Drypigment.net

Travels of a Scenic Artists and Scholar: Thalian Hall’s Scenery Collections

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.

The original 1858 Russell Smith curtain.

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…

Travels of a Scenic Artists and Scholar: W. F. Hamilton, inventor

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.”

Poster advertising Chas. H. Yale’s Everlasting “Devil’s Auction.”

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…

Travels of a Scenic Artists and Scholar: W. F. Hamilton, scenic artist

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.

1903 advertisement for Moses & Hamilton in Julius Cahn’s Official Theatrical Guide.

To be continued…

Travels of a Scenic Artists and Scholar: William F. Hamilton and New York Studios in Wilmington, North Carolina

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.

The New York Studios stencil on the Thanlian Hall flat in Wilmington, North Carolina, ca. 1910.

A painted detail from the New York Studios flat.

Backside of the New York Studios flat at the Thalian Hall in Wilmington, North Carolina.

The New York Studios flat at the Thalian Hall in Wilmington, North Carolina.

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.

An ad for The New York Studios from 1927.

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…

Travels of a Scenic Artists and Scholar: The Drop Curtains of Thalian Hall in Wilmington, North Carolina

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.

The original 1858 drop curtain painted by Russell Smith pictured in 1947.

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.

The 1858 drop curtain by Russell Smith now hangings in the lobby of Thalian Hall.

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.

The original curtain (left) and fabric insert (right).

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…

Travels of a Scenic Artists and Scholar: Mr. Smith was Assisted by His Daughter

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.”

Illustration of the drop with curtains by Mary Smith for the Academy of Music.

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…

Travels of a Scenic Artists and Scholar: Alterations to Russell Smith’s 1858 Drop Curtain at Thalian Hall

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.

Example of a black line added by a later artist to the Russell Smith drop curtain at the Thalian Hall in Wilmington, North Carolina.

The lettering of Thalia is inconsistent wit the remainder of the painting.

The flat black added to the statue obliterates the original shadow shapes an is inconsistent with the remainder of the composition.

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…

Die Vierte Wand #009 Article by Dr. Wendy Waszut-Barrett

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.

Travels of a Scenic Artists and Scholar: Russell Smith and Logwood Ink

According to Virginia Lewis in her book “Russell Smith, Romantic Realist, “ in 1872, the artist Russell Smith painted a replica of an 1856 entr’acte drop curtain. The drop curtain was originally installed at the Academy of Music in Baltimore, Maryland. The painting for the curtain was described by “The Philadelphia Inquirer” on Dec. 16, 1894. The article noted that although the scene was titled “Como,” the actual scene was from sketches that Smith made at the head of Lake Lugano, in Northern Italy.” The article described, “A conventional design with huge frame, the center of the lower border included a Greek bust. The scene depicted a brilliant summertime view with Italian skies above the glitter and sheen of greenish blue waters.” Lewis notes that the curtain was painted on British imported linen and the drawings were inked in with logwood, commenting it resulted in “soft atmospheric effects which could not be gotten otherwise.” The article also noted that “the colors were made by him personally, as was his custom.”

A recipe for logwood ink appeared in the 1912 publication of “The Standard Reference Work for the Home, School and Library: “Logwood ink is made easily. Logwood may be boiled in soft water, or else extract of logwood may be used. When ink of a proper consistency has been obtained, add one part in ten of ammonia or alum dissolved in boiling water. This gives a violet ink.”

Logwood is a small redwood tree indigenous to Central America, Mexico and the West Indies. Introduced in Europe during the 16^th century, it is still used today in a variety of industries. The dye is contained in the heartwood of the tree, cut into small blocks and then chips for use. Logwood was inexpensive at the time when Russell Smith was using it and provided a wide color range, spanning from violet and blue to deep brown and black. Logwood was not only used for inks, but also watercolor paints.

I immediately thought back to the ink lines still visible on Smith’s 1858 drop curtain. Although water damage washes away an artist’s painting, it often reveals the original drawing beneath, such is the case with the drop curtain at Thalian Hall.

Drawing revealed after water damage. Inked lines on the 1858 Russell Smith drop curtain at Thalian Hall in Wilmington, NC.

Drawing revealed after water damamge. Inked lines on the 1858 Russell Smith drop curtain at Thalian Hall in Wilmington, NC.

A variety of logwood inks appeared in the 19^th century after the design of the steel pen necessitated new ink; iron-gall inks corroded the steel nibs. Chrome-logwood inks were noncorrosive and flowed freely. Cr logwood inks were among the most popular in use, reaching the market in 1848. Unfortunately, chromium caused the ink to gelatinize in the bottle and other alternatives were repeatedly sought out.

There were also alum-logwood inks and copper-logwood inks. Logwood inks were cheap, but not a perfect solution to replace the traditional and expensive black inks. Some of the early violet inks also came from logwood, with the best versions appearing as an intense blue black. Once dry, logwood inks could be wetted without smearing or spreading; a perfect application in inking scenic art compositions that would be painted over. Van Gogh also used chrome-logwood ink for many of his paintings.

It is very possible that the Smith’s inked lines, now visible in the Thalian Hall drop curtain, were made with logwood ink.

To be continued…

Travels of a Scenic Artists and Scholar: Russell Smith’s Source Material

Portrait of Russell Smith by James R. Lambdin and included in “Russell Smith, Romantic Realist” by Virginia Lewis (1956).

Russell Smith (1812-1896) took pride in his nature sketches. Tromping out into the wilderness with stool, paint box and easel was a time-honored tradition for many nineteenth century scenic artists. Sketching trips provided an opportunity to gather source material for future compositions, whether placed in an art gallery or on the stage. These plein air paintings, or portions thereof, were incorporated into many settings for the stage. Twentieth century scenic artists continued this practice, long after printed sources became readily avaialble, as it was a way to hone their artistic skills. Thomas G. Moses (1856-1934) wrote of his sketching trips with fellow artists during the 1880s. His traveling companions included Henry C, Tryon, Walter Burridge, Edward Morange, John H. Young, Hardesty Marratta and many others, publishing his recollections of the outings years later. They all had ties to Russell Smith.

Scenic artists who were associated with the Düsseldorf School, such as Sosman & Landis artists David Austin Strong (1830-1911), also supported plein air painting, leaving the four walls of their studios to work from nature as it was integral to the artistic process. Strong was a contemporary of Smith who also sought training in Europe and became a prolific scenic artist in his own right. He was one of the original scenic artists for “The Black Crook” at Niblo’s garden in 1866 and later settled in Chicago, working at the Sosman & Landis studio. Strong’s work was well known throughout the United States in hundreds of theaters from New York, Boston, and Philadelphia to Chicago, Kansas and California.

I think back to Moses’ records describing the numerous sketching trips where he peacefully sat and captured the pristine beauty of mountain valleys, sunlit meadows, and babbling brooks. Their trips to the Catskills, Rocky Mountains, Canadian Rockies, New Mexico, California, and many other picturesque locations were immediately incorporated into both small-scale and large-scale projects, ranging from art exhibitions to scenic spectacles. The expansion of America’s railway system opened up possibilities for ambitious artists.

Detail of 19th century sketching box sold on eBay

Smith discussed in detail the need for nature studies throughout his journals. Virginia Lewis included many of these remarks in her 1956 book “Russell Smith, Romantic Realist.” Of note, Smith acknowledged that some artists replicated specific engravings or paintings, while he used his own materials. Of mentioning the need for nature studies, one director responded, “Oh what’s the difference so its pretty, you’ll spend much money and time making sketching tours when you could buy something just as good or better by Calame or Harding for fifty cents.” The manager was referring to the many lithographs available at the time by Alexandre Calame (1810-1864) and James Duffield Harding (1798-1863).

Calame was a lithographer and a popular artist associated with the Düsseldorf school of painting, as Strong had been. A Swiss landscape painter, Calame’s work was featured in numerous series of lithographs depicting picturesque mountain regions. Similarly, Harding’s work was readily available in print form for scenic artists to replicate. Harding was an English landscape painter, lithographer and author of drawing manuals. Harding’s “Lessons on Art,” “Guide and Companion to Lessons on Art,” “The Principles and Practice of Art,” and “Elementary Art, or the use of the chalk and lead pencil advocated and explained,” were widely sought after.

Much more could be said of both Calame and Harding, but the main issue at hand is Smith’s identification of artists whom opted for printed sources in lieu of sketching trips. Nature studies provide training for the artistic eye, something a printed work cannot do. Although the blue in a lithograph can be replicated, it is not the same as capturing the brilliancy of a clear blue sky. There is a depth of color that is lost in translation in print form.

The difference between the artists who easily purchased prints for reference instead of creating their own can be identifiable in their painting, taking on a flat and lifeless characteristic that accentuates any overall lack of skill. Sitting outside and observing nature, trying to replicate the color of atmospheric landscapes yields different results than those who dutifully copy a print. Smith continued to describe the artists who “captured the truth.”

Near the end of his life, Smith wrote, “What I am going to say of some scene painters I knew in early life I hope may not be attributed to the general tendency of the old to praise the past at the expense of the present. There were forty or fifty years ago, some, in Philadelphia, New York and Boston, that were true artists; men who could make a fine original drawing from nature, and paint a scene possessing much truth as well as beauty; and were not content to work from print only. Robert Jones, a pupil of Stanfield’s was one of these, but seemed to aim more in the style of Turner. Then there was James and William Coyle, both of whom had painted with Marinari in Drury Lane Theatre, were excellent in Gothic and Picturesque architecture. Whilst Harry Wilkins, a pupil of Naysmith’s, the Edinburgh landscape painter, was admirable in landscape, trees and rocks. Hugh Reinagle, a brother of the Royal Academician Reinagle, was also a very fine architectural painter. So was Mr. Hilliard, well known in New York. I have preserved specimens of the work of all these painters and any good artist can see the truth of what I say. Now there is such a glut of design, in fine woodcuts, engravings, chromes, photographs, and even paintings that a young man who can copy and desires to paint scenes, can for a little money, supply himself with a collection that will enable him to furnish a scene of any subject, or a view of any remarkable place; and like all easily acquired knowledge, is very shallow. As a consequence there are a very few scene painters now who could rank as an artist-studying and bringing from Nature their skill. Many believe that the same may be said of actors in general; but of that I cannot pretend to judge.”

Smith passed away in 1896. His work remains part of the American scenic art legacy, artists who saw value and benefit in gathering source material from nature. These were also artists who worked in both small scale and large scale, each requiring a unique skill set and distinct understanding of contrast, color, and detail for each. Many artists can produce small artworks, easily transported and hung on both private and public walls. Not all are able to successfully transition their ideas to a large-scale format that is best viewed from a distance. Tightly painted and detailed artworks become fuzzy from the back of an auditorium. The stage demands the separation of color and an increased contrast that allows the audience’s eye to work and see the illusion. Smith could do it all.

To be continued…