictures upon the walls, and his den in the garret, is indicative of the genial, most modest nature and simple poetry of the man who finds his greatest wealth within that home.” Burridge was well liked by many, including Thomas G. Moses. Despite the ups and downs of their business relationships, this friendship lasted for decades.

In Chicago, scenic artists constantly swapped partners and painting positions. One might think that this would have caused strained relations in the workplace, but work was plentiful and life was good. Regardless of where they were employed, scenic artists also continued to escape with each other on numerous sketching trips across the country. After two failed business partnerships (Burridge, Moses & Louderbeck and the Albert, Grover & Burridge), Burridge started one more partnership that it may also have been short-lived. They painted “An American Heiress,” “New Blood,” and the new McVicker’s drop curtain that depicted the World’s Fair Court of Honor.

Burridge later received a solo commission to make sketches for Margaret Mahler’s production of “Cymbeline,” travelling to London for historical research. His accuracy for many of the notable scenes received praise. I wonder if the quality of his work eclipsed those around him, to the degree that maintaining any successful business relationship was difficult. He was obviously a strong personality, visionary and leader. These traits may have become challenging for any business partner.

By 1900 we know that Burridge was the Chicago’s Auditorium scenic artist. He was also engaged by Henry W. Savage to prepare the scenes for the Castle Square Opera Company at the Studebaker Music Hall.

Studebaker Hall had opened September 29, 1898 and was primarily used for popular music, meetings and plays. It was noted as exceptionally beautiful and acoustically superior. Originally, it had an arched proscenium like the neighboring Chicago Auditorium Theatre with 34 box seats across three levels. In its early days it was used for light opera by the Castle Square Company of Boston.

We also know that Burridge designed the scenery for the premiere of “The Wizard of Oz” at the Chicago Opera House. This production later moved to the Majestic Theatre in New York. A show with a tornado scene, the glittering Emerald City, a lovely all-girl poppy field and more! In looking at pictures of the original scenery used at the Grand Opera and Majestic, you can see some metallic foil strips glittering on the drops.

It reminded me of the foliage scene and metallic foils that I had encountered at the Wichita Scottish Rite during 2015 and the St. Louis Scottish Rite during 2017. Although both were used for Scottish Rite degree work, the designs were possibly intended for another non-Masonic venue.

The original “Wizard of Oz” program notes are as follows:

Act I
Scene 1: A Kansas Farm (Painted by Fred Gibson from designs by Walter Burridge)
Scene 2: The Country of the Muchkins (Painted by Herbert Martin from designs by Walter Burridge)
Scene 3: A Road through the Forest (Designed by Walter Burridge, painted by Fred Gibson)
Scene 4: The Poppy Field (Painted by Walter Burridge)

Scene 5: (Transformation) The Poppy Field in Winter (Painted by Walter Burridge)

Act II
Scene 1: The Gates of the Emerald City (Designed by Walter Burridge, painted by Daniels Scenic Co.)

Scene 2L Courtyard of the Wizard’s Palace (Painted by Walter Burridge)

This program and others are available online at the Chicago Public Library site. Here is the link: http://cdm16818.contentdm.oclc.org/…/Grand%20Ope…/mode/exact

Interestingly, images of a toy theatre model based on the 1903 production have recently posted online. Although it is not quite there stylistically, the compositions give you a sense of what Majestic audiences might have experienced. Here is the link: http://theozenthusiast.blogspot.com/

Burridge tragically died during a trip to Albuquerque, New Mexico ten years later, in 1913. He was visiting the area to make sketches for the upcoming 1915 Panama-Pacific Exposition. His funeral was at Grace Episcopal Church in Oak Park, Illinois. He is buried at the Forest Home Cemetery in a family plot that contains his wife Jane Anne (1860-1938) and son Walter C. (1886-1916). Jane Burridge lost both her husband and son in only three short years of each other.

To be continued…

The Beckwith Memorial Theatre of Dowagiac, Michigan, was built in 1892 for the cost of one hundred thousand dollars. Today’s equivalent would be $2,588,925.36! Albert, Grover & Burridge directed the plan and installation of all stage fittings, the wall decorations of the auditorium and painted décor throughout the entire building. This was a major extravagance for a small town that numbered less than seven thousand people.

Roger E. Greeley’s “Best of Robert Ingersoll, Immortal Infidel: Selections of His Writings and Speeches” (1977), includes a tribute delivered by Ingersoll to the beloved memory of Philo D. Beckwith. Greeley became intrigued with the history of Beckwith and his theater, a structure advertised as “the finest theatre in America.” I can see why as I am now fascinated with the story and the building too.

Beckwith Memoial Theatre was a sizable house that had a capacity to seat 700. There were 499 overstuffed mohair chairs with 170 in the balcony. For the grand opening, thirty-six hanging drops could be combined in various combinations for seventy-six set possibilities. These settings were all painted by Albert, Grover & Burridge. The size made me think of early installations for Southern Jurisdiction degree productions.

Beckwith was an interesting character, beginning his career as a manufacturer of an agricultural implement that improved the round seed drill. He then focused on the mass-production of cast iron wood-burning stoves and furnaces, founding the company Round Oak Stove. His business prospered and so did the town. Beckwith desired to construct a grand theatre for his bustling town. Unfortunately, he never lived to complete his dream and died unexpectedly in 1889. His family decided to complete his vision and build a fine theatre for his memorial, sparing no expense. Greely stumbled across a front-page story in the Dowagiac “Republican” from January 18, 1893. The article’s heading proclaimed: “The Beckwith memorial Theatre Building. The finest theater in America.” As I read the article, I thought of that Rick Boychuk emailed to me concerning the Crump Theatre. This article was intended to make its way to you, Rick.

Let’s start with an excerpt from the “Republican” article:

“It is the fitting and arrangement of the stage in the Beckwith Memorial Theatre, that the greatest care has been exercised to obtain the best possible results, and a great degree of success has been obtained. To go into technicalities and the use of stage terms would not be perhaps intelligible to our readers generally, so we will note only the main points. The stage is fifty by thirty-eight feet. Up to the gridiron, from which is suspended by an elaborate system of lines and pulleys all of the stage settings it is possible to use in the form of drop curtains, is fifty feet, allowing ample room for hoisting out of sight a whole screen in a few seconds, and allowing rapid changing of scenes so necessary to the continuing of the action of a play and effects are made possible that were unknown in the old days of sliding flats. To those acquainted with and interested in things theatrical and matters pertaining to proper stage fitting we think it is sufficient guarantee of the success of the stage to say that Albert, Grover & Burridge, of Chicago, had the direction of the stage fittings and the wall decorations of the auditorium and the entire building. Ernest Albert, of A., G., & B., under whose direction the art glass, colorings, the selection of draperies, and the furnishings of the theater were made, had succeeded admirably in producing the most beautiful and harmonious whole.”

The author credits all of the original designs used in the decoration to J. Frederick Scott and the drop-curtain to Oliver Dennet Grover, both of Albert, Grover & Burridge. Does this mean that Scott designed the building murals or the actual scenery? It remained unclear to me. Grover’s drop curtain was described as “a dream of loveliness. It was monumental in character with male and female figures and cupids representing the different elements of drama, in a Grecian landscape, where splendid temples set amid cypress and acacia backed up by the faint lines of distant hills from the background.” The image was published in volume fifteen of “Building Age” (Jan. 1893, page 267-271).

I also stumbled across another interesting statement about the Beckwith Memorial Theatre scenery in “W.A. Norton’s Directory of Dowagiac, Cassopolis and La Grange, Pokagon, Silver Creek and Wayne Townships” (1899). On page 159, the author writes, “The scenery is designed for the cyclorama effect which has been found so effective, and which was first used in the Auditorium in Chicago. By this arrangement a scene can be set as a street or garden by simply moving the scenes which are profiled on both sides and top, anywhere desired. Every set of scenery is a finished piece of art. It is, after the latest fashion, lashed together with ropes and is capable of being made into seventy-five distinct stage dressings.”

Scenes that are “profiled on both sides and tops” would be the leg drops. The cut opening would designate the street or garden scene with information painted on the leg drops. The various combinations of leg and backdrops would create incredible variety for potential stage compositions, all easily lowered to the stage floor for instant configurations. This was just like the new scenery for Scottish Rite theatres. There was no longer the complicated and noisy transitions of flats sliding in their respective grooves.

Norton’s Directory discusses the electric lighting for the stag, writing, “The problem of electric lighting of theatres has been solved in this house, by the use of a large switch-board, I which there are twenty-five levers, and nine powerful resistence coils. The lighting of the stage itself is exceptionally complete, four hundred electric lamps in three colors being utilized for this purpose.” Wow. Beckwith may be a significant “missing link” in the evolution of stage design, counterweight systems and lighting. This places Albert, Grover, & Burridge on the cutting edge of innovation and I couldn’t help thinking of the Electric Theatre spectacle title “A Day in the Alps” at the Columbian Exposition. This scenic spectacle utilized 250 electric incandescent lamps that were operated in full view of the audience with thirty-six switches controlling red, white, and blue lamps.

Albert, Grover, and Burridge were all close friends to Thomas Gibbs Moses. Numerous sketching trips were planned to capture lovely landscapes and improve their skills. In 1890, Albert and Burridge called on Moses as they were all in Pueblo, Colorado, at the same time. Moses was there for work and Albert and Burridge were on a sketching trip. Could they have discussed the Chicago Auditorium’s new scenery, the creation of an innovative painting studio, or any of potential technology waiting to be marketed to a variety of clients? There were so many ideas waiting to be explored and implemented across the country

The Beckwith Memorial Theatre stopped featuring staged entertainment in 1928. The building was demolished in 1966.

To be continued…

Walter Burridge went on to form another partnership after leaving Burridge, Moses & Louderback. I have pieced together much of the story surrounding Burridge from bits of information I gathered from Thomas G. Moses’ typed manuscript, the John R. Rothgeb papers at the University Texas, some architectural books, and a few newspaper articles. The most valuable source was discovered online -a publication titled “The Coming of Age” (Vol. 3-4, 1900) by Benjamin Orange Flower and Anna Cyrene Porter Reifsnider. There is a section called “The Development of Scenic Art, and Its Relation to the Drama.” One of their stories focused on Walter Wilcox Burridge (1857-1913).

At an early age, Burridge apprenticed himself to Mr. Baylis, a sign painter from Hoboken, New Jersey. He soon engaged in scenic painting for New York theaters after Fred Chippendale introduced him to George Tyrrel, Gabriel Harrison and Harley Merry at the old Park Theatre in Brooklyn. By 1870, he was working full-time at Merry’s Brooklyn Studio; he was thirteen. From Brooklyn, Burridge accompanied Merry to Chicago and Philadelphia. It was under Merry’s wing that young Burridge received the much encouragement to become a successful scenic artist. It seems that the successful scenic artists all had mentors who took a great interest in shaping the career of a young apprentice.

Merry was the first President of the Protective Alliance of Scenic Painters of America, organized in 1895. At one point, Merry was called away from the studio, leaving Burridge to complete a backdrop that depicted a great waterfall. This was a pivotal point in his early career as it gave him the opportunity to prove his worth. From the onset, he showed an aptitude for a variety of scene painting projects. His talent and magnetic personality pulled people to him and soon he had numerous supporters, including the actress Mrs. John Drew.

Burridge did considerable work at the Arch, Broad, and Walnut Street Theaters in Philadelphia. Later, through the strong recommendation of scenic artist Russell Smith, he was called to the Academy of Music, in Baltimore, to execute some scenery for that venue. After Baltimore, Burridge returned to Philadelphia and then went to New York City where he accepted an engagement under J. H. Haverly. It is interesting to note that Burridge worked at many of Haverly’s theaters from New York to California, including the Fifth Avenue, Fourteenth Street, Niblos’ Garden, Broad Street, and Chestnut Street theaters. By 1876, Burridge was working with Phil Goatcher at the Chestnut Theatre in Philadelphia. The historic house was then “famed for the magnificence with which it mounted its attractions.” There, he painted the “Siege of Paris” for the Centennial and later produced the “Battle of Gettysburg.” It seemed that Burridge was always in the right place at the right time.

He moved to Chicago in 1882, settling in suburban La Grange with his wife and securing work at the Bijou and 14^th Street Theatres. Burridge was also under contract with John A. Havlin from 1882 to 1885 at the Grand Theatre. He then worked at the Standard Theatre painting scenery for the opera “Santenella.” For six years, Burridge was the scenic artist at the Grand Opera House and at McVicker’s Theatre. He had been Lou Malmsha’s replacement.

By 1890, Burridge went on sketching trips with Ernest Albert (1857-1946), Oliver Dennett Grover (1861-1927), and Thomas G. Moses (1856-1934). They were all around the same age and accomplished artists. These outings must have been an absolute delight for all involved. Early in 1891, the three formed “Albert, Grover & Burridge, Scenic and Decorative Painters” located at the Studio Building, 3127 State Street, Chicago. Much of the information about this business venture was published in “Chicago and its Resources Twenty Years After, 1871-1891: A Commercial History Showing the Progress and Growth of Two Decades from the Great Fire to the Present Time.” The publication described their establishment as a marked departure from previous studios as they implemented advancements in the methods of mounting and presenting stage plays.

They leased the old Casino building on State Street, just south of 31^st street. The publication described the three scenic artists and their particular artistic strengths. Albert as a designer of modern interiors who “is most happy either in the rendering of correct architecture, or when depicting fabrics or soft and consistent color schemes.” The article described Grover as “known throughout the entire art world as an academician and figure painter of high rank – a strong draughtsman and colorist.” Burridge was further noted as “being strong in exteriors and admittedly the foremost foliage painter in the country.” All areas of scenic art were covered!

The article goes on to explain where the three men had previously been employed: Albert was the scenic artist for the Chicago Auditorium, Burridge was at the Grand Opera House and McVicker’s, and Grover held a professorship at the Art Institute and was also the chairman on one of the World’s Fair committees.

It was a perfect formula for success. This had to have been one incredibly talented and well-connected team. Albert, Grover & Burridge did a considerable amount of business for the World’s Columbian exposition of 1893, including the “Volcano of Kilauea.” The firm accepted an engagement to paint a cyclorama picture of the great volcano and sent Burridge to the Hawaiian Islands to make a faithful reproduction of the natural phenomenon. The final composition measured 54’ x 412.’ So successful was the exhibit that it was a major attraction at the Mid-winter Fair in Sacramento. Chicago had six panorama companies in 1893 and six panorama rotundas.

Albert, Grover & Burridge had a studio with over 12,000 square feet of working area, and another 2,500 square feet devoted to storage and sewing rooms. They had twenty paint frames, ranging from 56 by 35 feet to 30 by 20 feet. The article noted another interesting fact about their studio, stating, “The studio is so large that it permits the artists to introduce a novel feature in the art of painting scenery, which has been in their thoughts for some years. That is after a scene is painted, it can be hung, set and lighted in an open space the full size of any stage in the country, so that a manager can not only inspect it as an entirety, and thus suggest alterations, but he can bring his company to the studio and rehearse with the new scenery.” This information is earth shattering as this shows that scenic studios went well beyond the mere painting of backdrops – they were the visionaries who combined painted illusion, lighting innovations, and stage mechanics. They remained at the forefront of technological advancements, integrating old techniques with new technology.

Unfortunately for Albert, Grover & Burridge, their business venture went bankrupt in two years.

To be continued…

Burridge, Moses & Louderback started in 1887. Later, Moses would form a second partnership with Will Hamilton. Moses & Hamilton would work in New York City from 1900 until 1904. Moses would eventually return to Chicago and the Sosman & Landis studios for good, becoming the company’s second and final President.

Burridge, Moses, & Louderback was short-lived, only from 1887 to 1888. However, it provided Moses with an opportunity for his reputation to skyrocket in not only the Chicago area but also throughout the country. The company’s offices were located at 22 Chamber of Commerce in Chicago, Illinois. This was on the corner of Clark and Division Streets.

Advertisements listed Louderback as the business manager and very little is known of him as a scenic artist. He was well-respected owner of an auction house with fine art galleries. The firm carried a variety of high-end fine products in the Chicago area, including Turkish rugs. It made a great deal of sense for Louderback & Co. to host the first Scene Painters’ Show in 1885. This would have been a well-known and popular venue to promote the works of this eccentric group of individuals and sponsor the scenic art community. Their sales galleries were located at 215 Wabasha Avenue.

Burridge, Moses & Louderback painted at the Columbia Theatre under the management of J. M. Hill. Located at the corner of Dearborn and Monroe Streets, the building was seventy feet wide with a depth of one hundred and ninety feet. It rose up six stories high and was surmounted by a pyramidal tower. The total seating capacity of the entire house was two thousand with a stage of seventy by fifty-four feet.

The original theater was opened by Mr. Haverly on September 12, 1881, and he continued as the proprietor until June, 1883, when financial reverses caused him to re-lease the property to Charles H. McConnell. McConnell made changes to the front of the building and in the lighting and ventilating facilities, but the chief attraction became the art galleries, which were added during the summer of 1884. The art galleries were Mr. McConnell’s pet project and became a popular feature with a notable collection. These art apartments were further embellished with cabinets, mantels, bronzes, Bohemian-glass, settees, decorative screens, marble pedestals, bronze busts, Egyptian lamps, and many other items of fine décor.

On February 2, 1885, a stock company was organized, and Mr. McConnell sold out a large interest in the theater. The same day, Mr. McConnell transferred the theater to the Columbia Theater Company, incorporated with a capital stock of $200,000, of which, J. M. Hill was president and manager; J. S. McConnell, treasurer and acting manager; and C. H. McConnell, secretary. The change of name from Haverly’s to the Columbia Theater occurred at the close of the Irving engagement, Miss Ellen Terry, the actress, having had the honor of re-christening it.

When Burridge, Moses, & Louderback were working at the Columbia Theatre, publications show that the Chief Stage Engineer was Ohn Leigh. M. B. Olmsted was the Electrician. H. B. Branum was in charge of Properties. Unfortunately, the theatre only lasted until March 30, 1900, when the building was destroyed by a fire. Only five people were injured as the fire broke out during a cast rehearsal and not a performance.

The work of Burridge, Moses & Louderback during 1887 included “Gypsy Baron” for the Conried and Hermann Opera Company, 2 panoramas for Joe Murphy for “Donah,” and 2 complete productions of “Kerry Gow.” They also stocked the Grand Opera House in Columbus, Ohio and Foster’s Opera House in Des Moines, Iowa. In New York City, Moses notes that they produced the scenery for opera of “Dorothy” (Dorothea?) for the Duff Co at the Standard Theatre. Their contribution was the act one scene in County Kent, England. Finally, at the Chicago Grand Opera, the studio painted Steele MacKaye’s “A Noble Rogue” in 1888.

During these two busy years, Burridge, Moses & Louderback stocked six theatres with all of the necessary scenery – no small task. Incidentally, Ralph J. Terwilliger worked with them as their paint boy. He would later become the founder and first president of the North-West Side Commercial Association.

In November of 1888, Burridge pulled out of the studio because he and Louderback couldn’t agree on the running of the business. Louderback came from a “managing art” background while Burridge came from a “creating art” background. From the records, it appears that Moses was the referee between the two, trying desperately to make the studio successful and appease these two “larger than life” personalities. He was unsuccessful.

To be continued…

 

Thomas G. Moses began working for Sosman & Landis in 1880. During his first decade at the studio, Moses continued to drift away and migrate toward other people, projects and partnerships. He was the proverbial “soaring star” and Sosman & Landis were could not entice him enough to solely work in their studio. By 1885, Moses formed a partnership with Walter Burridge and Mr. Louderback.

All three had participated in the October 12, 1885, Scene Painter’s Show in Chicago.

There was an article written by John Moran for the “Art Union, a Monthly Magazine of Art” (Vol. 2, No. 4, 1885, p. 85) about the Scene Painters’ Show. The magazine noted that “The American Art Union, a society of American Artists, including representations of all the different schools of art, has been organized ‘for the general advancement of the Fine Arts, and for promoting and facilitating a greater knowledge and love thereof on the part of the public.” The Board of Control for 1884-1885 included D. Hentington (Pres), T. W. Wood (Vice President), E. Wood Perry, Jr. (Secy.), Frederick Dielman (Treasurer), W. H. Beard, Albert Bierstadt, Harry Chase, Harry Farrer, Eastman Johnson, Jervis McEntee, T. Moran, and Walter Shirlaw. This was a BIG deal!

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

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

This wasn’t just a group of artists linked by a common style or profession – this was statement made by a closely-knit community of passionate individuals. They shared their work, their lives and their passion for painting.

To be continued…

The nineteenth century phrase “art for art’s sake” made me think of scenic artists interpreting fine art compositions for the stage. Although “l’art pour l’art” first emerged in French literary circles, the phrase rapidly spread to other countries and became a rallying cry for many artists. There was the perceived threat that the creation of art would become solely subject to utilitarianism. Taking an existing fine art work and retrofitting it for the stage, especially if mass-produced in a scenic studio, is pretty utilitarian. I started to ponder the eventual perception of painting scenery as a “lesser art.” Could this have contributed to the belief that art hung in a theatre was far less significant that that hung on a gallery wall? That backdrops were “just backings?”

Then I thought back to the late-nineteenth century artists who produced scenery for both the theatrical stage and the fine art galleries. Their work was praised for both venues. They remained a respected part of the fine art world. I immediately thought of the the 1885 Scene Painters’ Show in Chicago and how the work of scenic artists were received by their peers. I also kept returning to the saying, “imitation is the greatest form of flattery.” This was the case for many art movements as a group of artists emulated a particular style, Scenic artists were also imitating the popular aesthetic, whether it be the Düsseldorf school or some other artistic movement.

The first historical example that I ever encountered of a scenic artist copying a fine art work in its entirety for a drop curtain was at the University of Minnesota Performing Arts archives. I stumbled across a paint-spattered print by Thomas Moran, copyright 1906. On the back of the print was written, “”Reverse and use right half of picture only. No figures. For West.”

It matched the drop curtain in the Twin City Scenic Company collection by John Z. Wood. I was so excited to identify the match. This occurred while I was assigning metadata for the scenery collection database and I immediately noted the pairing in the description about each piece. The design for the painted drop curtain was in box 2 and the print had been tucked away in supplemental box 1. The artist for the drop curtain was John Z. Wood, an unknown at the time. I wondered what his scenic art would look like, especially in light of his imitating Moran’s “Sunset in Old Mexico.” It was this encounter that made me first contemplate the eventual division between fine artists and scenic artists.

Initially the scenic artist was also the designer, respected for his creative vision and mechanical genius. David Austin Strong is a great example for nineteenth century American stage design. His painting, in conjunction with stage machinery, created magical effects during many visual spectacles for the stage, such as ‘The Black Crook.” He might have only created the scenery for one act of the production, but his contribution was well noted in the program. If his setting were successful, critics might be herald him as a genius, or note that his work the highlight of the production!

Then there was a shift during the early twentieth century as scenic artists became theatrical manufacturers in a studio setting. They now would make multiple copies of each other’s vision. Scenic artist still designed the compositions to show prospective clients. Then, a new position emerged in the form of a scenic designer and it became his vision that a legion of artists created. Some scenic artists were reduced to simple manufacturers of a painted product, almost as in a factory setting. I think of the same camp scene for the Scottish Rite’s 32^nd degree that appeared over and over again across the country.

This mass-production of a painted scene is just one of many factors that I think attributed to the shift. Other factors would include electrical lighting innovations, the emergence of a lighting designer, modern stage design and the onset of the scenic studio system. It seemed like the perfect storm to remove the scenic artist from the initial “vision” for the stage.

What I find fascinating is that during the early through mid-nineteenth century, artists easily shifted from the fine art studio to a paint bridge high above the stage. They could paint a picture, paint a show, paint a carriage, or paint a sign. Possibilities were everywhere. In some ways this might suggest that the establishment of scenic studios offered a position that eventually limited the aspiring artist. A full-time position in a studio would lead to working on a never-ending stream of projects depicting the artistic composition of others. This meant far less time for sketching trips or other artistic projects that would later appear in galleries. Prior to the studio system, artists would have a project, but then there would be a break and they would work on a variety of other artworks. Feast or famine; it is still a problem for those who freelance. A permanent position limits the opportunities for artistic escape.

Thomas G. Moses was just one example of an artist who crossed the line of stage art and gallery art, constantly trying to participate in art shows throughout the country. He joined a variety of groups, including the Palette and Chisel Club (Chicago), the Salmagundi Club (New York), the Laguna Beach Art Association (California) and others. As a young many, he had pondered, “Would I ever be able to paint pictures framed in heavy gold frames, my name on the corner, and hanging in an Art gallery?” Some of his contemporaries eventually made a permanent transition to the world of fine art, but most remained in the scenic studio, reproducing the artworks of others over and over again.

Examining historical scenery collections is a wonderful way to track popular fine art images for the stage and the artists who manufactured them. The Egyptian settings for the Scottish Rite’s thirty-first degree depict many popular fine art compositions, incorporating various aesthetic shifts and changes in painting techniques. It is one of the easiest scenes to identify discrepancy in interpretation, color palette and brush stroke.

To be continued…