Lighting – Page 7 – Drypigment.net

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 364 – “How Theatrical Scenery is Made,” 1898 (Physioc’s studio, part 1)

Part 364: “How Theatrical Scenery is Made,” 1898 (Physioc’s studio, part 1)

To fully understand the life and times of Thomas G. Moses, I am including a newspaper article describing a New York scenic studio from 1898. It provides great insight into the scenic art profession at the end of the nineteenth century. The article describes J. A. Physioc’s studio and his art. It was published in “The World” (New York, 6 March 1898, page 43). By 1899, Moses would also work in New York for Henry Savage at the American Theatre. Physioc was only one of many scenic artists whom Moses would compete with for work in the Big Apple. Here is a little background on Physioc to place him in context.

Joseph Allen Physioc (1866-1951) was born in Richmond, Virginia to J. T. Physioc. J. T. Physioc would later be listed as president of Physioc Studios, Inc., with his son and grandson as treasurer and secretary. The Physioc family moved to Columbia, South Carolina, when Joseph was four years old. Interestingly, one of Joseph’s childhood playmates was Woodrow Wilson (Tampa Times, 4 August 1951, page 2).

Physioc’s theatrical career started in small venues thoughout the south. He tried his hand in Alabama, and then headed to New York City after gaining some experience. He studied his trade at the Metropolitan Opera while working as an assistant designer (Index Journal, Greenwood, SC, 4 August, 1951, page 3).

By the age of 27, Physioc received a contract to stage Bernard Shaw’s “Arms and the Man” for Richard Mansfield at the Herald Square Theatre. His success with this play and others propelled him to rank among those at the top of his profession in New York. Physioc worked as Augustin Daly’s “house artist” at Daly’s Theatre in New York City and for twelve years traveled with Richard Mansfield as his “special artist.” Later in life, he moved to Columbia, returning to his family after his eyesight began to fail and he could no longer paint. In 1951, Physioc passed away at his son’s home (Joseph A. Physioc, Jr.).

Advertisement in Julius Cahn’s Official Theatrical Guide for Physioc Studio Co. from 1900.

I am posting this article describing Physioc’s studio and his artistic process during 1898 in four installments due to its length. It was the second line of the article that caught my eye when I was doing research, especially after delving into the histories of Strong, McDonald, and other scenic artists who belonged to the Theatrical Mechanics Association. The top scenic artists were also knowledgeable stage mechanics. Physioc was also an electrician.

Here is the first installment of the article:

“The studio of Physioc is a workshop as well. He says that no man can be a really successful scene painter unless he is also a stage mechanic. His success has made his opinion of value. He painted Daly’s and Mansfield’s scenery for years. The young man’s studio is a wonderful place. To begin with it is perhaps the largest in the world. It occupies the greater part of what was a five-story stable at No. 519 West Thirty-eighth Street.

The building was in the form of the letter U, Physioc filled the front with glass and roofed the open space with a skylight. You ascend to the studio by means of fire escapes on either side. Between them are suspended paint frames. The frames can be lowered forty feet. Four drops can be painted at one time. A cyclorama drop, that is, one which encircles the whole stage, ninety feet wide, can be painted without rolling. This is the advantage of the great space. The paint-bridge is always stationary.

Sectional of Physioc’s Studio from “The World” (New York, 6 March 1898, page 43).

Detail of Physioc’s Studio from “The World” (New York, 6 March 1898, page 43).

In addition to the paint-bridge there are property rooms where all manner of things for the stage are made: the electric-light room, the model room and the miniature stage.

“Usually a scenic artist does nothing but paint,” says Physioc, “Yet he is held responsible for the whole setting and scene. The properties are very important accessories. Therefore I design and make them all. This insures a harmony, a completeness and accuracy which might be otherwise be lacking. I take it that the modern idea of stage scenes requires an artistic whole, a finished creation. I know exactly what the effect will be before a scene is painted.

I not only design the scene myself, but I make the accessories and arrange the lighting, which is almost as important as the scenery itself. I am not only a scene painter, but also function as the property man and electrician as well.

It is a strange and interesting art, this of scene painting. Time was when a painter made merely a drop and wings, or profiles. Now the scenic artist must make a composition. It is vastly different.”

This was 1898 and a crucial period during the development of degree productions for Scottish Rite stages in the Southern Jurisdiction. The scenery now used in Yankton, South Dakota, is from this same year.

1898 scene by Sosman & Landis Studio (Chicago) for Wichita, Kansas. This scenery is now in Yankton, South Dakota.

1898 counterweighted lines by Sosman & Landis Studio (Chicago) for Wichita, Kansas. This counterweight system travelled with the used scenery collection and was installed in Yankton, South Dakota. Photograph from November 2017 with Rick Boychuk when we examined the rigging.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 354: The First Little Rock Scottish Rite Scenery Collection – 1896, 1899 and 1902

Part 354: The First Little Rock Scottish Rite Scenery Collection: 1896, 1899 and 1902

The first three times that Scottish Rite scenery was manufactured by Sosman & Landis for Little Rock, Arkansas, were 1896, 1899 and 1902. They were likely three expansions to the same collection that found a permanent home in the 1902 Albert Pike Consistory building. An entirely new scenery collection replaced this combination in 1924; it was also produced by Sosman & Landis and created for the Albert Pike Memorial Temple.

The first Scottish Rite scenery collection was delivered in 1896 to the Albert Pike Cathedral; this scenery was for the Little Rock Scottish Rite on Center Street. A Jewish synagogue was remodeled and equipped for $12,000. The 1896 collection was expanded in 1899 when additional scenery was purchased for the same space. The Scottish Rite remained in the converted synagogue until September 1902 when the Scottish Rite Consistory was completed. As with many Valleys, the dramatic increase in membership demanded a larger home, so a second building was constructed, moving the Scottish Rite from Center Street to the northwest corner of 8^th and Scott. This new building was remodeled and enlarged by 1913; the expansion incorporated the 1902 building into the complex, but added a projecting front bay and triangular pediment supported by four fluted Ionic columns.

Picture from 1925 Souvenir program depicting the 1902 Albert Pike Consistory and its remodel in 1913.

There was a fire on August, 27, 1919, that burned down a Masonic building in Little Rock, but it was not the Albert Pike Consistory; it was the Masonic Temple building. Fire destroyed the seven-story Masonic Temple complex where the Grand Lodge of Arkansas and the York Bodies were located at 5^th and Main. However, the destruction of the Grand Lodge and York Rite spaces partially instigated the planning and construction of a new Masonic complex in Little Rock – the 1924 Albert Pike Memorial Temple. This new building would house all of the Masonic Bodies in Little Rock, including the Scottish Rite. Ground was broken for this new structure on December 3, 1921; the cornerstone laid on May 11, 1922, and the building dedicated by May 12, 1924. The cost of the 1924 three-story building was $1.5 million dollars.

The 1924 Albert Pike Memorial building in Little Rock, Arkansas, pictured in a 1925 Souvenir program.

Thomas G. Moses’ resumé lists the scenery for Little Rock’s 1896 and 1902 installations, but not the 1899 scenic additions. That year Moses was primarily out of the studio, traveling and contemplating another departure from Sosman & Landis. By 1900, Moses left Sosman & Landis to form a new partnership with Will Hamilton in New York City until 1904 (Moses & Hamilton). His taking credit for the 1902 scenery collection suggests that it was the same 1896/1899 scenery, or another expansion of the original scenery collection. Even the 1904 “New Age Magazine” article describing in detail the Albert Pike Consistory did not suggest the purchase of a brand new scenery collection for the building.

Here is an excerpt from the article, written by SGIG Charles E. Rosenbaum. This article really established Little Rock degree productions as the gold standard for degree work in the Southern Jurisdiction:

“It is claimed, and we do not doubt that it is true, that the stage equipment in Little Rock is the most perfect in America – not only for Masonic purposes, for which it is used exclusively, but from any point of view. It is said by theatrical experts that nowhere else in America, with the possible exception of one theater in New York, and one in Chicago, it is possible to produce either the scenic or electric effects that can be produced on this stage. There are over one hundred drops all so perfectly counterweighted that the heaviest as well as the lightest in weight moves easier than a well-balanced window sash in a private residence. In addition to the drops, there are nearly one hundred set pieces of various sizes, to make the scenic equipment complete, and with the elaborate incidental property the scenic equipment is one of great magnitude.

The electric equipment is perhaps more elaborate, and of greater magnitude, if such a thing can be possible, and some ideas of its capacity may be gathered when it is known that with the numerous border rows, ground rows, strips, bunch lights, arc projectors, lens boxes and spot lights, there is a capacity of more than six thousand sixteen-candle-power lights on the stage alone. All these are handled with great effect and with the precision of beauty through the medium of a specially designed switch board, the creation of Brother Bestor G. Brown, who has given much thought and labor to stage and electric equipment, and is a recognized authority on the subject. It must be understood that a Scottish Rite stage is not to be conceived as a theatrical stage, for when so considered much of its effective use is destroyed, but when used as a combination with the floor of the auditorium, giving to the initiate a beautiful picture for the eye, while at the same time he is lending an attentive ear to the lessons that are being taught, the use of such a stage will be understood and correspondingly valued.”

Notice at this point that Rosenbaum is really walking a very fine line, knowing that Pike had condemned melodramatic productions for degree work. He is defending the implementation and use of degree productions.

The article continues: “The Bodies of Little Rock were pioneers in the use of a stage in the Southern Jurisdiction. It was to be expected that when they constructed their present magnificent and perfectly equipped building, the experience gained not only through their own efforts but through those of others who, in the meantime, had adopted the use of the Scottish Rite purposes, would give them just what, in fact, they have, the most perfect one in the land. Our experience was of great value in designing and equipping this building, which would we think, be credit to even the largest city in the United States. For this reason, it is particularly noticeable and a source of admiration of the part of all who visit it. Many Brethren of distinction have come from great distances on committees, or as the representatives of Bodies located elsewhere, for the purpose of observing its excellent arrangement and equipment and utilizing them in other buildings.”

The 1902 scenery for the Albert Pike Consistory is still used, just by another Scottish Rite Valley – Pasadena, California. In an interesting turn of events, I depart for Pasadena this afternoon to repair one of their scenes. I will take a break from my blog for the next few days to cover my project for the Pasadena Scottish Rite.

Original shipping label on bottom batten for the Scottish Rite scenery. This scene is now used at the Scottish Rite in Pasadena, California.

The backside of a scene in Pasadena, California, that depicts the original label and size of the scene for Little Rock Arkansas measuring 16 x 30. The fabric extensions were previously painted panels that were sewn on to the Little Rock drop.

Camp scene consisting of two leg drops and a backdrop for the 1902 Albert Pike Consistory Building. The backdrop and second leg drop for this scene are now used at the Pasadena Scottish Rite.

The original backdrop created for the 1902 Albert Pike Cathedral, now hanging in the Pasadena Scottish Rite. The first leg drop was not included in the scenery purchase from Little Rock negotiated by Thomas G. Moses in 1923.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 342 – “The Artist in the Flies,” First Half

Part 342: “The Artist in the Flies,” First Half

Throughout my research, I have encountered a series of delightful articles. They were not only enlightening, but also changed my understanding of theatre history and the late-nineteenth-century scenic art. In many cases, I transcribed these unknown bits of writing and posted them online. I believe that might have worth to other theatre historians and practitioners.

I discovered “The Artist in the Flies” after reading “Stage English” (installment #310) and tucked it away for the time that I would cover the year of 1895 (4 Aug 1895, page 14). The article really resonated with me and reminded me of Thomas G. Moses. This story is a slightly different presentation from the somber depiction of the artistic process described in yesterday’s post. This will be posted in two sections due to the length. This is a wonderful article to read before continuing with the activities of Thomas G. Moses in 1894-1895. Enjoy!

“No Summer Vacation for Him. He is turning out castles, forests, and interiors by the hundred yards in these warm days.”

“The busiest men connected with the theatrical business at present are the scenic artists and their assistants. Before the artist begins his work, the frames have passed through many hands. To begin with, a number of sewing women are engaged to sew the canvas together, for which they receive a certain amount for each yard. After the canvas has been sewed together, it passes into the hands of the stage carpenter, who has put the frames together. The canvas is stretched taut over the frames, and glued and nailed to the wood. This is a trade itself. When the frames are ready they are put upon an immense frame, which is behind the paint bridge, usually at a great height from the stage, up in the flies, where the different drops may be raised or lowered as needed. The paint bridge stretches across the stage from fly loft to fly loft on either side. Here the artist is away from the madding crowd. The scenery receives a preliminary coat of paint, and when dry is ready for the different colors needed in the scenes.

As a general rule, the artist outlines the different scenes and puts in the most difficult and delicate touches, and then allows his assistants to fill in the rest. He is guided by his model, which is set in a complete stage by itself. One artist in an uptown theatre has a small room in the flies where he builds his models on a small scale, and has a complete electric light apparatus, by which he can judge the effect of the different lights on his models. This is a great help to him in his work. The paint bridge is usually crowded with pots of paints, and the uninitiated would wonder how the artist could move around without sending a few of them on to the stage below.

An amusing accident of this kind happened at the old Standard Theatre before it was burned down. The dressing-rooms of the chorus were on a level with the fly loft, and occasionally the bridge was used by the chorus of people who had to make an entrance on the opposite side of the stage. Instead of going into the cellar under the stage, they took this crossing.

One night one of the girls did not heed the flight of time until she was recalled to her senses by the sound of music, which was her cue to go on stage. She rushed through the fly loft and over the paint bridge, not heeding the paint pots with which it was covered. Away went the young woman in a heap on the floor of the bridge, luckily escaping the fate of two pots of paint, which fell to the stage below, completely deluging a “super” who was awaiting his cue to go on the stage. The accident was seen be some of the gallery urchins, who set up a shout of delight. After the accident the paint bridge was the sacred property of the scenic artist.

To be continued…

Here are some images from a Sosman & Landis collection created in 1898. It was for the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry stage in Yankton, South Dakota. The was a “used” scenery collection, originally created in 1898.

Scottish Rite stage setting in Yankton, South Dakota. Originally painted in 1898, two years after the article was written for the newspaper. This is a Sosman & Landis installation.

Scottish Rite stage setting in Yankton, South Dakota. Stage left side with Rick Boychuk taking photos for research (he provides scale).

Scottish Rite stage setting in Yankton, South Dakota. Looking toward stage right side.

Scottish Rite stage setting in Yankton, South Dakota. JBM tomb back.

Scottish Rite stage setting in Yankton, South Dakota. JBM tomb front.

Scottish Rite stage setting in Yankton, South Dakota. Stage left side and counterweight system.

Scottish Rite stage setting in Yankton, South Dakota. 1898 flat construction.

Scottish Rite stage setting in Yankton, South Dakota. Front of flat.

Scottish Rite stage setting in Yankton, South Dakota. Detail of painting. Sosman & Landis Studio, 1898.

Scottish Rite stage setting in Yankton, South Dakota. Detail of wooden batten at bottom of the drop. Sosman & Landis installation, 1898.

Scottish Rite stage setting in Yankton, South Dakota. Detail of netted edge. Sosman & Landis installation, 1898.

For large picture files, join FB Group Dry Pigment.

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 336 – The Broad Ripple Auditorium in Indianapolis, Indiana

Part 336: The Broad Ripple Auditorium in Indianapolis, Indiana

Thomas G. Moses painted scenery for the Broad Ripple Auditorium in 1895. He also made a brief appearance as part of a theatrical management team– Moses & McDonald. This was shortly after Joseph S. Sosman, Perry Landis, and David Hunt started the theatrical management firm of Sosman, Landis & Hunt. A combination of touring vaudeville acts and creating a stock company eliminated the need to feature expensive touring stars. It appeared to be a winning proposition.

When the Broad Ripple Auditorium opened during August 1895, it was at an odd time. The Indianapolis News announced, “This cozy summer theater, although opened late in the season, is doing good business. The attendance is increasing nightly, which is the surest indication of success” (11 August 1895, page 10). It was marketed as being “complete with all the modern equipment” and a seating capacity of 1,200 (4 Aug. 1895, page 13). The newspaper article added that Moses & McDonald were not only the managers, but also the organizers of the the Auditorium Stock Company. The company presented standard dramas, supplemented with vaudeville acts. It was the Auditorium Stock Company that purchased the theater, funded by members that included R.C. Light, George J. Marott, Charles Kirschner, and a Mr. Eldridge.

Review of the new Broad Ripple Auditorium, managed by Moses & McDonald. Indianapolis Journal (4 Aug 1895 page 13).

Moses was also credited with the stock scenery collection and the Indianapolis New commented, “The scenery is by Thomas G. Moses, of the Schiller Theatre, Chicago, and the stage is 40×40 feet, with three sets of border and footlights” (4 Aug. 1895, page 13).

The opening play was “Fanchon, the Cricket,” a charming five-act play made famous by Maggie Mitchell. This show was followed by “The Smugglers,” “Mystic Mountain,” “Ten Nights in a Barroom,” “The Factory Girl,” and “Kathleen Mavourneen,” each attracting large crowds. Then something happened.

Just eleven days after opening, the Indianapolis News reported, “The Broad Ripple Auditorium will remain closed until next Saturday night, when ‘Uncle Tom’s Cabin’ will be presented. Preparations are making for an elaborate production” (13 August 1895, page 7). There is no other mention of the show. It appears as if the production never took place at the Broad Ripple Auditorium. The next production for the venue was “Mabel Heath, or the Shadows of Home.” That was their last advertised performance. After that, the venue under the management of Moses & McDonald disappeared from the local papers.

Small advertisement for the Broad Ripple Auditorium squeezed between a soap and baseball. Indianapolis Journal (18 Aug 1895, page 6).

Unfortunately, the Broad Ripple Auditorium productions were poorly advertised; they appeared few in number, small in scale, and uninspiring in content. This would be understandable if the majority of Moses time was spent creating scenery for other venues. Little is known of “Moses & McDonald” beyond their brief partnership to manage the Broad Ripple Auditorium.

I had to wonder what had happened. Did this have anything to do with an inexperienced management team? There are only a couple mentions of them in newspaper articles, but all suggest that Thomas G. Moses was the “Moses” of Moses & McDonald.

Who was McDonald? I believe that he was another scenic artist that Moses was working with in Chicago during 1895?. This was a perfect combination as McDonald was not only a scenic artist, but also a talented stage carpenter. Where was McDonald painting during the spring of 1895? He was painting at McVicker’s Theatre with Homer Emons and Edward Peck. They were all working on the production of “Linsey Woolsey” (Chicago Tribune, 7 April 1895, page 35).

1896 advertisement for P. J. McDonald in Julius Cahn’s Official Theatrical Guide.

In 1896, P. J. McDonald was back to working as the stage carpenter for the Grand Opera House in New York. That would explain the end of Moses & McDonald. He would later partner with Claude L. Hagen, another stage carpenter, in 1899. McDonald & Hagen advertised as “contractors and builders of scenery,” providing scenery for “scenic productions, scenery for Theatres, Balls and Private Theatricals, Pageants and Celebrations, Tricks and Illusions, Masonic and Mystic Shrine Paraphernalia, Mechanical Effects, and Scrim Profile and all Supplies for the Trade” (Julius Cahn’s Official Theatrical Guide, 1899). The two separated by 1902 and McDonald again advertised independently as “P. J. McDonald, Scenery and Stage Construction, Mechanical Effects and Intricate Devices.” His shop was located at the stage of the Grand Opera House – 320 West 24^th Street, New York.

1899 advertisement for McDonald & Hagen in Julius Cahn’s Official Theatrical Guide.

There is much that can be written on Hagen, and I cover him in a later post. For now, here is an announcement from “The Salt Lake Tribune” in 1910 (20 Feb, page 39). It gives a brief summary of Hagen’s importance.

1896 advertisement for Claude L. Hagen, featuring his Patent Shoe Toggle, in Julius Cahn’s Official Theatrical Guide.

“For eight years Mr. Hagen was associated with Klaw & Erlanger. Later he was superintendent of Luna park. He invented the racing scenes in “Ben-Hur,” “The Ninety and Nine,” “The Vanderbilt Cup,” and “Bedford’s Hope.” He designed and built many of the illusions used by Herrmann. He also invented the “Loop-the-Loop” and designed the first hippodrome building in this country in which the racecourse or stage revolved entirely around the audience. The latter device was first used at Luna park in the naval show “War is Hell.” In 1908, he was appointed the technical director of the New Theatre, submitting his resignation on May 1, 1910. At the New Theatre “he set up the most complete theatrical stage in existence, and all the machinery of it was invented by him. His revolving stage and system of counterweights for the raising and lowering of scenery are said to be the most effective devices of the kind known.”

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 331 – Thomas G. Moses and the Valentine Theatre in Toledo, Ohio

Part 331: Thomas G. Moses and the Valentine Theatre in Toledo, Ohio

For the year 1895, Thomas G. Moses recorded that he secured $46,000.00 of scenic work. Of that amount, he paid himself only $3,500. Moses commented that the necessary expenses were “very heavy” that year, resulting in such poor profits. In addition to touring shows and productions at the Schiller, Moses produced several stock scenery collections for theaters and halls across the country. One of the stock scenery installations was for Toledo, Ohio.

Moses wrote, “I closed up with the Valentine Theatre of Toledo for $5,300.00. We all got in our good work on this job.” In today’s dollars, it was almost a $150,000 job and one of many that he was juggling that fall.

Vintage postcard of the Valentine Theatre in Toledo, Ohio with stock scenery created by Thomas G. Moses in 1895.

Here is a little information about his Toledo project to create a little context for his story. The Valentine Theatre replaced a previous opera house, called the Wheeler Opera House that burned to the ground in 1893. The Wheeler had boasted a stage that measured 47 x 80’ with 15 sets of scenery (Harry Miner’s American Dramatic Directory, 1884-1885). When a new venue was contemplated, one of Toledo’s businessmen entered the picture as he was already leasing a few other performance venues in the region – George H. Ketcham. The Democratic Northwest and Henry County News reported that the Valentine Theatre was “built at enormous expense and under the personal supervision of its owner Mr. George H. Ketcham” (26 Dec. 1895, page 1). The newspaper reported Ketcham to be “one of Toledo’s wealthiest and most progressive capitalists, and whose enterprise has been a prominent factor in the phenomenal growth of Toledo and the development of its commercial interests.” The Valentine Theater was named after Ketcham’s father, Valentine Hicks Ketcham. The estimated cost of the project $300,000. Ketcham made himself president of the Valentine Company in Toledo, but he was already controlling the Grand and Great Southern theaters in Columbus, the Victoria Theatre at Dayton, and the English Opera House in Indianapolis (The Piqua Daily Call, 17 March 1902, page 1). Ketcham selected Lee M. Boda to be his manager in Toledo.

Interior Photograph of the Valentine Theatre with some scenery by Thomas G. Moses. Image from “The Book of Ohio” (1912)

The Valentine Theater was located on the ground floor at the corner of St. Clair and Adams as part of the Valentine block. The building was four stories and contained 200 offices (of which were included all of the city governmental offices), 15 stores, a private law library the Elks lodge room and a theater. The theater was a separate building with an entrance on St. Clair Street. Designed by Edward Oscar Fallis (1851-1927) in the “Sulivanesque style.” E. O. Fallis was a well-known architect who was also responsible for the several courthouses, a few public buildings, churches and residential homes in the region. Construction of the Valentine building began in 1894 and was completed in 1895.

Fallis’ theater design included an unusual cantilevered balcony and increased the theatre seating by arranging the chairs in straight rows instead of semi-circles. Some sources report this to be the first of its kind in the country. Unfortunately, his seating design created some areas with obstructed views. However, it greatly increased the number of chairs that could be crammed into the venue and increase the profit margin. According to Julius Cahns Official Theatrical Guide the seating capacity was 1,904. There were also twenty exists from the space in case of fire.

The building was illuminated with electric light and equipped with large dynamos in the basement that sent direct current to the incandescent lights, numbering approximately 2500. One newspaper article noted that the Mayhofer system was used at the Valentine Theatre and the lights could be manipulated to transform scenes from dawn to dusk. This would be similar to the electric scenic theater that was on display at the Columbian Exposition, featuring “A Day in the Alps.” There were also calcium lights and a “chaser” to spotlight people on stage and “produce brilliant effects of light and shade on the actress’ costume as she moves about the stage” (Blade, No. 131, 26 Dec. 1895).

The proscenium opening measured 39’-0” wide by 37’-0” high and depth from the footlights to the back wall was 62 feet. The distance between the girders was recorded 50 feet, with the stage to the rigging loft measuring 85 feet. There were nine bridges above the stage, located in three rows.

Interior Photograph of the Valentine Theatre with some scenery by Thomas G. Moses. Note the painted Austrian drape partially scene above the stage. Detail of image from “The Book of Ohio” (1912).

The Valentine Theater opened on December 25, 1895 with Joseph Jefferson’s famous “Rip Van Winkle.” The article, “The Opening of the Valentine Theatre,” described the space in detail, especially the area behind the stage with scenery produced by the studio of Thomas G. Moses. Here is a section from the article published in the Blade from December 26 and posted online as part of Dr. Timothy Messer-Kruse’s essay on the Valentine Theatre.”

“Back of the footlights, everything is as complete as human ingenuity and unstinted expense could make it. The dimensions of the stage are as follows: L Proscenium opening, 39 feet; depth of stage, 72 feet; width, 80 feet; height to rigging left, 84 feet. The scenery is all from the studio of Thomas G. Moses, of Chicago, and is complete in every detail. An asbestos curtain, absolutely fire proof, decorated, in the general style of the carpets of the house, with a peculiar green tint and golden fleur de lis, divides the auditorium from the stage. The act curtain, which was dropped for public inspection, the first time, last night, is a revelation of beauty. It is entitled “A Spanish Flower Festival,” and is a symphony in color. There is a freedom and grace about each fixture and a wealth of historic detail in the scene which makes it almost perfect as a work of art.” Here is another example where a front drop curtain replicates a well-known artwork.

Interior Photograph of the Valentine Theatre with some scenery by Thomas G. Moses. Note the interior box set and tormentors that would have been part of the stock scenery collection. Detail of image from “The Book of Ohio” (1912).

The same article also mentioned the stage machinery: “The stage, which is equipped with every essential in the scenic and mechanical line, is under the supervision of Robert H. Minis, than whom, Mr. Boda says there is no better stage carpenter in the country.”

By 1918, the venue was transformed into a cinema, effectively ending live theatre performances after a $50,000 renovation as it was transformed into a movie palace. In August of 1983, a task force was established by Mayor DeGood, who recommended the demolition of the Valentine Theatre at a cost of $217,000. Luckily, a group called “Friends of the Valentine” began a campaign to save the theater from the wrecking ball.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 321: M.M. Maffey and the Spectacle du Petit Lazari

Part 321: M.M. Maffey and the Spectacle du Petit Lazari

I just had to dig a bit deeper about the first show with Daguerre’s paintings as I was really curious about M. M. Maffey. Why had Daguerre selected Maffey to market his dioramas in America? What skills did he bring to the table? How was Maffey an asset? After a bit of digging through French publications from the 1820s, I believe that it was his puppetry skills – the movement that occurred behind the translucent sections of the paintings, as they were backlit. They incorporated a type of shadow puppetry. I believe that the backlit figures were painted paper puppets where you could see the detail clearly in translucent sections. I had encountered similar transparencies used by Volland & Toomey for their Scottish Rite scenes. For example, Jesus was painted on paper and lightly glued to the back of a translucent sky section.

View of backside of Scottish Rite drop in Quincy, Illinois, with the front light bleeding through to the backside.

It’s just that some of the figures moved. In short, Maffey assisted backstage during the show, while Lonati worked the front lights. Plus, Lonati, would be in the house during the performance. Maffey was the perfect person to have on board and backstage.

You see, there was an “M. M. Maffey” associated with Spectacle du Petit Lazari in Paris on boulevard du Temple during the 1820s. In 1823, Journal De Paris et des Départmens Politique, Commercial et Littéraire published numerous shows at Spectacle du Petit Lazari de M. M. Maffey, every day from six to nine (Tous les jours, depuis six heures jusqu’a neuf).

Mention of M. M. Maffey and his connection with Theater de Petit Lazuri during the 1820s.

The following information was published in Journal De Paris et des Départmens Politique, Commercial et Littéraire – (three issues: 8 septembre, 13 septembre, et 24 octobre 1823):

1. Werewolf (Loup garou)

2. A Point of View of Naples (un point de Vue de Naples)

3. Harlequin King in the Moon (Arlequin roi dans la Lune)

4. A Point of View of Mexico (un point de vue de Mexico)

5. Pulcinella Vampire, or the Sybille de Balzora, parody (Polichiuelle Vampire, ou la Sybille de Balzora, parodie)

As I continued my search for Maffy, I stumbled across a wonderful book – John McCormick’s “Popular Theatres of Nineteenth-century France” (1993, page 42-43). Here is the paragraph in its entirety as it gives a little more context. McCormick wrote, “There is an interesting document of 1837 in the Archives Nationales from the Brothers Maffey, requesting permission to open ‘Gymnase maritime et pittoresque’ (presumably some form of panorama specializing in sea-scapes – the term Gymnase implies a vaguely educative function. In it Maffey mentions traveling in France and abroad, and then returning to Paris in 1820 and setting up in a little theatre on the boulevard du Temple, which they called the Petit Lazari. The document says: “the genre which we have been exploiting from father to son for fifty years is simply a fantoccini show [i.e.string marionettes] and mechanical views after the fashion of Citizen Pierre [proprietor of a famous ‘spectacle mécanique’ on the boulevard. They also described themselves, currently, as “artistes mécaniciens’, a common term to cover many sorts of showmen, including puppeteers. Other references to the Maffeys are few.”

McCormick writes that Maffey claimed to have a license in 1822 for their performances at the Petit Lazari, and by 1824, the performances at their Spectacle du Petit Lazari moved beyond puppet shows and into Acrobates and Funambules. So, the 1823 shows were likely titles for puppet shows. After a brief closure, McCormick noted that in 1825, the venue reopened as a puppet theatre and then disappeared from the “Almanach des Spectacles” until 1830 when it established a troupe of live actors playing parodies, farces and melodramas.

So Maffey, as a puppeteer, would have been a great asset to both the manufacture and tour of “Daguerre’s Dioramas” as they were backlit to reveal the second scene with movement. Maffey’s presence behind the scene would suggest the movement with opaque figures, or flat puppets. We know that applying a translucent section of a backdrop will reveal either painted images, or pasted prints/paintings. Backlighting the scene reveals the hidden subject on the backside. The same principle would be applied to flat printed, or painted, puppet that moved across a translucent section. This would explain the movement of high priests in the Temple of Solomon, or floating gondolas in the Venice compositions previously mentioned.

I thought back to my MA thesis that explored the Japanese Influence on French Symbolist Theatre. Twenty-five years ago, I was examining the work of the Nabis toward the end of the twentieth century, the Chat Noir Theatre, and some theatrical productions of shadow puppetry that appeared incredibly innovative for the time. However, the idea of shadow puppets in the nineteenth century was nothing new.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 319 – M.M. Maffey & Lonati’s Show

Part 319: M.M. Maffey & Lonati’s Show

Robert Winter Jr. advertised that “Daguerre’s Grand Chemical Secret” was discovered and imitated in his own show of “Chemical Paintings” during 1843. In Cincinnati, Winter claimed that his exhibition not only imitated Daguerre’s originals, but also surpassed them. His backdrops were substantially bigger than their French counterparts, measuring 200 feet square each. I could envision a backdrop measuring approximately 10’-12’ in height by 16’-20’ in width– a good size for the end of a Concert Hall.

Winter’s advertisement also responded to M. M. Maffey’s proclamation that no one in American could imitate his exhibition of Daguerre’s magical paintings. Well, that certainly was drawing a line in the sand and challenging many American artist’s abilities. In general, I was curious about Maffey and Lonati’s management of Daguerre’s paintings, the tour of the show, and any technical information that might be gleamed from newspaper advertisements between 1840 and 1843. So I started to look for additional findings in newspapers and journals from the period.

Maffey and Lonati’s exhibition of Daguerre’s paintings first appeared in New York during 1840. It stayed in the city from October through December. From New York it went to Philadelphia where the proprietors explained that their compositions were true “dioramas.” On January 22, 1841, an advertisement appeared in the National Gazette for the exhibition of “Daguerre’s Dioramas from Paris” (page 3). The newspaper reported, “Among the many Exhibitions which have been seen in the United States up to the present time, several have taken the name Dioramas without being entitled to it. M. M. Maffey and Lonati respectfully inform the Ladies and Gentlemen of this city, that they have just arrived from Paris and New York with a Real Diorama, in every sense of the word, painted by Mons. Daguerre.” Their show included two tableaux depicting “the magnificent view of Venice, or a Festival Night,” and “the admired and unrivalled interior of the Church St. Etienne du Mont, at Paris, representing Midnight Mass!!” The exhibition was open from 11-2 and 5-9 daily. So this meant that they had multiple showings daily. It was obvioulsy a reversible effect with light that could be shown multiple times over the course of a day in specified time slots.

A possible validation of this appeared in the “Boston Weekly Magazine” further describing Maffey and Lonati’s exhibition (Vol. III, 1840-1841, page 263). An article reported “The reflection and refraction of light producing the most surprising effects in the picture, totally changing the scene.” Here is how I interpret this statement: The “reflection of light” on the surface means that front light is used on the painted scene – front light and there may also be some metallic areas or sections with “Dutch Metal” applied, such as in the water to create glistening areas of the Venice canals. The painted surface also reflects the light to make the canvas appear opaque – showing the first scene in daylight.

A scene that is partially backlit, allowing the translucent sky and lake to “glow” and create a picturesque realism on stage.

The “refraction of light” mentioned in the article means changing the direction of the light to illuminate the backside of the backdrop – showing the same scene at night. The gradual lowering of the front light and raising of the backlight would provide a smooth and picturesque transition for the audience. Bounce light would be used to illuminate broad areas on the backside of the drop – such as sunsets and seascapes. This means projecting light away from the drop and allowing the light to bounce back to the translucent area.

Concentrated light in light boxes for the backdrop reveals smaller sections of a translucency, such as the words pictured below or illuminated windows. This would also allow any transparent sections of a drop to become illuminated, thus altering the appearance of the painted composition on the front.

Backlit section of a drop where a light box placed on the backside of a scene will illuminate a specific portion to reveal hidden words, objects and figures.

Backside of the translucent section, with back-painting to define the shapes and concentrate the light for the translucency.

Same section that is under front light. From the audience it appears uniform to the rest of the backdrop.

By the spring of 1841, a third painting was added to the show – Constantinople. However, this backdrop did not depict any transformation, only the two original pieces went from day to night. The Boston Post reported that only two scenes were “painted in that peculiar manner which causes them to change light.” The article continued, “The Church is first seen at mid-day, empty, the light gradually fades to twilight, and the moonlight is seen shining through the windows, and is reflected from the pillars on the opposite side. Presently the candles around the altar are lighted up, and then the seats (before vacant) seem filled with worshippers – the mass proceeds and ends – the lights are extinguished – day is seen to dawn – the moonlight disappears before the light of the sun, and the canvass which seemed crowded with objects, again becomes vacant” (13 May 1841, page 2). I believe that the people are a scenic effect that is similar to shadow puppets (more on that in tomorrow’s post).

As a scenic artist, it is hard not to read that description and envision a painted composition of an empty church – lit from the front. The front light goes down and the lights behind the backdrop go up, illuminating the backside of the drop and revealing a combination of translucent sections and opaque painting of another scene. The scene for Venice also transitions from day to night, revealing gondolas and gay revelers at a hotel reception – all heading to a festival banquet at a hotel. Whenever, I have taken visitors into a historic auditorium and successfully backlit translucent drops that transform daylight scenes to color sunsets there is always that small gasp, followed by “Oh!” This transition never grows old, as even seasoned stagehands will stop to admire the stage effect; it is magical.

In Baltimore, Daguerre’s painted compositions started to add a new descriptor – “Magical Pictures.” Pretty smart as “magical pictures” are far more exciting and promise a surprise – the movement! The Baltimore Sun reported Daguerre’s Diorama’s represented “the wonderful effects of day and night” and were once again advertised to be “the only Original Dioramas ever presented to the American Public” (Baltimore Sun, 30 September 1841, page 3).

Notice the use of “Magical Pictures” for Daguerre’s dioramas. This is before the same show is advertised as “Chemical Paintings.” From the Madisonian (Washington, D.C.) 28 April 1842, page 2).

But wait, there’s more. After Baltimore, the show travels to Charleston and then Washington, D.C. By D.C. the “the charming Valley of Goldau (in Switzerland) and the crumbling of a mountain, a historical occurrence” replaced the static Constantinople scene. The crumbling mountain makes me think of the double-painted Scottish Rite drop where a temple crumbles. As the front panel is lowered to the floor, the back of it is revealed as temple ruins. What a thrilling and splendid effect! Then, a fourth scene is added – “the Remains of Napoleon in the Church des Invalides, Paris, on the 15^th December 1840” (The Daily Madisonian, 18 April 1842, page 2).

Double-painted panels on a backdrop. This is before the volcano explodes and the buildings crumble.

Double-painted panels on a backdrop. This is after the volcano explodes and the buildings crumble.

Double painted panel attached to the front of a drop, before it is lowered.

Same panel being partially lowered to reveal that a scene is painted behind it.

The show undergoes further “rebranding,” and it is advertised under a new heading by the end of 1842 – “Chemical Pictures.” This is also when the first competition appeared for the French proprietors! A second show appeared in New Orleans at the same time.

New branding of the M.M. Maffey and Lonati exhibition of Daguerre’s dioramas that were also called “magical paintings.” Here is a later ad for the same exhibition, but with the new title of “Chemical Pictures.” From The Times-Picayune (New Orleans, Louisiana) 29 Dec. 1842, page 3).

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 317 – The Cincinnati Venue for the Chemical Paintings in 1843

Part 317: The Cincinnati Venue for the Chemical Paintings in 1843

Here is a description of the venue where Duncanson and Coate’s chemical paintings premiered in 1843. A Cincinnati Enquirer article describes in great detail the transformation for each visual spectacle: the Milan Cathedral, Jerusalem and the Crucifixion, the Interior of the Holy Sepulchre and Belshazzar’s Feast in 1843. This was the collaborative effort between African-Americans artist Robert S. Duncanson and the photographer Coates to create a unique form of visual spectacle. There are four descriptions will be posted tomorrow after examining the venue where the production was first presented in Cincinnati.

While researching the Cincinnati venue, however, I was surprised when I realized that the first performance actually took place in the same room where the Cincinnati Masons met. The advertised Concert Hall above the Cincinnati Post Office is also considered one of the first Masonic meeting spaces in the city.

White corner building (on right) was the first Masonic Hall (also used as a concert hall) above the post office in Cincinnati on Third Street. The second Masonic building (tan facade on right) building is depicted past the bank (building with the columns). This would be the same location as the third Masonic building too. Image from http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/where-in-cincinnati-was-the-third-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon-printed/

The two-story brick building was erected on the corner of Third Street and Bank Alley (now the corner of Third Street and Walnut).One of the men responsible for the construction of the building was Postmaster Elam Langdon. The Post Office was situated on the first floor of the building and the Masons used the second floor hall for their lodge room. The road called Bank Alley was also known to local citizens as either Post Office Alley or Masonic Alley. Interestingly, that same second-floor space was also advertised as a Concert Hall for musical performances during 1843. Newspaper advertisements for concerts, such as that by Max Bohrer, noted the 1843 venue as “the Concert Hall, over the Post Office” (Cincinnati Enquirer, 13 June 1843, page 3).

This is the same concert hall above the post office where the chemical paints were displayed in 1843. The Cincinnati Enquirer, 13 June 1843, page 3

“Masonic Review” describes the history of early Masonry in Cincinnati and the cooperation of the various Masonic bodies to construct a Masonic Hall in the city. The first committee was composed of David Brown, William Burker and Postmaster Elam Langdon, “men of executive ability” (Masonic Review and the Masonic Journal, 1892, Vol. 76, page 15). “Subscriptions and dues were paid in bricks, lumber, labor &c., and in March, 1824, the first Masonic hall built in this city was completed at a cost of $2,437.72. The hall was a frame building, and was erected on the Town Lot, now the northeast corner of Third and Walnut…It was not until 1843 that an active interest was taken to build a second building, and in 1845 plans were submitted for a new building and approved.” The Hall was enlarged during 1834 as membership dramatically increased. This was the transitional step between the first and second buildings in Cincinnati. The second building was located just down the block on Third Street from the original corner building.

The third building was located on the same spot as the second building, just down the street from the original Masonic Hall. Image from: http://www.mormoninterpreter.com/where-in-cincinnati-was-the-third-edition-of-the-book-of-mormon-printed/

The following article was in the Cincinnati Enquirer on 14 Aug 1843 and describes the premiere of the Chemical Paintings (page 3):

“Daguerre’s Grand Chemical Secret Discovered! To be exhibited at Concert Hall, over the Post Office, every evening, until further notice.”

“Robert Winter, Jr. respectfully informs his friends and the citizens of Cincinnati generally, that stimulated by the assertion of Mons. Maffy, the proprietor of Daguerre’s celebrated chemical paintings, that it was impossible for any one in this country to imitate them, he has succeeded in producing the undermentioned pictures, which he confidently places before the public for them to decide relative to the merits of his productions, and whether he has not completely nullified Mons. Maffy’s assertion, by imitating or surpassing those painted by Daguerre himself, and which have so justly gained the admiration of the patrons of the Fine Arts wherever they have been exhibited.”

Here is the “Maffy” who Winter is referring to:

The first set “chemical paintings” credited to Daguerre and managed by Mons. Maffy.Article from Commercial Advertiser and Journal (Buffalo, NY) 30 June 1842, page 2.

“Each painting covers a surface of nearly two hundred square feet of canvas, and represents two distinct pictures, which form the peculiar style of execution, the varied nature and combination of the illuminating powers employed, produces changes the most astonishing, and at the same time the most natural, in the power of the artist, machinist or optician, to effect.

Appropriate music, selected and arranged expressly for the occasion, will accompany each change; and the proprietor confidently anticipates the exhibition will form one of the most attractive, moral and pleasing entertainments, ever offered to a Cincinnati audience.”

From the National Gazette (Philadelphia) 25 Jan. 1841, page 3. Note that the venue was in New York’s Masonic Hall.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 316 – A Duncanson and Coates’ – Chemical Paintings

Part 316: A Duncanson and Coates’ – Chemical Paintings

While researching the life and times of Robert S. Duncanson, I repeatedly stumbled across the mention of his collaboration with an African-American photographer named “Coates.” They created a form of visual spectacle called “chemical paintings.”

Contemporary authors repeatedly cite the same article from March 19, 1844, advertising “Chemical Paintings…four splendid views after the singular style of Daguerre.” I located other newspaper advertisements for the same show that predate this one, however, none credit either Duncanson or Coates. Chemical paintings originate in Cincinnati during 1843 which coincides with Duncanson’s participation in the project. Some scholars purport that Duncanson was the artistic mind behind the images while Coates took care of the technical side.

The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 11 Feb 1844, page 2.

Did “chemical paintings” refer to the paint or the process? In 1993, Joseph D. Ketner suggested that the compositions were created on light-sensitive surfaces and were allowed to develop under the auditorium lights with dramatic contrasts of lights and darks (“The Emergence of the African-American Artist: Robert S. Duncanson, 1871-1872”). They would have to be a reversible effect if they used the same canvases repeatedly. I discovered that they did use canvas, Ketner described, “With each of the images, the darkened auditorium was gradually illuminated, causing lighting effects in the pictures that thrilled the crowds.” So, front light on the composition caused the change? Ketner was much more fascinated with the collaborative aspect than the process, suggesting that was one of the earliest collaborations between a painter and a photographer in the United States.

I was intrigued with the actual process and theatrical venues for the presentation more than their collaborative effort. What Ketner, and all of the other authors failed to cite, was that the production actually opened in 1843 before touring under the proprietor’s name – Robert Winter Jr. “Chemical Paintings” opened during August of 1843 at the Concert Hall in Cincinnati and then went on tour for three years. The last advertisement that I found was when the show was in Richmond, Virginia.

The Cincinnati Enquirer, 4 Sept. 1843, page 3

The four scenes exhibited at the Concert Hall were listed as “the Milan Cathedral,” “City of Jerusalem and Crucifixion,” “Interior of the Holy Church of the Sepulchre,” and “Belshazzar’s Feast.” Newspaper advertisements promised, “Each painting possesses the peculiar properties of portraying two distinct Pictures on the same canvas” (The Cincinnati Enquirer, 4 Sept. 1843, page 3). I thought of the electric scenic theatres during the 1890s – FIFTY years later. Any scene lit by colored lights could alter the composition from day to night, especially if portions were backlit. Could it be that simple? I though of the colored panels on the back of a drop from 1867 to create a brilliant sunset.

Colored panels sewn to the back of a drop to create a brilliant sunset effect. The 1867 drop is one of many in storage at the Royal Swedish Workshop space.

Detail of colored panels sewn and glued to back of drop.

While on tour, three of the paintings were damaged during a fire and we learn a little more about their composition; portions of it were linen (Public Ledger 1 Dec. 1843, page 2). Obviously, the surfaces that were “light-sensitive” had to reverse for another performance the next day. Only one set of paintings toured. There was also no apparent competition, so they had the market on the secret. These were also not one-time-use, or disposable paintings on photographic paper as suggested by Ketner. I highly doubted that with the amount of detail described for the “reveal” in each scene that anything could be painted with fresh paint, or applied to the surface before another show. Maybe the “chemical picture” referred to the new and brilliant chemical-colors used to paint the linen backing – dyes. So what about Louis-Jacques-Mandé Daguerre’s process, other than it was introduced worldwide in 1839? Ten years earlier this French artist and chemist came into contact with Nicéphore Niépce when obtaining a camera obscura for his work on theatrical scene painting from the optican Chevalier. Niépce had already managed to make a record of an image from a camera obscura using a process he invented – heliography.

I thought of something that Gene Meier mentioned a month ago – many of the early Chicago and Milwaukee scene painters were also chemists. Daguerreotypes use a silver-plated copper plate that is first buffed and polished. Then the plate is sensitized to light with iodine and bromine in specialized, light-proof boxes. A light-proof holder exposures the plate to capture the image. Then the plate is developed (“brought out”) over hot mercury, fixed by immersion in a solution of sodium thiosulfate and then washed with distilled water. The final step was to tone or gild the plate with gold chloride. I was stumped and could not see how this could be anything other than the utilization of Daguerre’s “light-proof boxes” on the back of a dyed section of linen. The images created by Daguerre seemed to be permanent and not reversible.

But I was thinking of how this spoke to the public’s insatiable appetite for visual spectacle and curious about the compositions and touring productions venues. One of their shows opened at the City Hotel in Brooklyn on December 20, 1843. A later article (Brooklyn Daily Eagle 11 Feb, 1844, page 2) described the Chemical Paintings for the Milan Cathedral scene: “The first appearance of the picture – which represents a day scene – does not impress the beholder with anything like an adequate idea of the subject; but presently the gorgeous hues of an Italian sunset fall upon it, and the turrets, spires and statuary of the Cathedral, as well as neighboring café and exchange, are bathed in a ruddy glare of light. To this twilight succeeds, when the picture assumes a beautifully calm and soft aspect. Finally, the shades of night fall upon it, and the moon darts her beams upon the tall pinnacles – which appear to stand out in bold relief, while the sky gradually becomes enlightened. At this point of the exhibition, the spectator involuntarily breaks forth in applause. But its grandeur and artistical skill are not fully apparent until the illumination takes place. Then you see persons clustering about the café and exchange, or going to the midnight mass, while the solemn notes of the bell and organ seem to invest the multitude with life and motion. It is really a very splendid thing” (15 February 1844, page 2). Ads promised “A glance at the “Cathedral of Milan,” when illuminated for the midnight mass, is alone worth the price of admission” (Brooklyn Daily Eagle, 20 February 1844, page 2).

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 310: Thomas G. Moses and Frank Cox

In 1894, Thomas G. Moses recorded getting the contract for the New Lyceum Theatre in Memphis, Tennessee. Located at the corner of Third and Union Streets, the old Lyceum Theatre had burned to the ground during November 1893. The theater was on the lower floor of an athletic society building and the total loss was $360,000. Only three years old at the time of the fire, construction immediately began to build another theater on the same site.

*The original Lyceum Theatre in Memphis, Tennessee, 1890. The building burned to the ground in 1893.*

Opened by H.L. Brinkley, the New Lyceum Theatre cost $235,000 and had a seating capacity of 2,010. It included an oblong proscenium that was illuminated with exposed light bulbs, similar to the electric scenic theater on top of the Masonic Temple Roof Garden that same year. This was a feature was called a luxauleator, or “a curtain of light” invented by Steel MacKaye for the Spectatorium in Chicago (see past installment #265). The New Lyceum was credited as being the first theatre in Memphis to have electric lighting.

The auditorium included open metalwork railings for each of the three balconies and boxes. Ironically, it was this decorative aspect that would ultimately postpone the opening as there was a delay in the arrival of the iron work (Montgomery Advisor 7 Oct 1894, page 9). The final dedication occurred on Monday, December 3, 1894, with Otis Skinner opening the venue. His productions were “His Grace de Grammont” and “The King’s Jester.”

*The New Lyceum theatre designed by Frank Cox with scenery by Thomas G. Moses, 1894.*

Moses wrote, “The firm wanted this badly, but the architect insisted on my work.” “The firm” was Sosman & Landis and the architect was fellow scenic artist Frank Cox. Tignal Franklin “Frank” Cox (1854–1940) was also the theatrical architect who was designing several other opera houses that same year.

*Tignal Franklin “Frank” Cox (1854–1940), scenic artist, decorator and theatre architect.*

His projects in Texas alone included remodeling the opera house in Sherman, a new ground-floor theater in Galveston, the Stanger Theater in Waco, the Peterson Theater in Paris, and the opera house in Gainesville (The Times-Picayune, 8 April 1894, page 27).

Newspaper articles would note Cox as the “well-known scenic artist and architect of theatres.” Cox worked as a scenic artist, architect, decorator, builder, and developer throughout the course of his career. During the time that he the theater in Memphis, he was still running Cox Bros. and working with his brothers and Clark (1861-1936) and Eugene (1869-1943). Their ages at the time were 40 (Frank), 33 (Clark) and 25 (Clark). The three men had five other siblings with a father who had started work as a Boston painter in 1871. Eugene Cox had a son named after him, Eugene Jr. (1889-1967), who was also a scenic artist, so it gets a bit confusing.

*Eugene Cox (1869-1943), scenic artist and decorator, was part of the New Orlean scenic studio, Cox. Bros.*

*Clark Cox (1861-1936), scenic artist and decorator who worked for Cox Bros. scenic studio at the New Orleans Opera House.*

Here is a little background to place Frank Cox in context of nineteenth-century scenic art. Harry Miner’s American Drama Directory (1882-3) credited Frank Cox with the scenery for the Opera House in Batavia, New York and Smith’s Opera House in Tarrytown, New York. By 1890, Cox was working as a scenic artist, decorator and architect in the New Orleans area. He continued to work as a scenic artist throughout the decade, being credited with scenery for Temple Theatre in Alton, Illinois (1899) and Klein’s Opera House in Seguin, Texas (1903-1904). Like Moses, Cox also worked in oil and exhibited his fine art. In 1894, he participated in an art exhibition with his brother Clark. Both were members of the Artists’ Association in New Orleans (The Times-Picayune, 13 Dec. 1894, page 3). This was one of many art shows where the Cox brothers exhibited their work.

This brings us to another interesting aspect of the Cox family – the family feud. Frank, Eugene, and Clark operated a scenic and fresco business known as Cox Bros. in New Orleans. However, it was referred to as “Frank Cox’s Studio at New Orleans,” him being the eldest and most experienced. They had quite a large staff by 1891 that included the scenic artist Emile Nippert and stage machinist James A. Kee (Fort Worth Daily Gazette 11 August 1891, page 2). The Cox Bros. studio was located in the Grand Opera House of New Orleans. Frank withdrew from the partnership in 1896, but the partnership continued to operate under the same name of Cox Bros., despite Frank’s public declamation that the firm was dissolved. Eugene and Clark published a rebuttal, wanting to make it “thoroughly understood” that they would continue to operate the scenic and fresco business under the name Cox Bros. By the way, there appears to be no immediate familial ties to the Jesse Cox Scenic Studio of Estherville.

There is something interesting to ponder when thinking about the Cox family. Frank understood painted illusion for both the stage and auditorium. He would have been the perfect theater architect as he understood the aesthetic and mechanical demands of the venue. A variety of historical sources explain that architects would often hand over the stage design to a scenic studio. The studio would identify the layout and materials for the space, thus securing work from the architectural firm. I wonder if after guiding architects, Cox decided to work directly with the client and avoid working with a middle man -the architectural firm. Cox’s position as the architect would also secure work for his company Cox Bros., in the form of both scenic and decorative art. His position could have provided an endless stream of projects, as apparent in 1894. Maybe he was expecting too much of his younger brothers and swamping them with work, too much for them to handle without his help in the studio. Maybe that was why Cox reached out and specified other artists for his multiple projects – like Moses.

The big picture is that there was history and friendship between Cox and Moses, plus they were only two years apart in age. He was a friend of Moses and greatly respected his art. When you look at the front curtain for the Lyceum Theater, it is understandable why Cox wanted Moses in charge of the scenery for the New Lyceum . Moses and his crew painted a beautiful exterior landscape with his signature “babbling brook.” Decades later in 1931, Cox would again request that Moses paint some Fiesta floats in California, although Moses would decline.

*Interior if the New Lyceum Theatre (Memphis, TN) with drop curtain painted by Thomas G. Moses in 1894.*

*Detail of Thomas G. Moses’ drop curtain for the New Lyceum Theatre in Memphis, Tennessee, 1894.*

Regardless of the reason, Cox’s selection of Moses over Sosman & Landis in 1894 had to have been quite a blow to the scenic studio as the project would not be supervised by their company as planned. That was their ultimate goal after opening the annex studio -controlling all of Moses’ subcontracted work and keeping him on a leash. By doing this they maintained a position of control and ultimately determined which contracts they would pass down to Moses, yet benefited by his name. The New Lyceum Theatre was one in a series of projects where architects and clients specified that the work solely go to Moses. This was the beginning of his second departure from the studio of Sosman & Landis.

To be continued…