Drypigment.net

 Part 727: Drop Curtains in Philadelphia, 1894

I return to the life and times of Thomas G. Moses after exploring the 1858 drop curtain of Russell Smith for the opera house in Wilmington, North Carolina. The painting of drop curtains continued to draw many theatre patrons well into the twentieth century. Whether originally created for a venue, or replaced with a replica, the painted composition in the proscenium was the pinnacle of the auditorium’s décor, while concealing the magical realm behind the footlights.

Painting a successful drop curtain required extensive skill, as well as a thorough understanding of painting techniques for landscapes, architecture, and draperies. Picturesque compositions in ornate frames surrounded by lush draperies became the popular subject of large-scale artworks created by many nationally recognized artists. The fourth wall of the theatre became a gallery wall for many scenic artists allowing them to fully explore their artistic abilities and shine before nightly patrons.

Many of these stunning scenes were replaced with fabric draperies, movie screens, or a combination thereof during the twentieth century, the original scenes long forgotten by theatre audiences. Instead of raising a painted curtain to reveal the mysteries of Thespis, heavy draperies were drawn apart to show a movie.

While researching information on Russell Smith and his contemporaries, I came across the article “Well-known Drop Curtain in Philadelphia Theatres.” It was published in “The Philadelphia Inquirer” on Dec. 18, 1894 (page 45). Over the next few days, I will post the article in its entirety and then return to the Moses typed manuscript and the year 1909.

“Well-Known Drop Curtains in Philadelphia

Russell Smith’s “Como” in the Academy of Music a Splendid Work of Art.

The Striking Example at the Walnut – Curious Story Connected with the Portrayal on the “Drop” at the Grand Opera House-The Chestnut Street Opera House Owns the Last from the Brush of a Famous Artist.

“The drop curtain is the most expensive piece of furniture in any playhouse. Managers are most solicitous about the care of a handsome drop curtain than almost any other appointment in the theatres. They are usually painted by the artists of wide fame in the peculiar branch of art which they represent, whose charges for the work rang from $1000 to $3000. No better material than a light canvas has yet been discovered for painting the scenery for an artistic drop curtain, and considering the size, they are perforce fragile to a degree. An ugly wrinkle or crease, a scratch or rent is not easily repaired and still harder to conceal from the critical gaze of the public. In addition to the ever-present danger of fire, a drop curtain is liable to be more or less spoiled from several other sources. If left too long rolled up during a closed house, it is apt to look wrinkled when unrolled. Let the curtain hang down too long and it will sag out of shape, owing in large part, to the increased weight, unequally distributed, from the paint used in making the picture.

Sometimes, according to the way of lifting, it will curl most provokingly, making the picture upon the curtain look ridiculous by its distorted proportions. Once let a real hitch occur in the raising or lowering and there is likely to form an ugly crack from side to side, that time, patience, paint and money can only imperfectly repair.

It is claimed by managers that a handsome drop curtain has much to do with the drawing qualities of the house. A charming landscape depicting the greenest of lawns, sparking fountains, rare shrubbery and bright flowers, the dimpled surface of a placid lake, with magnificent hills or rugged mountains in the distance to kiss the brightest fleecy clouds, forms an ensemble well calculated to put the audience in good humor to witness a play. And when let down between the acts it has a tendency to calm the soul after turbulent passages and rouses it to cheerfulness after tearful ones.”

To be continued…

 

There are many options when restoring historic scenery. A multitude of factors determine the specific course of action, including age, condition, fabric type, paint layers, future handling and overall use. Does the backdrop simply hang on a wall or does a community theatre group use it repeatedly? Is it a roll drop or a fly drop? How often is the scene displayed or actively used by those either familiar or unfamiliar with its history? What’s the artistic provenance of the scene?

We all make decisions based on the available information at the time, and combine it with our training, knowledge and experience, to create a course of action.

When I examine the work of others, I am hesitant to comment. Unless the techniques and materials used during the restoration have somehow irreparably damaged the original artwork, I try to understand why another selected a particular course of action.

There are many ways to clean and repair a historic scene. It was one such horrific repair that prompted the initial storyline for “Tales of a Scenic artist and Scholar.” I was shocked to see hot melt glue used to attach netting to a historically significant scene, immediately recognizing that the artwork had been destroyed. Then, as now, I wondered at what point the individuals doing the restoration realized that they had no idea of appropriate techniques, or the significance of the artifact. Did they care, or even understand that they were destroying history?

I decided to raise the awareness of the scenery’s significance, especially the artist, Thomas G. Moses. My hope was that this botched restoration in Bloomington, Minnesota, could at least be used as a warning. If we understand the cultural significance of an artwork, there is a greater chance for its survival.

I am compelled to comment on another restoration that I recently encountered in Wilmington, North Carolina. The repair of water damage was partially concealed with Sennelier oil pastels. In regard to scenery restoration, there continues to be active discussion about the recommendation and selection of stable pigments and binders. A variety of products can match the color of dry pigment, but none match the completely matte finish of diluted hide glue. All that being said, I have never encountered the use of oil pastels on a historic backdrop before.

Here are my observations regarding why the use of oil pastels may not be the best idea for scenery restoration. The first is the “oil” part; the “coloring” of a drop with an oil-based crayon leaves a greasy residue to the surface that reflects light. It is incredibly visible to the trained eye from even ten feet away. In a product review about artist grade oil pastels, the following comment was made about Sennelier: “Their texture is literally like painting with lipstick.” For the rest of this article, here is the link: http://www.explore-oil-pastels-with-robert-sloan.com/sennelier_review.html

It has always been the texture that made me hesitant to handle oil pastels; the greasy product left on your hands during application. Now, imagine that greasy product on the matte surface of an historic scene.

Oil pastels sit on the surface of the fabric and do not blend with the original paint. So any in painting or over-painting cannot conceal damage or really diminish a repair. To achieve a similar hue and value with oil pastels, it takes multiple applications of different colors. Oil pastels cannot be premixed to match the color, tested and applied. One needs to “layer” several colors, thus causing the “repaired” area to be thicker than its surround.

Furthermore, the application of color when using oil pastels is not uniform. The color “catches” on the texture of the fabric or repair, accentuating some damage. Every flaw, even the tooth of the fabric, is highlighted.

In short, I would not recommend the use of oil pastels to repair any historic backdrop.

To be continued…

For over a week, I have focused on the scenery produced for the Thalian Hall in Wilmington, North Carolina. Dozens of scenes were delivered from 1858 until 1909. This history is similar to thousands of other nineteenth century theaters across the United States, not accounting those that were lost to fire. Scenery was repeatedly delivered to entertainment venues in the 19^th century as managers sought various ways to attract the public, drawing audiences in with painted scenes. Then, as now, the audience expected to see something new and exciting. Here is a brief recap of the scenery delivered to the Thalian Hall from 1858-1909.

Russell Smith painted the original drop curtain and first set of stock scenery in 1858. By 1871, Smith’s original scenery was touched up by local artists.

A decade later, in 1881, new scenery by Wilmington artist Ernest V. Richards was purchased at an expense of $247.00. Little is known of Richards beyond a few advertisements that he placed in Wilmington newspapers. Richards’ ran a “scene, fresco and sign studio” located on the “corner of Front and Princess streets (up stairs)” in Wilmington (Wilmington Morning Star, 21 Nov. 1888. Page 1). His newspaper advertisement noted, “All commissions in Art Work promptly attended to. Special designs in Christmas Cards and Advertising novelties.” By 1889, Richards expanded his service to include “Stained and Leaded Glass,” providing estimates and designs for church and house windows, with “matching and repairing a specialty” (The Wilmington Messenger, July 24, 1889, page 5).

In 1895, E. V. Richards again touched up the drop curtain and scenery at an expense of $53.80. This would be his last project for the theater, as William F. Hamilton was selected as a scenic artist to design and paint new scenery for the stage. In 1896, W. F. Hamilton converted the original painted curtain by Russell Smith from a roll drop into a fly drop. He also painted a new drop curtain and four new sets of scenery for the theater. In addition to working as a scenic artist, records indicate that Hamilton “completed a few other necessary improvements.” Transforming a roll drop into a fly drop suggests that a fly loft was added. Hamilton returned in 1899 to paint another drop curtain for the opera house.

On August 28, 1904, “Wilmington Morning Star” the stage was enlarged ten feet and scenery was again added to the stock. Records indicate that new scenery was delivered by C. N. Garing of Garing Scenic Studio painted new scenery. Garing was a lesser-known scenic artist who worked throughout the Carolinas. On September 5, 1905, the “Wilmington Morning Star” reported that new scenery was painted for the venue and “many new appointments added.” Little is known of Garing, by in 1907, he was living in Atlanta, Georgia (The Alamance Gleaner, 11 July 1907). That year, he was awarded the contract to paint stage scenery for the new opera house in Graham, North Carolina. As a side note, Garing’s brother was the well-known musical director A. J. Garing who worked at the New York Hippodrome (1918).

In 1909 after the renovation, all of the old scenery on stage was replaced with all new versions from New York. On August 5, 1909, the “Morning Star” reported “Yesterday a special scenic artist from New York city arrived and is now at work planning the full equipment of new scenery for the theatre, including a handsome drop-curtain, and will also map out the pretty interior decorations…the electric equipment of the theatre is also to be the most elaborate…The scenic artist will also direct the work of the interior decoration for the theatre, and is one of the best men in the business, representing a well-known northern studio.”

On August 20, 1909, the “Morning Star” included, “The painting of the scenery is fast progressing at the theatre, and today a handsome front curtain reached the city from the north, through there will also be a fine painted one here, this giving the theatre two curtains.”

When considering the amount of scenery delivered between 1858 and 1909, it is shocking to see that only two pieces remain – the original drop curtain and a book flat. However, looking at historic venues nationwide, this is a significant find. Many nineteenth century theaters have no painted remnants from their past, especially something that was delivered when the venue opened. Tomorrow will be my last post on the Thalian Hall and I will look at the last restoration of the 1858 drop curtain. Over 150 years, this curtain was “touched up” and “repaired” numerous times, each with the original paint. The most recent repair to patched and water-damaged areas incorporated the use of oil pastels.

To be continued…

William F. Hamilton was not only a well-known scenic artist, but also an inventor of stage effects. Manager Charles H. Yale purchased Hamilton’s “The Dance of the Elements” in 1900. Hamilton’s attraction was added to Yale’s annual production of “The Everlasting Devils Auction.” Yale created a new edition of the production each season, advertising, “New and timely matter, clever novelties, original ideas in scenery and costumes, imported and native artists in all branches of the profession, sumptuous ballets and features that were exclusive to this attraction” (“The Montgomery Advertiser, Montgomery,” Alabama, 14 Sept. 1902, page 11). By 1902, the “Everlasting Devil’s Auction” announced it’s twenty-first edition. Each year, announcements advertised that existing acts were replaced with “new ideas, features, scenery, costumes, and mechanical effects.”

The “Indianapolis Journal” reported, “Mr. Yale has bought outright from the Inventor, W. F. Hamilton, for presentation solely with this attraction, a new electrical sensation entitled ‘The Dance of the Elements.’ The paraphernalia employed in this scene are elaborate and intricate, and is developed by two clever dancers, who, costumed as the Elements Pirouette among real rain, snow, gold storms and cyclones, these effects being aided by the introduction of a number of new ideas in electric lighting and a multiplicity of harmonious coloring, abetted by special scenic investiture, forms one of the most beautiful light and color ideas that has yet been discovered for theatrical use” (The Dayton Herald, 28 Nov. 1900, page 7).

The sale of this invention occurred the same year that Moses partnered with Thomas G. Moses to establish a scenic studio. From 1900 to 1904, the two ran a very successful studio in New York, creating stage shows and amusement park attractions. The partnership ended when Joseph S. Sosman and David H. Hunt lured Moses back to Sosman & Landis’ Chicago studio. When Moses returned to Sosman & Landis, he was promised complete control over design, construction, and delivery of all projects, plus a share in the company. Moses recorded that Hamilton was devastated with the closing of their business, writing, “When I had to tell Hamilton, I almost gave in to stay with him, for he was awfully broken up over it, as he saw his meal ticket slipping away.” In addition to numerous theatre installations, Moses & Hamilton had created several outdoor attractions to Coney Island, including “Trip to the Moon,” “20,000 Leagues Under the Sea,” “Fire and Flames,” “The War of Worlds,” and many others. They also designed and ran the own Coney Island attraction, “The Devil, the Man and the Maid.” As with “The Dance of the Elements,” this successful design was purchased by another manager to run.

Hamilton continued in the amusement park business after Moses headed back to Chicago. In 1904, “The Courier” reported, “W. F. Hamilton, the well-known scenic artist has secured a large tract of land in Winthrop, Mass., facing on the water, where another Luna Park will be created on a more extensive and elaborate scale. A syndicate of capitalists is going to assist Mr. Hamilton in promoting the affair, and by next May, Boston will have a summer place of amusement larger and finer than anything on exhibition at Coney Island. Architects are now busy completing the plans, and the work is expected to begin within a week. The eccentric character Verno, says we are to have Luna Park, a ‘Pike’ or something of the kind on Island Park next summer. The only evidence of it is the stone ‘pier’” (Harrisburg, PA, 13 Nov. 1904, page 9).

Two years later Hamilton was establishing another amusement park in Pittsburgh. In 1906, the “Pittsburgh Press” reported, “W. F. Hamilton of New York, who has built a number of such great playgrounds, and who is a scenic artist of national reputation, has charge of the latest Pittsburgh Park project” (18 Feb, 1906, page 22). The new pleasure land being laid out on Jacob Weinman’s property was called “Dream City (4 Feb 1906, page 2). “Dream City” was to be a “veritable fairyland of color light and architecture.” Weinman, of Pilkinsburg, was the president of the Dreamland Amusement Co. of Pittsburgh and W. F. Hamilton, the manager. Articles noted that Hamilton had “a force of men busily preparing the foundation and sewering the tract of twenty acres for the new amusement park that spring.” The article continued that Hamilton promised he would give the people of Greater Pittsburgh “an amusement park not excelled in completeness and quality of attractions this side of the Metropolis.” Besides the standard amusement park attractions at Dream City, a picnic ground was planned, with rustic bridges, pavilions, and benches, to “bring delight to the seeker after pleasure and nature alike.”

When Hamilton took the position of manager of Pittsburgh’s Dream City, the newspaper commented, “In W. F. Hamilton, the projectors of the new park have a man who is note excelled in his line of any amusement park promoter in the country. He is not only a practical contractor but he is a finished scenic artist and constructor, and in addition has some expert knowledge of the laying out of landscape gardens. He was associated with Thompson & Dundy in the first production of their spectacle and show, ‘A Trip to the Moon” as designer and constructor.

After spending approximately three decades in the East, however, Hamilton moved to San Francisco. He followed the work, as many other theatre professionals. In California, all of Hamilton’s creativity was focused on a new type of production – the Shrine Circus.

To be continued…

 

William F. Hamilton, Jr. grew up in Franklin, Pennsylvania. Known as a scenic artist and inventor, Hamilton painted scenery for the Thalian Hall in Wilmington, North Carolina in both 1896 and 1899.

In 1896, the following article appeared in the Wilmington newspaper”

“Everything is now in readiness at the Oper House for the opening of the season. To use a trite expression, the new drop curtain which has just been completed by the well known scenic artist, Mr. W. F. Hamilton, of the Standard Theatre, New York, city, is “out of sight.” The new curtain is a very handsome one. The large centre scene represents the coast of Cornwall, showing the high cliffs, upon the tops of which are the homes of the fishermen and natives of this dangerous coast. Mr. Hamilton and his clever assistant, Mr. F. C. Peckham, showed a STAR reporter yesterday several superb set scenes, which they have just completed, in conjunction with the curtain, for the management of the house. The handsome old curtain, which has for many years past done excellent service, has also undergone repairs, and has thrown off its roller and will “slide up” like its companion.” Hamilton transformed the 1858 drop curtain by Russell Smith into a fly drop.

The first mention of Hamilton as a scenic artist that I have located to date was published on the June 15, 1888, “Northumberland Country Democrat” of Sunbury, Pennsylvania. The article noted, “W. F. Hamilton, of Lancaster, a scenic artist, is in Sunbury on business” (page 1). That summer, Hamilton moved to New York wehere he continued working as a scenic artist. On August 1, 1888, an article in the “Pottsville Republican” confirmed his move to New York reporting, “W. F. Hamilton, a scenic artist, of New York City, is domiciled at the Merchants’ Hotel. He is at work on a 5×5 feet lawyers card with a view of Tumbling Run in the center, which he is placed at the Court House” (page 4). As with many scenic artists of the time, Hamilton also worked as a sign painter early in his career before securing larger theatrical projects.

In 1890, his hometown newspaper, “News Herald” of Franklin, PA, noted a summer visit. On August 13, 1890, “Our Card Basket” reported, “Mrs. W. F. Hamilton, of Johnstown, and her son, W. F. Hamilton Jr., have been the guest of the lady’s brother, B. Moffett. The son is a rising young scenic artist of New York city, He left this morning for Nashus, N. H.”

Hamilton appears in the “Boston Post” two years later. On September 5, 1892, the Personal Section of the paper included, “W. F. Hamilton, the scenic artist, is again in this city, after having finished his contract placing two curtains in the Academy of Music at Pittsfield” (page 4).

Hamilton worked as a scenic artist all along the eastern seaboard at a variety of venues throughout the 1890s, including in Wilmington, North Carolina, in 1896. It was only after my visit to give a presentation about 19^th century scenery in Wilmington, that I discovered the Thalian Hall’s connection to Hamilton, Thomas G. Moses, and New York Studios, the eastern affiliate of Sosman & Landis. This was almost as exiting as seeing the Russell Smith curtain from 1858, as I have never encountered scenery produced by New York Studios.

In 1896, Hamilton was associated with the Standard Theatre in New York city as both the scenic artist and stage manager for the venue. He also worked at the Star Theatre in New York. By 1899, he was listed as the scenic artist for the Columbia Theatre in Boston. That year, “The North Adams Transcript” published an article “Columbia Scenery and New Exit” (North Adams, Massachusetts, 10 Mar 1899, page 5). The article noted, “The trustees of the F.M.T.A. society awarded the contract to Hamilton to complete the work. Of Hamilton as an artist, the article continued, “He has an excellent reputation, and will provide a complete set of scenery, with drop and fireproof curtains. It is expected that some of the scenes will be more elaborate than anything the house has had.”

Although Hamilton would continue to work as a scenic artist for decades to follow, he was also a well-known inventor of theatrical effects. This skill set expanded when he established the scenic studio with Moses called Moses & Hamilton. They would develop a series of startling scenic effects for both the stage and amusement park attractions. More in that subject tomorrow.

To be continued…

Nineteenth century scenic artists relied on satisfied clients; this not only helped secure future contracts but also guaranteed repeat customers. William F. Hamilton created scenery for the opera house in Wilmington, North Carolina, during 1896 and 1899. He was linked to the 1909 production of scenery too.

On August 25, 1896, the “Wilmington Morning Star” included the following announcement on the first page:

“Improvements at the Opera House.

“Mr. W. F. Hamilton, scenic artist and stage manager of the Standard Theatre, New York city and his assistant arrive in the city to-day to paint things in general in the Opera House. The present roll-curtain will be converted into a drop curtain, and a new drop curtain will be added. Four new sets of scenery will be painted and other necessary improvements in this line will be made. The theatrical season of 1896-97 promises to be the most successful for many years. The house will open with ‘Jim, the Penman,’ on the 7^th of next moth.”

A few years later, Hamilton returned and the “Wilmington Morning Star,” reported “Mr. S. A. Schloss informed a representative yesterday that he had just closed a contract for a new drop curtain for the opera house, to be painted by Mr. W. F. Hamilton, the celebrated scenic artist of the Star Theatre, New York City. Mr. Hamilton was in Wilmington about two years ago and most of the finest scenes now at the Opera House were painted by him” (10 Oc. 1899, page 1).

And then there was his connection with another installation. The opera house underwent a significant renovation in 1909, with the installation of the current proscenium arch, measuring 32’ by 26.’  The work was completed under the direction of commercial lessee S.A. Schloss. In a local newspaper article Schloss explained that he was planning to restore and rehang the original drop curtain.

When I visited Thalian Hall this spring, Tony Rivenbark shared another piece of scenery found tucked away at the theater that looked to date from the early twentieth century. Sitting at the top of a backstage landing was an old book flat. It depicted a wood scene and was intended a masking, or a wing, for the side stage.

Amazingly, there was a studio stencil on the back of the flat, New York Studios. New York Studios was the eastern affiliate of Sosman & Landis of Chicago, started by David Hunt during the first decade of the twentieth century. In 1910, newspapers verified their increased presence in New York, describing scenery produced by “the well known New York and Chicago artists, Sosman & Landis” (The Times, Streator, Illinois, 14 Sept. 1910, page 5). New York Studios was incorporated on April 8, 1910, and lasted until its dissolution on Dec. 15, 1939.

In 1904, Joseph Sosman and David H. Hunt convinced Thomas G. Moses to return to Sosman & Landis in Chicago, effectively ending his partnership with Hamilton. Moses fostered many theatre connections along the eastern seaboard after establishing Moses & Hamilton. The success of the from 1900-1904 proved an asset to Sosman & Landis upon his return.

The New York Studios stockholders in 1910 included David H. Hunt, Adelaide Hunt, Edward Morange, Henry L. Rupert, and W. E. Castle. Like many firms, they operated under the name prior to incorporating.

Hamilton continued to work for New York Studios until he permanently moving to San Francisco to focus on Shrine Circus scenery and other large spectacles during the early 1920s. A “Variety” article from November 9, 1921 noted Hamilton’s continued connection to New York Studios that year, while also working for local firms. Under the heading “Hamilton’s Special Events,” the article commented, “W. F. Hamilton, formerly of the New York Scene Painting Studio, came to San Francisco to prepare the scenic equipment of the recent Shrine Circus.” In San Francisco, Hamilton also found work at Flagg Studios.

To be continued…

Many theaters forget their past. Fire, hurricanes, tornados or renovations can destroy artifacts that were never documented in the first place. Painted scenes and machinery are removed, stored, or disposed of at some point and then forgotten. When considering the amount of change that happened to Thalian Hall over the past 150 years, one has to believe that this drop curtain keeps reappearing for a purpose.

Changes made to the theater since it opening in 1858 were documented in a paper, written and compiled by Isabelle M. Williams in 1976. There is also a wonderful book and numerous articles written by D. Anthony Rivenbark about the theater. Much of the information below is from the research of these two authors.

In 1858, Russell Smith received $200 for the drop curtain, a bill paid by five businessmen in Wilmington, North Carolina.

In her paper, Williams notes that major revisions to the theater took place at Thalian Hall in 1867-9, 1881, 1900, 1904, 1909 and 1938. She wrote, “It was remarkable that Thalian Hall has endured it all …” The renovations made over the decades were substantial, but it was the continuing delivery of scenery to the venue that really intrigues me the most.

In 1858, the original proscenium was described as 30 feet high and a little less in width, with a stage area measuring 42 feet by 57 feet. It is believed that the original width of the proscenium was actually 28’ wide by 22’ high, making the drop curtain’s 29’w x 23’h measurements noted on the preliminary drop curtain sketch reasonable.

At the time of installation, it was common for a theater to include a painted grand border; this often occupied the top third of the proscenium opening. A painted grand border and painted side tormentors reduced the proscenium opening for a much more intimate staging. However, if the painted grand border, torms, and drop curtain were removed, the large proscenium opening could accommodate other forms of entertainment, such as aerial acts.

The current remnant of Smith’s original drop curtain was constructed with vertical seams, very similar to the backdrops manufactured at the Sosman & Landis studio in Chicago. The drop curtain panels measure between 26” and 27” wide. There are eleven full panel sections and two partial panel sections, in addition to the two fabric extensions that were added to each side at a later date. The total width of original painted fabric that still remains is approximately 27’ wide. The original edges of the drop, complete with leather rings rope guides, were retained and shifted; with a fabric insert in between the final panel, cut in half to extend the overall width of the drop curtain.

Williams further writes that by 1900, the “curtains” surrounding the drop curtain were replaced, as plans called for a new proscenium and grand drapery. At the time, the term “curtains” often noted painted pieces, while “drapery” described hung fabric that was not painted. It is likely that the original painted tormentors were replaced with actual draperies, thus necessitating the original drop curtain to be enlarged. Also, the Thalian Hall stage was altered “to give more room for scenery.”

There was also another drop curtain installed at Thalian Hall by William F. Hamilton. On October 10, 1899, “The Dispatch” reported, “Mr. A Schloss, the lessee of the Opera House has closed the contract for a new drop curtain for the Opera House. It will be painted by Mr. W. F. Hamilton of the Star Theatre of New York City. William F. Hamilton is the same scenic artist who I have previously written about; the one who partnered with Thomas G. Moses and formed Moses & Hamilton in 1900. The studio produced scenery for opera, Broadway and Coney Island from 1900-1904. Moses & Hamilton set up their new studio at Proctor’s 125^th Street Theatre, a variety theatre in New York City that included a scene room. They also rented paint frames at two other theaters. When their partnership ended, Moses returned to Sosman & Landis while Hamilton stayed in New York.

Hamilton was no stranger to Wilmington. In 1896, The “Wilmington Morning Star” reported, “Mr. F. C. Peckham, of New York, assistant to Mr. W. F. Hamilton, scenic artist and stage manager of the Standard Theatre, arrived in the city yesterday and will commence work on the scenery and a new drop curtain at the Opera House (Wilmington, NC, 26 August, 1896, page 1). It was not uncommon for a venue to include more than one drop curtain; a front drop curtain (landscape composition surrounded by ornamental frame and painted fabric surround), an advertisement curtain (sponsored by local businesses), and an olio curtain (for entr’acte pieces, such as short musical numbers between melodramatic acts); these would all be termed “drop curtains” to accompany the remained of painted settings. Drop curtains could also indicate painted backings, what we consider backdrops now.

J. Constantine provided another drop curtain and two scenes. Constatine was from the Grand Opera House in New York in 1900. The constant trickle of scenery into the theater is not unusual at all. Unfortunately, we do not know the exact compositions for any of the drop curtains painted besides that of Russell Smith. Consantine’s two additional settings, however, were described somewhat. The new scenery included an interior parlor setting with fourteen pieces and a street scene with borders (Star, May 8, 1900, page 13). I interpret this description to mean that the interior parlor scene included fourteen interchangeable flats that were lashed together, a standard interior box set for the time. The street scene included a backdrop, wings, and sky borders. That year, the stage was also remodeled to make room for the additional scenery, necessitating the purchase of new stage machinery at an expense of $740.

By 1904, there was a mention about a change in the proscenium, with the stage being enlarged by 10 feet. This did not include the proscenium opening, just the actual backstage area.

The original Russell Smith drop curtain was finally taken down and stored in the attic when a new front drop curtain arrived from New York City in 1909. The proscenium opening was not listed in Julius Cahn’s Official Theatrical Guide as being 35’ wide. A renovation of this sort, often demands new scenery or the refurbishment and expansion of existing scenery. The well-known Russell Smith curtain could have been enlarged and hung for sentimental purposes on an upstage line, or simply stored and replaced; it is not clear of the exact inventory and line sets at this time. Something prompted the removal of the curtain after the renovation in 1909.

By 1932, however, the original drop curtain was discovered in a storage room of Public Library. Smith’s work again appeared on stage in 1938 when it was hung for a brief period of time before returning to storage. At this point, records indicate that it was stored on the stage and subsequently damaged, with the top third being destroyed. Some accounts note that wheelbarrows were rolled across the top while it was on the floor, causing the damage. And the drop disappeared again before rediscovery a few decades ago.

It is astounding that this curtain survives at all, let alone is still hanging at all in the original building.

To be continued…

In 1907, the “Boston Sun” published an article about hanging a drop curtain painted by Russell Smith in 1872. The curtain was a replica of an earlier version painted in 1856-1857. The article noted, “In the painting of the curtain Mr. Smith was assisted by his daughter who executed the drapery effects, which were her specialty.”

Russell Smith, his wife and two children all painted. Smith married Mary Priscilla Wilson, in 1838; she was a talented artist in her own right. Two were born to the couple, a boy and a girl. Xanthus Russell was born in 1839, and his sister Mary in 1842. Russell encouraged his children’s interests in art. This is not unusual as many artists who have children are eager to share the joy of sharing their trade and the fulfillment of art. Russell even traveled to Europe with the entire family to experience historically significant and artistic landmarks together from 1851 to 1852.

Of their talents, Xanthus was recorded as specializing in landscape and marine subjects, while Mary was recognized for her paintings of animals. It is not unusual that the children also helped their father with his theatre projects, hence Mary specializing in painting draperies for drop curtains. The two certainly worked together on many projects. In 1876, both Russell and his daughter exhibited their artworks independently at the Philadelphia Centennial Exposition. Her early passing only two years later had a profound effect on Smith and he continued to talk about his daughter until the end of his life.

In 1894, Russell Smith spoke of his career in an interview with “The Times” of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (20 May 1894, page 16). The interview was two years before his death, and Smith’s recollections convey the profound sense of loss for not only a child, but also a kindred spirit; a fellow artist’s flame who was snuffed out much too early. Even the illustration of Smith accompanying the article conveys exhaustion, an emptiness that has worn down his features.

Here is what the article noted about Smith’s daughter:

“Naturally, the sweetest memories of the veteran painter linger about his dead daughter, Mary. Both of his children, Mary and Xanthus, naturally inherited the talent of their parents, for Russell Smith’s wife was also a water-colorist of ability. His son, Xanthus, who lives at the castle with his father, served during the was under Admiral Dupont, and his knowledge of the war has been repeatedly utilized in illustration work.

“Mary Smith, who died seventeen years ago, was best known as a successful painter of animals, and during her short life painted not less than 300 pictures. The old scene painter touches tenderly a little book of drawings made by Mary when traveling in Europe with her parents. At that time she was only 9 years old. Among the drawings are representations of a gaily-dressed lady at a piano, a procession of Swiss peasants entering a church, Welsh women in blue coats driving pigs to market.

“Like all tender-hearted women, Mary Smith loved flowers and animals. She delighted in her garden and raised large families of poultry. Chickens she loved especially and at all seasons of the year had a basket of chicks hanging on her easel.

In the parlor of the castle hangs a portrait of a gallant rooster, about which the artist tells this story: ‘Not content with the days labor Mary would rig up a large lamp on winter nights and make careful life sized studies from an old hen or lordly rooster. It required no little perseverance or determined will with occasionally a rap with a maulstick to make them even tolerable sitters, but the result was always a successful interpretation of chicken character. On one occasion when the sitter was shown his portrait he at once made a determined assault upon I t and the study still shows the gashes about the head made with his pugnacious bill.’

“It was Mary Smith’s desire that at her death a portion of her earnings should be invested in such a manner as to yield an annual income of $100, this to be awarded by each years’ exhibition committee of the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts for the best picture in oil or watercolors painted and exhibited by a resident woman artist in Philadelphia. The Mary Smith prize has regularly been awarded since 1879, and among the women who have received the honor are Cecilia Beaux, Alice Barber Stephens. Emily Sartain and Lucy D. Holme.”

Mary may be the first publicly recognized female scenic artist in America, and her specialty was draperies.

To be continued…

 

According to Virginia Lewis in her book “Russell Smith, Romantic Realist, “ in 1872, the artist Russell Smith painted a replica of an earlier work. In 1857 Smith created the entr’acte drop curtain for the Academy of Music in Baltimore, Maryland. This replica composition was described in the “Baltimore Sun” during 1907. That year, the article reported, “a curtain, painted by the late Russell Smith, famous the world over as a curtain painting artist, has just been hung. The curtain, painted more than a quarter of a century ago, has been retouched around the borders so that it will harmonize with the decorations of the proscenium arch.” In other words, they added colors to unify the old painting with the new interior décor.

This parallels what happened to the 1858 drop curtain at Thalian Hall in Wilmington, North Carolina. The Smith curtain was enlarged and altered at some point. I studied the additions and alterations over the course of a few hours while sitting in the Thalian Hall lobby on April 23, 2019.

What initially struck me was the addition of black paint. The reason for my surprise is that black is seldom used in 19^th century and early 20^th scene painting, unless it is for lettering on an advertisement curtain. The darkest color is typically Van Dyke Brown, especially for shadow areas and it reflects light better than black. For the Smith curtain in Wilmington, opaque black shadow lines were added by a second artist well after the original composition was painted. The black was added to the painted ornament on the frame, the center medallion and the statue on the right side of the composition. However, black was not the only new paint introduced to the original painting, as both a red glaze and green glaze were added to the frame. These two colors were likely an attempt to “harmonize” the drop with the decorations of the proscenium arch, similar to what happened at the Academy of Music in Baltimore when Smith’s curtain was rehung in 1907.

In regard to the Thalian Hall drop curtain, the center medallion was repainted in a style inconsistent with the remainder of the composition; specifically, the portrait and lettering are of an inferior quality. The inferior brushwork not only applies to the actual features Thalia, but also the lettering of “Thalia.” For both, the painting style is much more rudimentary than the remainder of the work, especially the quality of the lettering. The lettering “Thalia” is not centered and even touches the bottom of the portrait. Furthermore, the font is muddy and the brushstrokes unrefined.

There is also the problem with the use of black for background for the portrait that dominates the entire composition. The black immediately draws focus from the rest of the composition. It is likely that the second, and currently artist, recognized his mistake as soon as he stepped back from his work. I always hate to presume what an artist was thinking when creating a painting; we cannot know what was going on in another’s mind during the time of artist creation. However, here is my hypothesis, as I too have unwittingly placed myself in a similar position. After adding a detail that was too dark for the painting, you panic a bit, and think “Oops! Well, I’ll just add a little more of that same color here, and here, to make it look like as if it belongs.” This is always mistake, as a once small inconsistency grows into a substantially larger problem.

In an attempt to unify the work, the artist took the same black color from the medallion and added little touches here and there throughout the lower third of the painting to make it seem like it was part of the original color scheme. Unfortunately, the artist did not have the same ‘hand” as Smith. It is his inferior technique that gives away the over painting in addition to the color. The artist who added the black lines did not use a straight edge to draw the straight black lines. The remainder of the composition clearly shows that all of the straight lines were painted while using a straight edge. Without a straight edge, the lines waiver and suggest an artist’s inexperience; this still happens in scenic art today too.

The same can be said for the shadowing of the other ornamentation along the border where black is applied. The little “U” shadows placed at the bottom are also inconsistent and sporadic, unlike the remainder of the original shadow work in deep brown and sienna glazes. The black also reads as opaque, unlike the remainder of the painted ornament around the frame. Smith’s style harkens back to the English tradition of glazing. The center medallion and black accents are opaque and inconsistent with this tradition.

In addition to the over painting, the width of the entire curtain was extended and the bottom border was repainted to match the new décor, just as the case with the Academy of Music in Baltimore during 1907. In Wilmington, the fabric extensions on either side of the drop were painted in a reddish hue, likely to match the new décor. This same color was also added to the ornamental frame surrounding the landscape composition, placed as an accent on the original white and gold frame. In addition to red, green was added at the bottom. You can see that the frame was originally white with gold trim; the golden shapes being defined with yellow, ochre, burnt sienna, umber and a bit of Van Dyke brown. The red is placed as a glaze over some of the detail; effectively obliterating the dimension and making it area appear flat. The also glaze extends onto the fabric extension, which is how we know it is not original to the composition. The same can be said for the green glaze; the color again obliterates some of the detail.

It would be wonderful to see the drop as it looked when originally painted by Smith, without the black, red and green additions; they all detract from the soft atmospheric effect of the composition. In particular, without the later red accents, the small touches of that same color in the clothing of the figures would have jumped out, making the scene come alive with splashes of brilliant colors.

To be continued…

In addition to writing my daily blog, I have a published a few article this spring. One is “Brown’s Special System for Scottish Rite Theaters in North America” for Die Vierte Wand #009. Past articles for this journal also appear in issues #007 and #008. Die Vierte Wand is a wonderful publication by Stefan Graebner, Director of the Initiative Theatre Museum in Berlin. with articles in German and English.

Here is the link for issue #008:  https://issuu.com/itheam/docs/itheam_d4w-008

Here is the link for issue #007: https://issuu.com/itheam/docs/itheam_d4w-007

Here is the link for Die Vierte Wand (The Fourth Wall) #009: https://archive.org/details/iTheaM_d4W-009/page/n3

The issue is free online, with the print price being € 10,- +  shipping.