Drypigment.net

On January 12, 1912, “The News-Democrat” mentioned Sosman & Landis employee Victor Hubal. Hubal was painting scenery for the Kentucky Theatre in Paducah, a venue that first opened its doors on September 24, 1901. The Kentucky Theatre advertised “refined plays at family prices – 10, 15 and 20 cents. At the prices you can bring your family at least twice a week, pass a pleasant evening with them at this beautiful resort, and while being highly entertained save more than the price of admission asked in gas and fuel.”

On January 15, 1912, the Kentucky Theatre began a short season of permanent stock, with Manager Finney engaging the Garside Stock Company for fifty weeks. They were scheduled to perform two plays a week. The “News-Democrat” article continued, “Each play will be a production from a scenic point of view, as Mr. Vic Hubal, of the Sosman & Landis studio, Chicago, has been engaged to paint all the scenery, and is now hard at work at the Kentucky on the first production of ‘The Devil’s Kitchen,’ which will be the bill for the first three days, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.”

At the time, Hubel was 24 years old and living in Chicago, Illinois.

Victor J. Hubal was born in Chicago on May 10, 1888. His father, Felix Hubal (b. Nov. 1861), was a Czech immigrant. His mother, Theresa Mary Koranda (b. 1864), was born and raised in Illinois. Hubal’s parents both worked, his father as a baker and his mother as a seamstress. Like Thomas G. Moses’ family, there is no indication of any connection to the performing arts, yet Hubal entered the theatre industry at the age of 17 in 1905. The 1910 United States census reports Hubal as still living with his mother and two siblings, Otto (20, born 1890) and Lucy (18, born 1892) at 3528 W. Cortland St. in Chicago. The census lists Hubal as an artist and his sister as a stenographer, with his brother being unemployed.  Seven years later in 1917, the WWI draft registration card reported Hubal’s appearance as “medium” in height and “medium” in build with gray eyes and dark brown hair. His draft card also noted that Hubal claimed exemption status based on “kidney trouble.”

In 1917, Hubal met and married a Minnesota girl, Eloise L. Strenlund (1897 – 1984), moving his new bride to Chicago. The couple’s first address was 5030 Hutchinson St, yet familial ties would prompt the couple to relocate to the “Land of 10,000 Lakes,” raising their family in Minnesota.

Eloise’s father was a Swedish immigrant. Anton Strenlund arrived in the United States in 1887 at the age of sixteen. Traveling west, he worked as a carpenter and finally settled in Minnesota where he married Alise Oberg on August 21, 1897. At the time, she was pregnant, giving birth to Eloise on November 12, 1897.  The couple’s second child Arthur arrived on 29 September 1900, with their third child, Ernest William, being born on April 1, 1903. When Eloise turned 17, she moved to St. Paul and began working as a clerk. Her new profession and new address at 1010 Euclid Ave. were listed in the 1915 St. Paul Directory for the next two years before moving to Chicago. Life married to a scenic artist in Chicago must have been a been a far cry from her simple upbringing in Minnesota.

Like Moses, Hubal’s scenic art career extended for more than sixty years and his work was featured across the country in both live theater and film productions. After moving to Minnesota, he became an integral part of the opera and theatre scene. 

Although Hubal’s scenic art career began in 1905, little is known of his early work or the studios that he was associated with for the first six years. By 1912, however, he was working for Sosman & Landis in Chicago, as well as continuing as an itinerant artist, picking up work across the country during slow times.  

Hubal’s 1972 obituary in the “St. Paul Dispatch” reported, “His work graced some 50 productions of the St. Paul Civic Opera, as the organization was then known, from the initial one, ‘Samson And Delilah’ in 1933, to ‘The Merry Widow’ in 1963. He also did the decorations and designs for a number of the International Institute’s, “Festival of Nations” at the Auditorium and was responsible for the mounting of major productions at Andahazy Ballet Borealis. (Feb. 20, 1972).” Other Andahazy production settings painted by Hubal included “Slavonic Scenes,” “Les Sylphises,” “Swan Lake,” “Spectre de la Rose,” “Aurora’s Wedding,” “The Miraculous Stag” and “Scheherazade.” I discovered a 1954 article that provided some insight into the scenery produced by Hubal for the Andahazy Ballet Borealis company at Northrup Auditorium on the University of Minnesota Campus. The “Star Tribune” described the scenery for “Les Sylphides:”

“The setting, a woodland glade, by Victor Hubal, had a spacious, semi-transparent effect which enhanced the quality of the ballet” (Minneapolis, Minnesota, 0 July 1954, page 29). The article also noted that the ballet company was composed of 40 dancers and headed by Lorand Andahazy and Anna Adrianova.

In regard to Hubal’s “Swan Lake” scenery, an entertaining tale was published in the “St. Paul Dispatch.” During the execution of scenery for “Swan Lake,” Andahazy accidentally upset a pail of dye onto the canvas and apologized. “Hubal said, ‘Never mind” [and] with deft strokes he converted the dark blotch into a rocky formation and balanced the composition by converting some trees into more rocks on the other side.”  The “Dispatch” article ended with a description of the artist’s character:  “A man of artistic sensitivity and great skill and accumulated knowledge of his craft, Hubal labored largely in obscurity, for he was shy and retiring by nature and had no talent for self-promotion. But the contributions to the community to which he made in his self-effacing way for so many years were great, and they can be remembered with respect and gratitude

One more insightful story about Hubal appeared in conjunction with his scenery for the St. Paul Civic Opera’s production of “Rigoletto.” Hubal’s past with the film industry was also described in a newspaper article:

“When the curtain rises Wednesday it will be on the work of a man who might have been prominent in his field in motion pictures as Wallace Beery and Charlie Chaplin are in theirs, had it not been for the fact that he found black and white too monotonous. He is Vic Hubal, scene designer for the opera association. When the motion pictures were in their infancy, Hubal, already an accomplished scene designer for some of the largest production and road shows in the country, wandered into the old Essanay Film company’s lot in Hollywood. There he went to work on designing backgrounds against which Charlie Chaplin, Ben Turpin and Beery were to cavort. But the backgrounds were all black and white, because those were the only colors to film well. There were relieving incidents once in a while, as he when he would be called down from his scaffold to take the part of a cop, or when he was called into the dressing room to make up Turpin for his monkey roles, but on the whole, black and white was too confining for a true scenic artist. Hubal went on to train with Fred Scott, Ansel Cook and Fred Lewis…” Scott and Cook both worked at Sosman & Landis, therefore, the article is likely referencing his time at the studio around 1912.

I will continue to explore the life of Vic Hubal tomorrow, as there is too much to put in one post.

To be continued…

At the beginning of 1912, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “starting some new work for the Palace Theatre.”  Moses was referring to the 1500-seat Palace Music Hall, advertised as “Chicago’s New Vaudeville Theatre” in 1912.

Built at N. Clark Street and W. Randolph, the Palace Music Hall opened on April 1, 1912.  Designed by Holabird and Roche, the new Palace Music Hall was advertised across the country.  An article in the “Daily Herald” noted that the Palace Music Hall was the newest theater “situated in the heart of Chicago’s theatre district and that “leading artists of the world” would be featured at this “high-class vaudeville” house (August 30, 1912, page 11). The article further reported, “The building department of Chicago has pronounced the Palace the most perfectly constructed and equipped theatre in the country.” Hmm. I have noticed that most new theaters during this period were advertised as the “best” that could be found in country, often including validation by some organization or well-known personality. Great marketing technique to get the public in the doors.

Performances at the Palace were given twice daily, once at 3:15 PM and once at 8:15 PM. Individual seat prices were 15 cents, 25 cents, 50 cents and 75 cents.  Like many theatres during this time, however, there was a shift in popular attractions and entertainment, often promting a change in owners. Abraham Lincoln Erlanger acquired the lease for Chicago’s Palace Theatre building during January 1926. He extensively remodeled the theater, renaming it the Erlanger Theatre. The Erlanger theatre remained open until March 10, 1962. The building was soon demolished, with the theater’s original location and remainder of the block being razed to build the Chicago Civic Center, now the Richard J. Daley Center. Neither this venue, nor the original Palace Theatre, are to be confused with Chicago’s New Palace Theatre, a venue designed by Rapp & Rapp and located on Randolph and La Salle Street in Chicago in 1926. The second “Palace Theater” opened Oct. 4, 1926 and is now known as the Cadillac Palace Theatre.

In 1912,  Martin Beck announced his intention to “invade” the east and Chicago with the new Palace theatres. The Palace Theatre in Chicago and the Palace Theatre in New York were intended to fight eastern interests. Beck’s Palace theaters were also mentioned in an interesting 1912 newspaper article published across the country. “Woman Back of a Theatre Trust” was the title and the article’s headline stated, “Mrs. Katherine Kohl Carries Out Late Husband’s Ideas for Territory Division. STOPS VAUDEVILLE WAR” (Rock Island Argus, 30 April 1912, page 9). Here is the article in its entirety, as I found it quite fascinating:

“Chicago, April 20, 1912.- The efforts of a Chicago woman, Mrs. Catherine Kohl, has averted a threatened vaudeville war which would have involved millions of dollars and has brought about a combination of theatrical interests aggregating $50,000,000.

Her months of endeavor have resulted in a union of men of the east and west representing practically the same theatre interests but operating in different territories. By the new arrangement the eastern magnates will keep in their own territory, the western magnates in theirs and Mrs. Kohl will be left the mistress of the situation in her Chicago theatres, founded by her husband and left to her on his death a year ago.

By the deal, completion of which was just announced in New York, B. F. Keith has purchased interests of Percy G. Williams, controlling eight theatres in New York, and a working agreement has been entered into by the different vaudeville powers by which there will be no friction in the future. A general agreement has been made as to the placing of different vaudeville acts and the ‘time’ to be allotted performers.

This new assignment of territory and interests stops a new vaudeville war started some time ago when Martin Beck opened the Palace theatre in New York and followed it by the Palace theatre in Chicago. These two houses were to be used in conjunction with others, to fight the eastern interests. By the new terms of the Chicago theatre, which is now playing vaudeville, will change its policy. It is said the first sign of the change will be when ‘A Modern Eve,’ now playing at the Garrick theatre, is transferred to the Palace theater.

Under the new combination thousands of performers are virtually interested. Mr. Keith with E. F. Albee, A. Paul Keith and John J. Murdock will control the vaudeville situation far west as Chicago. The situation in Chicago will be under the control of Mrs. C. E. Kohl, Max Anderson and the Monroe Amusement company. Meyerfeld and Beck of the Orpheum circuit will control the remainder of the country for the Orpheum circuit.

Mr. Keith will have control of the situation in the east, Mrs. Kohl in Chicago, and Martin Beck for the Orpheum circuit west of Chicago.

The new combination was caused by the announced intention of Beck to invade the east and Chicago, his new Palaces theatres being his first step in this regard. Theatrical managers saw ahead another theatrical war which probably would duplicate the efforts of Klaw & Erlanger to break the vaudeville trust some years ago and the fight of William Morris along the same lines. But before the war was fairly advanced the alignment of interests was accomplished.

‘The late Charles E. Kohl planned more than once to bring about this arrangement which would place the Majestic and other large theatres in association with the east,’ said Lyman Glover, general manager for the Kohl-Castle theatres, last night. ‘He wanted to leave the west as an empire for the Orpheum circuit. His widow has labored effectively in promoting the agreement now reached. The result will clear up the situation, prevent ruinous competition, provide better and more uniform vaudeville bills, and simplify the business in many ways.’

From New York at night a statement was issued by Meyerfield and Beck.

‘It always has been our fondest desire,’ the statement said, ‘to bind the east and west together in a more substantial way. The consummation of the deal just put though by Mr. Keith and ourselves is a happy solution of our difficulties and is most satisfactory to us.

‘The situation, as far as territory is concerned, is no different than it was before, but by buying interests with Mr. Keith and in other ways tying our interest more closely together we have accomplished something for which we have been working for years, and the public and artists will reap the benefits as well as ourselves.

‘We are all men who have practically brought the high class vaudeville business to its present high standard, both sides owning controlling vast interests thoroughly established. And we feel that the fruits of our labor for 30 years have been consummated by the arrangement we have entered into.’”

To be continued…

At the beginning of 1912, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “Started right by hustling out some work for Bangor, Maine.” Moses was referring to the recently fire-damaged Bangor Opera House. An extensive fire damaged the building in 1911, necessitating a new stage, scenery and necessary machinery the following year.  The 1912 Sosman & Landis installation was short lived, as two years later another fire destroyed the building. The “big conflagration of 1911” was recalled in a newspaper article after the second fire. On January 15, 1914, “The Boston Globe” reported, “The Bangor Opera House, the oldest and largest theatre here was destroyed by fire this morning.” The fire department managed to contain the flames to the theater and prevented its spread to nearby buildings, with losses estimated at $80,000. Sadly, five men lost their lives as they fought the flames in frigid temperatures that night. The hose men were all in line, playing the hose through the door, when an explosion occurred and toppled the brick wall nearest them. All of the firemen were instantly crushed to death.

The first Bangor Opera House, designed by architect Arthur H. Vinal, was built in 1882 for a population numbering 20,000. Prior to this new theatre space, “Jno. B. Jeffrey’s Theatrical Guide and Directory” listed only three performance halls in the city: Bangor Music Hall (seating capacity 650), Norombega Hall (seating capacity of 1500), and Bangor City Hall (seating capacity of 800).  Neither Bangor’s Music Hall nor City Hall contained any painted scenery. Only the Buskin Club had purchased nine scenes that were used at Norombega Hall; a modest enticement for touring theatrical troupes.

For many years, the opera house was the only stage in Bangor available for legitimate theater and touring productions. The Bangor Opera House had a seating capacity of 1,109, a fair size for many types of events. The size of the proscenium opening measured 31’ high by 31’ wide, with the height from the stage floor to the rigging loft was 45. Some records indicate that the height of the rigging loft was only 40 feet.  The depth under the stage was 10 feet and boasted 2 traps. The full stage area measured 40’ deep x 65’wide.  There was a height of 18’ from the stage floor to the underside of the grooves to accommodate the painted wings. In addition to painted wings, theatrical directories indicate that there were fifteen sets of scenery. The original installation was painted by scenic artist M. H. Andrews and added to over the years. Unfortunately, all painted scenery was destroyed during the 1911 fire, providing an opportunity for Sosman & Landis to provide a new installation

By 1912, the Bangor Opera House building was owned by a corporation, with local businessman Dr. Thomas U. Coe as a significant stockholder. The population of Bangor at this time numbered 40,000 people. “Julius Cahn’s Official Theatrical Guide” for the 1913-1914 season reported an increased seating capacity after the fire of 1159. The stage was also illuminated with electricity by this time (110 AC and 8 stage pockets). After the 1914 fire, however, everything was lost, leaving Bangor without a full-stage theater once again. Although immediate action was taken to replace the city’s lost theater, it took time to gather the necessary funds, and then the United States entered World War I

The lot theatre lot was purchased by Joseph P. Bass in February 1919. Bass was a businessman and publisher of the “Bangor Daily Commercial.”  He announced his plan to rebuild the opera house, selecting the new lessee to be the Alfred S. Black chain of theatres. For the next few decades, a variety of entertainment was featured at the Bangor Opera House. Like many theaters during the mid-twentieth century, however, the stage would eventually feature film. By 1966, the theater was known as the Bangor Cinema. Over the years, it fell into a state of disrepair.  

By 1997, the building was acquired by the Penobscot Theatre Company. The opera house underwent a series of restorations, with the exterior façade being restored during 2007-2008. By 2016, the company launched a capital campaign to complete a number of other necessary improvements. The recent auditorium makeover included new carpet, seating, lighting fixtures and fresh paint. It is now a very blue auditorium. As with many historic theater venues, much of the early history is forgotten, with the main focus remaining on the architectural style and/or a specific architect.  Little is remembered interior, especially details of the original stage, scenery, lighting, and other mechanical systems that remained behind the curtain line.

To be continued…

As I conclude the year 1911, Mrs. Thomas G. Moses re-enters the story as a one-line entry in a newspaper article published in the “Joliet Evening Herald-News” (11 June 1911, page 12).  I seldom explore the life of Thomas G. Moses’ wife, Susan “Ella” Robbins, in my posts.  One ­­­­­­­of the reasons is that she primarily remained absent from print, being primarily identified in minimal public records and a few brief mentions in her husband’s memoirs.  Prior to 1911, there are only a few mentions of “Mrs. Thos. G. Moses” in the newspaper mostly associated with various church events.

It is not that she was confined to the home, unloved by her husband.  However, like most women of her time, she was cast in a supporting role.  Ella spent much of her married life taking care of home responsibilities while her husband crisscrossed the country to complete one theater project after another. After the children were grown and her own parents had passed, what was there to do other than housekeeping? Primarily volunteer and church work. Her husband worked until his death, never really slowing down.  Ella had not worked outside of the home since getting married. For one year, she worked as a seamstress’ assistant in Sterling, Illinois, before giving birth to their first child.

Ella was the love of Tom’s life, their first having met in the one-room schoolhouse in Sterling.  Moses recalled their first date in 1872, writing, “The first party we attended together compelled me to do some hustling in putting my clothes in shape, as about the only clothes I had were made from my Father’s cast-offs, which had done good service in the tannery.  A paper collar and “dickey” over my flannel shirt, a piece of ribbon for a tie, a good coat of blacking on my heavy shoes and I was ready to shine in Society. I think Ella was awfully brave to go with me, especially when the other boys always dressed better than I.” The couple was married on October 31, 1878, with their first child, William Pitt Moses, arriving in 1879.

Ella was her husband’s confidant, counselor, and eventual caretaker. When Moses’ father and step-mother rejected him, Ella and her family were there to welcome him with open  arms and support him.  They offered unconditional love, something that had vanished when his birth mother passed away at a young age. Ella became his rock, an integral link that completed her husband’s network of support throughout the decades. When her husband did return home after a project, he escaped to the solace of his attic studio, always painting. He also left home between work projects to hone his artistic skills on sporadic sketching trips. All the while Ella was there to keep everything quiet on the home front. She was the one who packed up their entire house and moved east when her husband started a new studio in New York in 1900, with children in tow. She was the one who kept children and grandchildren from bothering their father/grandfather while he was painting. As most women during this time, her life was defined by the desires and actions of her husband. There was little time for her to follow her dreams as she was always busy with home and church projects.  We will never know if this was “enough” and made her life complete.

It was a time when women could note vote, and most of their activities were limited by gender. As fascinated as I am with this particular period of time, I would have hated the restrictions of being a female at this time. I think of my mother’s frustration when she first purchased a car during the 1950s.  She had an advanced degree, a full-time position as a teacher, and a guaranteed income, yet could not secure a car loan without the co-signature of a male, ideally a father or husband. Yes, my grandfather thought this was ridiculous too, so he loaned her the money. Forty years prior to my own mother’s experience, women had limited control of their bodies, their bank accounts and property without some form of guardianship from a male; these restrictions suggest that women were in capable of making important decisions. And yet there remain men who yearn to return, restricting women. We remember that when women are kept at home, unemployed, and constantly pregnant their voice in society is effectively silenced.

One of the few outlets for women during the early twentieth century was charitable work for religious organizations. Such was the case for Mrs. Thomas G. Moses and the Woman’s Foreign Missionary Society of the Chicago Presbytery. In 1911, she was a speaker at the annual meeting held at DuPage church. The Thursday, June 8, event was attended by 125 ladies, 67 of whom were representatives from various Chicago churches, with the remaining number coming from the surrounding parishes and towns. The morning session opened with a hymn, a devotional service and words of welcome from Mrs. M. B. McNutt. Then  various reports were presented from the secretaries, treasurer and a personal story described foreign missionary work.

Mrs. Thomas G. Moses spoke in the afternoon about “Where Foreign and Home Missions Meet.” Other afternoon speakers discussed reports on recent gatherings, a plea for young people to commit to mission work, and thoughts for the coming months.

For the remainder of her life, Ella, was an active participant in various church activities.  As wonderful as this sounds, what else could she do? Church socials, fundraisers, and other volunteer work kept some women’s minds and bodies active.  A few were able to rise above social constrictions in 1911, but most of them were an anomaly.

To be continued…

On January 25, 1911, an entertaining article was published in “The Columbus Journal” about a fine artist’s quote to paint a drop curtain.

Here is the article in its entirety:

“Costly Drop Curtain.

The One Meissonier Didn’t Paint For French Theatre.

The enterprising manager of a theater called upon the famous French artist Jean Louis Ernest Meissonier on one occasion and asked him to paint a drop scene for a certain theater and name his terms.

‘You have seen my pictures, then?’ asked Meissonier.

‘Oh, yes,’ exclaimed the manager, ‘but it is your name I want! It will draw crowds to my theater.’

‘And how large do your wish the curtain to be’ inquired the artist.

‘Ah, well, we will say 15 by 18 meters.’

Meissonier took up a pen and pencil and proceeded to make a calculation. At last he looked up and said, with imperturbable gravity,

‘I calculated and find that my pictures are valued at 80,000 francs per meter. Your curtain, therefore, will cost you just 21,600,000 francs. But that is not all. It takes me twelve months to paint twenty-five centimeters of canvas. It will take me just 190 years to finish your curtain. You should have come to me earlier, monsieur. I am too old for undertaking it now. God morning.”

Meissonier (1815-1891) was a sculptor and fine artist, known for his detail and precise brushwork.  His realistic approach to painting meant that it took time to complete each composition; the same techniques could not be applied to the stage for many reasons.

Although Meissonier passed away two decades before the 1911 article was published, the story still resonates in the field of scenic art today. The precision required for photorealistic painting takes more time, and ultimately, these same techniques destroy illusion on the stage. An artist may excel at photorealism yet remain unable to produce a satisfactory backdrop or large outdoor mural.

Many artists struggle when they change exhibition spaces, for example, transitioning from small-scale watercolors to large-scale theatrical backdrops. Painting miniatures for an art gallery versus painting cycloramas for the stage require different techniques, tools and materials. Is the artwork intended to be viewed from several inches away or from several yards away? An automated billboard in Times Square is intended to be viewed from several blocks away. The basis of scenic art has always been learning how to see from the audience’s perspective. This skill is not necessarily taught in fine art schools.

Different painting techniques take an artist different amounts of time to complete. This is what is addressed in the 1911 newspaper article above. Meissonier based his estimate on a very realistic technique, one that he used for his many detailed military compositions. Painting techniques not only shift when transitioning from one type of artwork to another, but also one school of scenic art to another. Some techniques take more time. Here is one example: The majority of theatrical backdrops created at the turn of the twentieth century took between one and two days. The same compositions might now take a scenic artist one to two weeks to complete. It is not that contemporary scenic artists are untalented, or simply slow. Much has to do with the fact that many of the scenic art techniques have been lost or altered over the decades, whether intentional or not. In addition to the shift in painting techniques, the overall paint system changed from dry pigment to pre-mixed theatrical paints. Shifts in scenic art remain dependent on instruction, tools, and type of paint.  Whether a student learns in a classroom or scene shop, the instructor/journeyman is the one to pass along a tradition and “preferred” type of painting system.

In the past, I have posted articles that examined why scenic artists more easily transitioned to a fine art gallery than fine artists transitioned to the stage. It all has to do with one’s ability to understand how painted compositions are intended to be viewed from any distance, whether far away or close up. In short, theatrical artists painted many compositions that were intended to be viewed from a distance of twenty feet or more, employing speed and economical brushwork. They incorporated specific painting techniques that allowed the audience’s “eye” to fill in the gaps. There needs to be a division of colors and separate of value. Keep in mind their work appeared at many other venues beyond the theatre, opera, and vaudeville stage. Scenic artists controlled the scenic illusion at world fair attractions, grand circus spectacles, and American pageants. The scenic artist could not create photographic realism for these venues as their paintings would appear fuzzy from a distance.

At the same time, these same scenic artists had to paint for intimate performance spaces and displays that placed audience members mere feet from their work. This requires an overall understanding of stage illusion and various scenic art techniques for any venue, in addition to basic artistic training in color, light, perspective, composition and layout. In the end, these trained, experienced and knowledgeable individuals understood how to make their artworks come to life from a distance or up close. Painting techniques placed well upstage of the proscenium line would “fall apart” when examined close-up. The same could not be said for a drop curtain that was within almost arms reach of the first row, as the techniques were different than those employed against the backwall.

Throughout the twentieth century the understanding of basic painting techniques that were dependent on the scenic piece’s stage position became a struggle, especially as some modern scenic designers failed to comprehend the complexity of the painted stage aesthetic, or the magic that could be produced by one.  Simultaneously, the role of a nineteenth-century scenic artist who controlled the entire stage aesthetic transitioned to a twentieth-century scenic artist who painted another’s design (the scene designer). This transition compounded by scenic designers who were not trained as scenic artists became a challenge. In many cases it has continued to remain an obstacle when painted scenery is designed by those who do not paint, or fully understand painted illusion for the stage. It is not that these designers are unskilled, or that they are less valued by our industry, but it provides a challenge for many paint crews when a scenic designer visits a shop and sees a backdrop at close range, and not from the back of an auditorium. Simply stated, these designers are unable to fully comprehend either the possibilities or limitations of a two-dimensional composition and therefore, in many cases,  avoid them.  This lack of understanding has carried over into come current digital designs. In many cases a scenic artist should be used to help the designer translate his vision for the stage. One example is when computer renderings fail to depict a uniform light source, allowing random shadows and highlights to appear through the final product.  With an inconsistent use of shadows and highlights, the dimensionality is destroyed, and the overall composition looks flat, or simply odd.  The basic rules of scenic art for the stage still apply to digital backdrops.

Contemporary scenic art obstacles, however, are not solely the result of designers, lighting or technological innovations. Much has to do with training. All scenic art is not equal; it has never been equal, and America has supported two distinct schools of scenic art (see past posts about opaque painting versus glazing). In the end, whether it is hand-painted or digital the same questions need to be asked. Is the background or prop for live theater, film, theme parks, department store displays or some other exhibition space? Each one requires a different skill set. The individual designing and manufacturing the backdrop needs to understand that the final product is dependent on whether it is viewed from a distance or up close. 

Another example of differing skill sets: backdrops for theatre and backdrops for film.  Comparing these two is just like comparing apples to oranges. From the beginning, techniques used for scenic illusion on the stage did not successfully transfer to the movie industry, especially as the quality of film advanced throughout the twentieth century.  This aesthetic shift for scenic artists was already in play during the first decade of the twentieth century – the early twentieth-century generation of scenic artists that had to figure artworks for a new format. They needed an even further division of value to help the painted scenery read on screen – in the beginning. When Harley Merry worked with Thomas Edison on some of the earliest films at the turn-of the century, new painting techniques were created to successfully read in this projected black and white format. Keep in mind that some of the early films also included Thomas G. Moses’ work for attractions at Coney Island.  The distance from the camera to the painted setting, and from the screen to the audience, dictated the scenic artist’s painting technique at this time. By the mid-twentieth century, a scenic art system for film was partially in place for color. 

Success in any form of scenic art is based on the continued study of the trade. There should never be a point when any artist says, “I have learned enough.” For centuries, scenic artists sought constant training, whether it is in the form of a class at the academy or a sketching trip with one’s contemporaries. We must continue to grow as artists, always studying the past while planning for the future.  In many ways, today’s scenic artists are even closer to their nineteenth-century predecessors who successfully worked in a variety of industries throughout the duration of their career. Their income derived from many different venues, not simply painting backdrops for the stage, or working in a studio. It is an exciting time to be a scenic artist as change is the only constant thing we can expect.

To be continued…

In 1911, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “Got Geo. Schultz on the staff at 20^th Street.” This was Sosman & Landis’ annex studio, a separate shop from their main studio on Clinton Street.

George F. Schultz was well known for his landscapes and marine scenes in both fine art galleries and upon the stage.

A child of immigrants, his father came from Germany and his mother from Canada. Schultz was born in Chicago on April 17, 1869, and began his career as a decorative painter in Chicago. As a souvenir decorator, Schultz’s specialty was china decoration. This initial trade provided training as Schultz grew and began to take classes as a student at the Art Institute of Chicago.

The 1888 Chicago City Directory, listed Schultz’s occupation as an artist and his residence at 2163 Archer Ave. in Chicago. Schultz began exhibiting his work around this time and by 1892, he exhibited some of his work at O’Brien’s Gallery. This was a shop that he ran with fellow artist William Wilson Cowell in 1893 on Chicago’s Rush Street. Schultz was featured in a solo exhibition at Thurber’s Gallery in 1896, again exhibiting at there in 1898. In 1896, “the Chicago Tribune” reported , “Last summer he visited Monhegan Island, the favorite resort of Edwards. Triscott, and other Eastern artists, away up on the Maine Coast. Most of the pictures he now shows are Monhegan views and the result of his sojourn. Many are coat scenes. In nearly all rocks abound, and Mr. Schultz has been eminently successful in catching the effects of sun and shadow on sea and land and rocky shore. One of the pictures, “A Misty Morning,” the artist calls it, is a really powerful bit of color work such as is rarely attained with aquarelles. The sun breaking through the mist and the softened aspect of the rocks are presented with such strength as many a man would have difficulty showing in oils” (16 Feb 1896, page 28).

Later, in 1898, the “Chicago Tribune” advertised his twenty-five paintings on exhibition at Thurber’s, including “Gray Day, “ “Along the River,” “Hoeing Cabbages, “A Lowery Day,” “Quietude,” and “Morning” (10 April, page 43). An illustration of “Hoeing Cabbages” even accompanied the article. Although primarily known for his watercolor studies, Schultz also worked in oils. An article in the “Inter Ocean” commented on Schultz’s “delicate, loose and pleasing” technical skill. His work “Reflections,” appeared in the March issue of “Brush and Pencil.” The 1904 City Directory still listed Schultz as an artist, an occupational title that would remain throughout the duration of his career. Regional sketching trips included Delavan, Wisconsin during the 1890s, with later travel bringing him to Indiana, the coast of Maine (Monhegan Island) and even Mexico.

Like many Sosman & Landis artists, Schultz’s work was continuously exhibited in fine art exhibitions. He was a member of the Art Institute of Chicago, exhibiting over one hundred works at the AIC annuals, between 1889 and 1925. Schultz also belonged to the Palette & Chisel Club, the Municipal Art League of Chicago, the Arche, the Cliff Dwellers, and the Union League Club during the early twentieth century. He was also the president of the Water Color Club. Schultz also exhibited Converse at the Carnegie International in 1914 and the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts in 1916. By 1918, he received the William H. Tuthill Prize of $100 at the Art Institute in Chicago.

In 1906 works Schultz were accepted as part of the Palette and Chisel Club’s permanent collection.  This is likely where Moses first met Schultz prior to hiring him on staff at Sosman & Landis. Around this time he also began painting woodland scenes, a possible result of his working with and for Thomas G. Moses at Sosman & Landis Studios. Art historian, Dr. Wendy Greenhouse, purports Schultz use of “bright color, rapid brushwork, dappled sunlight, and garden settings beloved of American adherents of impression.” These same artistic characteristics are the hallmark of many early twentieth-century scenic artists, and considering he was working at Sosman & Landis studio during this period, one has to wonder if studio work invaded his fine art work. Much of the Chicago scenic art community not only worked together, but also studied and socialized together. Throughout the decades, scenic artists gathered in town and planned sketching trips to hone their artistic skills for a variety of artistic projects, including theatrical settings, grand circus spectacles, panoramas, industrial fairs, and fine art exhibitions.

Schultz’s exhibited several watercolor paintings in a solo exhibition at the Art Institute in 1907. That same year he became a charter member and secretary of the Chicago Water Color Society, being elected as the club’s president in 1912.

Six years later in 1918, Schultz was awarded the Tuthill Prize in the Art Institute’s annual exhibition of watercolor paintings. In 1919 the Marshall Field and Company department store exhibited his work; this became recognized as his last-known solo exhibition.

In regard to Schultz’s personal life, he raised a family in Chicago, after marrying Katharine Karr Hagenlotha on Sept. 20, 1883.The 1910 census lists his marriage to Katherine and their renting a house at 1158 Perry Street, Chicago, Ward 26, Cook, Illinois. This same census lists Schultz’s occupation as an “artist” who worked in the “picture paint” industry. Schultz was head of the household, with other members being Beatrice (b. 1895, age 15), Katherine R. (b. 1898, age 12), George F. Jr., (b. 1900, age 10) and Florence (b. 1908, age 2).

Schultz’s wife Katharine wife was also an Illinois native, with immigrant parents from Germany (father) and Switzerland (mother). By 1920, the couple was still married and living in another rental home at 4013 Green View Ave., still listing Schultz’s profession as “artist.” Their children were still living at home, with Beatrice working as a clerk in the Oil Concern industry, the younger Katherine working as a stenographer in the Building Waters industry, and George Jr. working as a tire-maker in the automobile Pates industry. The youngest child, Florence, was still listed as attending  school.

Ten years later, everything changed for Schultz. The 1930 census listed George Schultz as a divorced male, although he was sill working as an artist “working on account.” He was now living in another rental unit at 1521 Warren Boulevard.

I have been unable to find any information about Schultz after 1930, including any obituary. This may indicate his being in poor circumstances or being estranged from his family at that time. Although art historians list his death in 1934, nothing is offered in terms of any public tribute.

To be continued…

In 1911, Thomas G. Moses wrote,  “Pausback had his hands full; Scott acted bad.” Moses was referring an extremely busy period at Sosman & Landis. Nicholas J. Pausback and Frederick J. Scott were both painting for Moses at the Sosman & Landis Annex Studio on 20^th Street that year.

Yesterday, I explored at the life of future studio founder Nicholas J. Pausback. Today, I look at the life of scenic artist Frederick J. Scott. “Fred” Scott was noted for his ability being able to paint any type of subject matter, a great asset to Sosman & Landis studio in 1911, considering the scope of their work. A naturalized citizen, Scott was born England on Aug. 16, August 1860. This made him four years Moses’ junior.  In 1904, Moses was 48 years old, with Scott Being 42; both were journeymen artists. The personality of Scott, however, continually rubbed Moses the wrong way and their personalities clashed for years.

When Moses returned to Sosman & Landis in 1904, he had just closed a successful business in New York City known as Moses & Hamilton. Keep in mind that from 1900-1904, Moses worked with Will F. Hamilton on a variety of projects for many well-known stage personalities and producers. Regardless of Moses’ achievements and success in New York, however, Joseph S. Sosman desperately needed Moses to return to Chicago. Sosman had remained shorthanded after the retirement of Perry Landis. Ill heath had prompted Landis to leave the studio in 1902, and Sosman had taken over many of Landis’ sales and administrative duties.  Sosman need someone to fill his own role as shop supervisor and realized that Moses was the only one who could do it. Moses had worked with Sosman since the beginning and knew the running of the studio just as well as its founders. Although Moses repeatedly left Sosman & Landis during the late nineteenth century to start various partnerships, he always returned when Sosman or Landis needed help.

Back to Fred Scott. Moses’ 1904 return did not sit well with all of the studio artists in Chicago, especially Scott. It was at this point that Moses became vice-president of the Sosman & Landis, a company shareholder and was given complete aesthetic control over all projects, supervising the design, construction, painting and installation of everything.  In a sense, Moses was handed the world on a silver palette and many of the scenic artists resented Sosman’s preferential treatment of Moses. That year, Moses wrote, “When Mr. Sosman announced to the ‘gang’ that I was coming back and would take charge of all the work, there was much dissention among a few.”  Moses continued, “Fred Scott tried to start a mutiny and quit, hoping the others would follow. But none did, and he came back. I put him on for he was a clever painter.” Unfortunately, Moses’ bringing Scott back on for his skill did not erase existing tensions between the two.

Little is known of Frederick J. Scott beyond a few newspaper articles and some public records. In 1891, Scott worked for Albert, Grover & Burridge. He was one of the decorators for the Beckwith Memorial Theatre in Dowagiac, Michigan, a landmark theater in terms of decoration and innovation.  Scott secured employment with Albert, Grover & Burridge before bringing his family to America. Remember that Walter Wilcox Burridge had previously partnered with Moses to form Burridge, Moses & Louderback in 1887. All three studio owners were good friends with Moses, as scenic artists shifted from one shop to another.

Census records from 1900 list Scott living at 5019 Turner Street, Chicago Ward, Cook County, Illinois. His occupation is that of “artist.” Scott was the grandson of William and Sarah Scott, with his father being John Scott.  Scott’s wife’s name was Ethel (b. Oct. 1868) and the two were married in England in1890, soon moving to the United States. The couple had four children living at home in 1900: Marjory (b. May 1890.), Granville (b. April 1895) Edwin (b. Feb. 1899) and Bobs Victor (b. May 1900).

To be continued…

In 1911, Thomas G. Moses wrote,  “Pausback had his hands full; Scott acted bad.  Got Geo. Schultz on the staff at 20^th Street. I was obliged to remain at the Clinton Street studio only going to 20^th Street every other day.” Moses mentioned many Sosman & Landis scenic artists during his life. He greatly respected Pausback and his contribution to the studio.

In 1907, Moses first mentioned Pausback, writing, “I depended a great deal on Pausback to look after the work while I was away.”  Two years later, Moses mentioned him again when Pausabck took control of the 20^th Street Studio. M<oses recalled that Pausback provided plenty of help “to rush the work through.” There was no question that Moses had great faith in Pausback’s abilities. By 1917 Pausback was still working at the Sosman & Landis annex and would remain with the company until its liquidation in 1923.

Nicholas John Pausback Jr., was born on May 5, 1881, in St. Louis, Missouri.  He was the son of St. Louis residents Nicholas J. Pausback, Sr. (1853-1900) and Caroline Pausback (1859-1943), each born and raised in the city. By the end of his life, Pausback’s obituary credited him as being a “scenic artist de luxe”(Chicago Tribune 14 May 1953, page 36).  Other notices reported his staying in the theatrical scenery business for 45 years with his wife Ottilia, and not retiring until 1947.

Pausback became the founder of Pausback Studios by 1927, four years aftert the initial close of Sosman & Landis. He ran Pausback Studio for twenty years, retiring only six years before his passing in 1953. As with many competitors, Pausback Studio primarily focused on public school and college projects, outfitting school stages with rigging and draperies. This branch of the industry had greatly increased in the 1920s and continued to thrive until the 1960s. Tiffin Scenic Studios and Art Drapery Studios became major competitors of Pausback Studios by the 1950s (The Times, 11 Feb 1953, page 2). Eventually Pausback merged with Acme and Carsen in 1957 to form the Acme Carsen Pausback Studio (see past installment #566). The company placed advertisements in the 1959 “Educational Theatre Journal” (Vol. 11, No. 1, i-xxxviii).

Prior to working at Sosman & Landis in Chicago, Pausback began his scenic artist career in St. Louis, Missouri.  In 1901, his occupation was listed in city directories as that of “artis.” Pausback’s residence was at 3113 Magnolia Ave. In 1904, Pausback married to Otillia Groebl (1883-1963) and the couple raised five children: Elvira Mary (m. Harold J.  Howard), Mary C. (m. Mr. Welsh) and Mrs. Therese Curtis. Raymond J. Pausback (m. Yvonne Singer), and Very Rev. Gabriel N. Pausback (b. 1905) of the Carmelite order. Records show that the two eldest children of five were born in St. Louis during 1905 and 1906, with the remaining children being born in Chicago.  In the early years, Pausback was crisscrossing the country like many artists, completing a variety of painting projects that included seventy-five scenes for the Grand Theatre in Owensboro, Kentucky (Messenger-Inquirer, 22 June 1905, page 8). Of this installation, twenty-five of the scenes were backdrops, with the greater part remaining framed pieces. In Kentucky, he waorked alongside stage carpenters J. A. McDanuel and his son.

In 1907, Pausback relocated to Chicago, immediately working with Moses at the Sosman & Landis in the 20^th Street Studio. By 1908, Pausback became the shop manager of the space, replacing Ansel Cook. By 1916, Pausback was frequently sent to in New York, installing shows with fellow Sosman & Landis employee, Harry Nailer, the well-known stage carpenter. He worked for New York Studios, the eastern affiliate of Sosman & Landis.

During the 1920s, Pausback founded Pausback Scenery Co. Living at 6606 Woodlawn Ave., in Chicago Illinois. His scenery company was located at 3727 Cottage Grove Ave., Chicago (Chicago Tribune 2 Dec. 1928, page 2). After founding the firm, Pausback also wrote a book on Stage Craft; a book that I am still tracking down (Dec. 17, 1928). By 1929, the Pausback Scenery Co was credited with a new innovation for gigantic Christmas trees – spangles in various shapes and sizes, some that measured 10 inches in diameter (Chicago Tribune 9 Dec. 1929, page 3).

Over the years, the Pauback studio pops up in several newspaper articles, but nothing really consistent. Briefly morphing from Pausback Studio to the Pausback Scenery Co.. the firm is briefly mentioned as providing properties for “Wings of a Century” at 1934 Century of Progress World fair in Chicago.

Toward the end of his career, Pausback partnered with another Sosman & Landis scenic artist, Art W. Oberbeck (Blue Island Sun Standard Archives, 15 June 1944, Page 6). Oberbeck and Pausback had started at Sosman & Landis around the same time; Oberbeck starting as a paint boy at the in 1904 and Pausback as a journeyman artist three years later.

In 1939 Pausback Studios advertised, “Scenery and Lighting Equipment Built and Rented” with offices located at   3727 Cottage Grove Avenue, Chicago and the phone nunbers being Drexel 7060 and 7061 (Labor Union Directory). The key to any scenic studio’s success at this time was diversification, manufacturing and installing both stage machinery and lighting systems.

Pausback was also an amateur magician. As a member of the International Brotherhood of Magicians and the American Society of Magicians, his stage name was “Nicodemus, the Magician” (Chicago Tribune  14 May 1953, page 36). This persona was even remembered “Do You Remember When,” a section published in an “Independent Magazine for Magicians” known as “The Sphinx” in 1949. “The magazine queried, “Do you remember when Nick Pausback, scenic artist de luxe, of Chicago was known as “Nicodemus, the Magician?” (Page 12).

Pausback passed away on March 13, 1953, buried in St. Mary Catholic Cemetery in Evergreen Park. His last residence was at 1000 S. Rhodes Ave., Chicago, Illinois.

To be continued…

Sosman and Landis built their main studio at 236 and 237 S. Clinton Street. The street numbers later changed to 417 and 419 S. Clinton Street, yet the studio did not change locations.  The change was due to the renumbering of Chicago streets, also known as the Brennan System.

“The Encyclopedia of Chicago” explains this street name change at the turn of the twentieth century. The publication specifically describes the history prior to the 1901 Brennan System:

“The street names of Chicago offer a rich record of the city’s spatial and social development. In 1830, southern Illinois mapmaker James Thompson created Chicago’s first official map. Commissioned by the federal government to bring order to the city, Thompson platted the small downtown area bounded by Kinzie, Jefferson, Washington, and Dearborn streets. Departing from the tradition of naming streets for their destination, Thompson initiated the enduring practice of naming streets after figures of national and local significance.

“In the decades that followed, explosive urban growth, annexation, and the popular political favor of honorary street naming resulted in multiple streets of the same name and streets known by several different names. In 1901, building superintendent Edward P. Brennan confronted the confused state of affairs. He suggested that Chicago be ordered as a large grid with a uniform street numbering system, and proposed State and Madison Streets as the city’s primary north-south and east-west axes. In 1908, the “Brennan” system was officially adopted by the city council and became the basis of modern Chicago’s street naming system.

“Over the next decades, Brennan’s system incorporated not only the principle of having street address numbers register distance and direction, but also the ideas that all portions of the same street should go by a uniform name and that north-south streets should be named alphabetically as one moved west from the Chicago/Indiana border. Led by Brennan and Howard C. Brodman, superintendent of the city’s Department of Maps and Plats, the city council and business community continued through the 1930s to replace duplicated street names in order to simplify navigation and economize postal service and merchandise delivery. Of the more than a thousand streets within Chicago’s city limits today, the greatest number—more than 170—bear the names of real-estate developers. English towns and Chicago’s former mayors and aldermen have provided the next most popular sources of names.” The street numbering system revision was completed in 1909.

A business address really does matter when it becomes part of a firm’s identity.  Sosman & Landis were at their main studio for over three decades, becoming a landmark on Clinton Street.  When the company dissolved, three things happened: the liquidation of company assets, a new lease in the old studio space and the purchase of the “Sosman & Landis” name. For a while, the new address became home to Chicago Studios.  This caused a problem for Thomas G. Moses and Fred Megan, especially after they purchased the Sosman & Landis name.  You see, Chicago Studios began marketing itself as the new owners of Sosman & Landis. They used the space, but had not retained the Sosman & Landis staff or designs.

The problem became a significant one, forcing Moses to send out letters to many previous clients. In 2010 I discovered a letter during the evaluation of the Scottish Rite scenery collection in Salina, Kansas.

A Nov. 13, 1923, letter from Sosman & Landis to the Salina Scottish Rite stated:

Dear Sir,

It has recently been brought to our attention that a certain studio is advertising out old customers that they have brought the Sosman & Landis Company and are now operating same, combining it with their original company. We wish to assure you that this is not a fact and that our original organization in intact, but our studio has been moved to new and better quarters. Mr. Thomas G. Moses, our Art Director would like the opportunity of meeting with your scene committee to submit our designs and specifications covering your requirement. You will perhaps recall that we were favored with your original scenery order, working through the M. C. Lilley Co. and therefore, it is not necessary for us to give you any reference as to our ability and quality of workmanship.

Sosman & Landis relocated their offices to 6751 Sheridan Road in 1923. Moses’ role with the firm had shifted from being the company president to its artistic director.  In 1923, Moses and Fred Megan bought the name “Sosman & Landis,” continuing to produce scenery as before, just in a new location; they retained the studio designs.  At first, they rented space at other shops, such as the Fabric Studio.

To be continued…

Note included:

In 1911, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “We started Brewer’s work at the 20^th Street studio, with an extra number of men.  Pausback had his hands full; Scott acted bad.  Got Geo. Schultz on the staff at 20^th Street. I was obliged to remain at the Clinton Street studio, only going to 20^th Street every other day.”

Before building their main studio on Clinton Street, the Sosman & Landis studio was located at 277 and 279 S. Clark Street in Chicago. As business increased, it became necessary to build a larger studio to simultaneously accommodate multiple projects. However, even the new Clinton space could not accommodate all of the contracted projects. Therefore, some projects were manufactured on site, Carpenters were sent ahead of scenic artists, building paint frames in various opera houses, theaters and music halls. 

Space and location was the key to any studio’s overall success; scenic artists needed access to multiple frames throughout a city when a very large project hit. They referred to these additional spaces as “annex studios,” temporary locations that complimented the main studio and business offices. Sosman and Landis opened a second studio space on the West Side of Chicago, renting the “old Waverly theatre” and referring to the second space as “the Annex” during August 1892.  According to Thomas G. Moses, the studio measured 93 feet wide by 210 feet long and 40 feet high.  The first annex studio had four paint frames with plenty of floor space for all kinds of work.  This space was specifically secured for Moses and his crew to accept additional work for the Columbian Exposition. Moses’ arrangement with Sosman & Landis was to receive all of their sub-contracted work. Moses records that his annex studio crew included A. J. Rupert, Frank Peyrand and Harry Vincent besides a number of assistants and paint boys.  He wrote, “It was awfully hard to keep the building warm.  It was so big we had to use stoves.” Even with his own studio, however, Moses was still constantly sent on the road to complete on site work for the company. During these extended absences, Ed Loitz took charge of the Annex studio.

The annex space remained open throughout 1894. During the summer of 1894, Thomas G. Moses painted a number of small shows there.  The work kept the annex studio open, despite the decline in projects after the close of the Columbian Exposition. Moses also wrote that the annex staff was always needed to “get the work out on time.”

In 1896, Sosman & Landis opened another annex studio. Moses wrote, “I had so much special work to do and it was hard to handle in the Studio.  We rented the frames at the Alhambra Theatre and I worked there during the Fall and Winter.” This annex studio, however, was located in quite a rough neighborhood. Moses recorded the Alhambra Theatre was located on State Street and Archer Avenue. Moses wrote, “It was a long ride to Oak Park and I disliked the theatre.  It was a very rough neighborhood – a hangout for all the big crooks.” In 1897, Moses was still supervising the annex at the Alhambra Theatre.

In 1907 Sosman & Landis established another Annex studio. Of it, Moses wrote, “We opened our annex studio at 19 W. 20^th Street in July, and Ansel Cook went there as a manager. He did some very good work but was a long time doing it, which, of course, didn’t pay us.” Moses divided his time between Sosman & Landis’ main Clinton Street studio and the annex studio that year, in addition to being on the road for weeks at a time. After one extended absence from the annex studio, he wrote, “Took charge of the 20^th Street Studio on my return weeks.  Cook did $750.00 of work in three weeks. My first three amounted to $3,500.00, some difference. I hustled while he talked art and what the firm ought to do to get business.” Moses was obliged to stay at the 20^th Street annex in 1908, commenting it was “an awful place to heat.” Nicholas J. Pausback eventually replaced Cook as second in command.

In 1909, Moses primarily worked at the main studio before finding himself back at the annex again. Of the move, Moses wrote, “Sosman seemed to think I was needed there more than at 20^th Street.  Pausback took charge of the 20^th Street studio.”

My research suggests that Sosman & Landis painted approximately 1200 drops during 1909, this being very conservative estimate. Fortunately, they had a staff of forty-eight on payroll in the main studio and twelve in the annex to help with the ever-increasing demand for painted scenery, stage machinery, draperies, and other theatrical equipment.

To be continued…