Travels of a Scenic Artist and Scholar:  J. U. Tschudi and the Kimmswick Historical Society, March 18, 2023

Copyright © 2023 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

In January, I was contacted by Diane Nagy, President of the Kimmswick Historical Society. For geographical context, Kimmswick, Missouri, is a very small river town about 26 miles south of St. Louis. The Kimmswick Historical Society had recently acquired a large painting by J. U. Tschudi. Dated 1914, the artist titled the painting, “Early Days on the Mississippi River.” While searching for information about the artist, Nagy stumbled across my post about Tschudi at www.drypigment.net. Tschudi represented the Kansas City Scenic Co. in 1887. This firm was affiliated with the Sosman & Landis Scene Painting Studio in Chicago. The two firms shared projects and artists over the decades, remaining affiliates until the 1920s.

My trip to St. Louis for the United States Institute of Theatre Technology conference this month provided me with an opportunity to examine the Tschudi painting and meet Kimmswick Historical Society members. On March 18, I journeyed south, accompanied by my close friend and colleague, Jenny Knott. Diane Nagy and Nadine Garland provided shuttle service and conversation for the day. We spent most of the afternoon chatting about historical artifacts and the intriguing history of Kimmswick.

Our first stop was to see the oil painting, currently stored at the studio of Irek T. Szelag. Szelag is a Polish immigrant nearing retirement. In fact, this will be his last commission. We were joined at Szelag’s studio by a few other Historical Society members; they were curious to about hear about my knowledge of Tschudi and his work. The decision to preserve Tschudi’s work was hotly contested by half of the ten-member Kimmswick Historical Society Board of Directors, necessitating a tie-breaking vote by the president. Not everyone was keen to spend a large amount of money on this heavily damaged painting.

Painting by J. U. Tschudi at Szelag’s studio on March 18, 2023.

The Kimmswick Historical Society is a small non-profit organization that does not accept State or Federal aid. Their operating budget is obtained through donations and the sale of apple butter. The funding of every Historical Society project is translated into the sale of “jars” and “cars.”  “Jars” refers to the sale of apple butter and “cars” refers to the sale of parking spots when thousands of people descend upon this small town of 146 residents for the Apple Butter Festival https://gokimmswick.com/apple-butter-festival-kimmswick/ . Each year, the Historical Society sells approximately 6000 jars of apple butter. Of this amount, 500 jars are still made on site, using a massive copper kettle over an open fire. By the way, each jar of apple butter sells for $6; a fabulous deal, considering the extensive amount of time is takes to prep, cook and can the apples.

The Kimmswick Historical Society stand at the Apple Butter Festival.
Apple butter pot on display at the Kimmswick Historical Society.

Back to Tschudi’s artwork…

When I initially examined pictures of Tschudi’s painting, I was struck by his inclusion of a title and painted surround. It looked more like circus banner than an oil painting intended for a residential wall.  In fact, it reminded me of early twentieth-century state displays at world fairs or other industrial expositions. Upon close inspection, I notice that the edges of the canvas had been hemmed, like early marketing banners that were intended to advertise a public entertainment. I am positive that this artwork was created to be tacked onto a wall, the side of a building, or fence; advertising some public event or spectacle.

Hemmed edge of the Tschudi painting.
Title and painted frame of the Tschudi painting.

After leaving Szelag’s studio, we spent the remainder of the afternoon touring the Kimmswick Historical Society and enjoying a fabulous lunch at the oldest building in town. Designated, “The Old House” this structure was originally built in 1770. The reason for selecting tis particular eating establishment was that Tschudi’s painting once hung in a front room, near a fire place; a fireplace that never vented properly, hence the discoloration of the painting over time. 

Wall where the Tschudi painting was once located in the Old House.
Sketch of the Old House in Kimmswick, currently on display at the Kimmswick Historical Society.

In addition to lunch, our hosts gifted us Kimmswick Historical Society cookbooks upon our departure. It is one of the more interesting compilations of Midwest and Southern recipes that I have come across in recent year. Yes, the apple butter recipe is included too! Overall, I had a delightful time learning about Kimmswick and its history.

The Kimmswick Historical Society Cookbook includes the recipe for their apple butter.

While sitting in the St. Louis airport on March 19, I began to re-examine the life and career of J. U. Tschudi, searching for possible clues that might lead to the origin of his painting.  This quest continued upon my return home. I arrived sick and began a week-long quarantine in the basement, desperately trying to keep my germs to myself. My son’s High School Orchestra  was spending the first part of Spring Break in New York City. I really didn’t want him to catch this bug.  Fortunately, my self-imposed quarantine provided me with an opportunity to re-examine Tschudi’s life and career. My previous post about Tschudi from 2020 was quite brief, intended as only a side story to my history about the Kansas City Scenic Company. Tschudi was associated with the Kansas City Scenic Co., working alongside B. F. Dunn and C. A. Oldham.

Here is my expanded tale about this fascinating artist and painting.

Like many nineteenth-century American immigrants, the story of Tschudi begins in Europe and ends in the Midwest. His tale could be called “From Switzerland to St. Louis,” was he passed away at 728 South Second Street, only a short walk from the Convention Center that hosted USITT. Both Tschudi and his son worked as scenic artists for the Kansas City Scenic Art Co. during the early Twentieth Century. Combined, they are responsible for hundreds of stage settings delivered throughout the United States between 1880 and 1940.

John Ulrich Tschudi was born on March 22, 1850, in Switzerland. Named after his father, he was the son of Johann Ulrich Tschudy (1822-1886) and Anna Margaretha Egli (1821-). In 1856, the Tschudi family emigrated to the United States with his family. They departed a ship named the Ocean Steed on March 22, 1856 – Tschudy’s 6th birthday. Passengers included John Ulrich Tschudy (34 yrs.), wife Ann Mary (35 yrs.), and children Cath (10 yrs.), Valentin (8 yrs.), Margaretha (7 yrs.), John M. (6 yrs.), Walter (4 yrs.), Tobias (11 mths.). Ann Mary’s father, W. Egli (59 yrs.) also sailed on the same ship. They arrived in the US on July 30, 1856, and soon settled in Burlington, Iowa. Two other Tschudy children were born after moving to Iowa- Minnie (b. 1856) and Lily (b. 1859).

I am going to take a moment to discuss historical records and reported names for John Ulrich Tschudi Sr. and John Ulrich Tschudi Jr.  First of all, the family used both Tschudy and Tschudi as their surname in city directories, public records, and newspaper articles. This shift primarily occurred in the 1870s. For the purpose of this post, I will use both.

Secondly, the “U” for Ulrich was often misrepresented as an M, W, A, or even H. This is understandable when you begin to examine how a handwritten cursive capital U can look like other letters, especially in passenger lists and census reports.

To further muddy the waters, there was another Swiss emigrant named John Ulrich Tschudi/Tschudy (1828-1901) who settled in Minnesota. He is a completely different individual who has greatly confused many family genealogists.  Minnesota Tschudi lived his life as a farmer, while the main characters of my story – John Ulrich Tschudi Sr. (1822-1886) and John Ulrich Tschudi Jr. (1850-1921) – who worked as a German Presbyterian Church pastor and scenic artist, respectively.  With this little bit of information, here is the tale of scenic artist J. U. Tschudi.

In later years, Tschudi Jr. recounted that the Tschudi family only stayed in Burlington for two years before relocating to Memphis, Tennessee, where “he learned his business under the tutelage of his father, who was also an artist.” I can neither confirm nor disprove this statement, as evaded public record until the onset of the Civil War.

By 1861, Tschudi Sr. enlisted in the Union Army. Tschudi Sr. is listed in the “US Adjutant General Military Records, 1631-1976,” available at ancestry.com. The 1864-1864 report lists “John Ulrich Tschudy” of Burlington, Iowa, as a Private in Co. G. of the 57th Illinois Infantry. At the age of 38, he entered into military service on August 26, 1861. Co. G. rendezvoused in Chicago and was quartered at Camp Douglas. Tschudi Jr. was too young to enlist; the official enlistment age was 18 yrs. old. Again, to make things even more confusing, Minnesota Tschudi also fought in the Civil War (Minnesota Infantry, 2nd Regiment).

By 1867, the Tschudy family was living in Dubuque, Iowa. Between 1867 and 1869, Tschudi Sr. is listed as a student at the German Seminary. After completing his studies in Dubuque, In 1867, Tschudi Jr. is listed as a student.  It is in Dubuque that Tschudi Jr. meets his future wife, Marguerite Merkes (1850-1931). Merkes is exactly the same age as, Tschudi Jr., was born on March 23, 1850, in Diekirch Luxembourg. Merkes was the daughter of Jean Pierre Merckes/John Peter Merkes (1811-1861) and Clara L. Abend/Abendt (1817-1895). The Merkes family emigrated from Luxembourg to Dubuque, Iowa in 1859, with John Peter Merkes passing in 1864. His widow, Clara Abendt Merkes, remarried in 1864. Her second husband was Michael Fohrman (1811-1894), also an emigrant from Luxembourg.

In 1867, Clara’s 17-yrs. old daughter, Marguerite Merkes, becomes pregnant. As an unwed mother, Marguerite is removed to Chicago where she waits for the impending arrival of her first born. On August 1, 1868, Marguerite gives birth to a son whom she names John, after the baby’s father John Ulrich Tschudi, Jr. It is important to note that the actual birth year of baby John’s birthdate vacillates over the years, ranging from 1867-1869.

Two things happen at this point; decisions that were very characteristic when a child was born out of wedlock. First, the baby is born, but then raised by a grandparent. In this case, baby John returned to Dubuque where he was raised by his maternal grandmother, Clara Abendt Merkes Forman, and his, maternal step-grandfather, Michael Fohrman. John Merkes name instantly becomes John J. Fohrman, and he is clearly listed as the son of Michael and Clara Fohrman. It is only in Michael Fohrman’s will that John J. Fohrman is listed as an “adopted son.” Despite the eventual marriage of John’s parents, Marguerite Merkes and John Ulrich Tschudi Jr., their son is never returned to their care.

In the meantime, Tschudi Sr. completes his training at the Germany Seminary in Dubuque and answers his first call in Platteville, Wisconsin (1870),where he relocates with his wife and four daughters (Margaretha, Lucy, Minnie, and Lillie). Tschudi Jr. and Marguerite remain in Iowa. In 1869, Tschudi Jr.’s occupation was listed as “cigar maker” in the Dubuque Directory; this was when he was living with his father at “Couler av bet Nineteenth and Twentieth.”

By 1872, Tschudi Sr, answers a call to ministry in Memphis, Tennessee. During this entire time, Rev. J. U. Tschudi is associated with the German Presbyterian Church.  He is repeatedly listed in the newspapers. During this period, Memphis struggles with yellow fever, losing thousands of its citizens to five major outbreaks. On Oct 15, 1873, “The Central Presbyterian” of Richmond, VA, reported, “Another Bereavement – Rev. J. A. Tschudy, pastor of the German Presbyterian church in Memphis, lost his son, Walter, Oct. 6th, in his 23rd year of his age, of yellow fever” (page 2). This was part of the fourth Yellow fever epidemic in Memphis, where 2500 people passed away between Aug and Oct of that year. At the time it constituted the largest yellow fever outbreak in any inland city. A few months later, the Tschudi family is able to celebrate the marriage of Margaretha Tschudi to minister, Henry A. Grentzenberg. I have yet to locate any mention of Tschudi J. in Memphis during this time. Rev. J. U. Tschudi is last mentioned in Memphis newspapers during 1878. At the time, he was associated with the First German Presbyterian Church, located on the corner of Venice and DeSoto streets. I have yet to uncover any information that links Tschudi Jr. to Memphis. Although he likely traveled throughout the country painting scenery, he married and celebrated the birth of two children in Iowa between 1871 and 1875.

In later years, Tschudi Jr. suggested an alternative story, explaining that from 1868 to 1873 he studied art in Europe. This is highly suspect, especially since he married Marguerite Merkes in Dubuque, Iowa in October 1871 and began raising a family in Iowa by 1873. Daughter Lucy was born in the spring of 1873, with her younger sister, Minnie Lillian, arriving in the spring of 1875. Later newspaper articles about Tschudi Jr. purported, “After his school days he studied with his father and assisted him with his work and soon developed such an artistic taste in landscape painting that the father concluded in 1868 to send him back to France to finish his studies. ‘After five years,’ says Mr. Tschudi, ’I returned to America and took a fancy to large work and consequently went to theatrical scene painting, and have since that time worked in many of the finest theaters both in this country and abroad.” I have yet to locate any information that suggests his father ever worked as an artist, but you never know.

Here is what I have tracked down about Tschudi Jr.’s scenic art career; a tale compiled from city directories, historical records, and newspaper headlines.

By the late 1870s, Tschudi begins working with Cincinnati fresco artist, William Theodore Blomberg (1829-1909).  Tschudi Jr. has several relations in Cincinnati, including his older sister Margaretha (Margaretha Tschudy Grentzenberg). In 1880, Tschudi and Blomberg head to Kansas, where they work as itinerant artists throughout the region that year. Blomberg returns to Cincinnati in 1881, with Tschudi remaining in Kansas.

The first line of Tschudi’s biographical listing entry in “Cutler’s History of Kansas” is “JOHN U. TSCHUDI, fresco and scenic artist, came to Kansas in July 1880.”  He arrived a bit earlier than that as Tschudi is mentioned in a Kansas newspaper advertisement that June. On June 16, 1880, the “Augusta Republican” of Augusta, Kansas, reported, “Messrs. Tschudi & Blomberg, painters and frescoers are on hand according to promise and ready to do any kind of fancy work in their line at reasonable rates. Call and leave your orders” (page 3).

Tschudi initially settled in Wichita, before relocating to Emporia. His initial tie to Wichita was to the newly constructed opera house; he and Blomberg were credited with the scenery, as well as their ties to Cincinnati. They were mentioned in letter published in the “McPherson Republican” on August 12, 1880:

“Elk Falls Letter.

Elk Falls, August 9th, 1880.

Editors Republican:- Since leaving McPherson two weeks ago we have taken in the counties of Marion, Butler, Sedgewick, Cowley, Sumner, and now we are now in Elk. From Florence we ran down the Eldorado Branch to Eldorado, the county seat of Butler, and from thence to Augusta by stage. In this town, situated on the St. Louis & San Fransico line to Wichita, we were somewhat surprised to find a regular opera hall, and our surprise was somewhat increased in visiting the hall, to find everything first class. In the construction of the stage, etc., Mr. Israel Zimmerman, the stage carpenter proved himself to be a master of his profession. Messrs. Tschudi & Blomburg, the scenic artists, whose headquarters are at Cincinnati, Ohio, were completing the advertising drop curtain when we were there. They will have one forest scene, six wings, one street scene, one rustic kitchen scene, four wings; one garden and landscape scene, two wings; one prison scene, four wings, and one scenic drop curtain. The stage is arched and the arch is frescoed. The work when done will give them an opera hall to be envied by many towns double their population…” (page 2).

On October 16, 1880, the “Cowley County Monitor” of Winfield, Kansas, reported, Messrs. Tschudi & Blomberg, the fresco artists, are at work on M. L. Robinson’s residence. They also have engagements with J. C. Fuller and M. L. Read. Our citizens who want fresco work cannot do better than secure these gentlemen” (page 3).

On Nov. 25, “The Sumner County Press” of Wellington, Kansas, reported, “Messrs. Tschudi & Blomberg, the artists who did scene painting and fresco work for the opera hall here, also did some fresco paintings on the dwellings of M. L. Reed, S. H. Myton and M. L. Robinson. They have now gone to Wellington to fresco the hall of the PRESS building. On their return they will commence work on Mr. Fulton’s fine dwelling. If the Presbyterians and the Methodists would have their churches frescoed in first class style it would be worth bragging about. Tschudi and Blomberg have done the best work in the State.- Winfield Monitor”(page 3).

Despite their success, Blimberg returned to Cincinnati in 1881, with Tschudi settling in Wichita. It remains unclear as to when Tschudi’s family joined him in Kansas. However, in 1881, Tschudi was living in Wichita. On Oct. 31, 1881, “The Daily Leader” of Wichita reported, “John W. Tschudy, the artist of Wichita, went to Emporia yesterday to paint the scenery in the new Opera House in that town” (page 4). A month later, his ties to Cincinnati were mentioned in an Emporia newspaper. On Nov. 29, 1881, the “Emporia Daily News” reported, “J. W. Tschudi, a scenic artist of much merit from Cincinnati, Ohio, is superintending the painting of the scenery for the Whitley Opera House” (page 4).

Tschudi soon partnered with stage carpenter, J. W. Morris, to deliver scenery and stage machinery to the Whitley Opera House. On Dec. 1, 1881, “The Emporia Ledger” reported “Messrs. John W. Tschudi, scenic painter, and J. W. Morris, stage carpenter, the gentlemen who have the contract to furnish and fit the scenery and stage trappings of the Whitley Opera House, commenced work yesterday. They will put in a complete set of scenes and all the latest improvements in stage equipment. They say they find everything about the house in excellent shape for their work, and that they will be able to compete their contract in six or seven weeks. Their work will be so well advanced by the first of January that the house may be used at that time, of desired” (page 3). That same day, the “Emporia Weekly News” reported, “J. W. Tschudi, a scenic artist of much merit from Cincinnati, Ohio, is superintending the painting of the scenery for the Whitley opera house” (page 3). Tschudi was repeatedly mentioned in Emporia newspapers.

Tschudi continued to work in Emporia. On Jan. 26, 1882, “The Emporia Weekly News” reported that Tschudi was painting scenery for Ed White’s touring production of ‘Fantanitza,’ scheduled to visit Emporia in March, detailing, “He left an order with Mr. Tschudi, the scenic artist who has been employed for some weeks past at the Whitely opera house, for some scenery to be used in bringing out the grand illumination tableau in ‘Fantanitza” The article also mentioned Tschudi’s current work at the Whitley reporting, “There is also a water main behind the drop curtain on the stage with sufficient hose attached to reach over the flys. The scenery has been done by that skillful and well-known artist, John Tcheudy of Switzerland, and is a marvel of beauty…The scenery is sized with fireproof sizing and cannot be kindled into a blaze…” Tschudi’s work at the Whitley certainly boosted his career. On Feb 2. 1882, “The Emporia Weekly News” reported “The stage, one of the best in the west, is 30-x60 feet and is furnished with all the accessories of a metropolitan theatre. These include a variety of excellent scenery suitable for the preparation of all classes of drama; complete and secured appliances for shifting lights, and an exquisite drop curtain representing a charming scene on the Rhine, painted by Mr. Tshudi, one of the most talented scenic artists in the country” (page 3).  

The Whitley Opera House in Emporia, Kansas, featured scenery by J. U. Tschudi and W. T. Blomberg.
An interior view of the Whitley Opera House in Emporia, Kansas, c, 1898.

Tschudi’s success in Emporia soon prompted him to relocate there from Wichita. Initially, he set up a studio at the Whitley Opera House. On March 22 and 23, 1882, “The Evening News” in Emporia announced, “You will find John W. Tschudi at the Whitley opera house ready to do all kinds of house painting, kalsomining, frescoe decorating, plain and fancy sign writing, etc. First-class work at reasonable rates, guaranteed” (page 4). He continued to place one advertisement after another in local papers, securing a variety of local projects that ranged from private residences to commercial signs. On April 8, 1882, the “Emporia Daily News” reported, “Two of the handsomest signs in town were placed in position this morning at the entrance of Robert Jeff’s tobacco ad cigar emporium on Commercial street. They were painted by Mr. Tschudi, the scenic artist at the Whitley opera house and cannot fail to attract attention” (page 4). On April 20, 1882, The Weekly News-Democrat” reported, “A very handsome altar recently completed by the Roberts Brothers has been placed in the upper room of the Franciscan convent, which is used at present as a place of worship for the congregation. The painting, which is beautiful and highly artistic, was done by John Tschudi, scenic artist at the Whitley opera house.” (page 4).

Tschudi landed so many projects at this time, that it became necessary to hire an assistant. On April 15, 1882, “The Evening News” (page 4) reported, “W. S. Walborn, a sign painter, lately of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, is assisting Mr. Tschudi, the scenic artist at the Whitely Opera House” (page 3). This announcement was also published on April 20, 1882, in “The Emporia Weekly News.” In later years, both Tschudi and Walborn worked as scenic artists as the Kansas City Scenic Co.

Tschudi’s work was drawing other prospective theatre proprietors to Wichita to see his work. . On April 22, 1882, and on April 27, 1882, “The Emporia Weekly News” reported, “Friday evening we had a pleasant call from Mr. Samuel Smith and a Mr. A. W. Barker, both of Ottawa, Kansas. These gentlemen were in the city for the purpose of viewing the Whitley Opera house, more particularly the stage appointments and scenery. Last evening the opera house was lighted, and they were shown through it, and expressed themselves as much pleased with the result of their inspection. The new opera house in Ottawa is about completed, and it was with a view to gaining some points as to scenery, etc., that these gentlemen visited Emporia. They were greatly pleased with the Whitley opera house stage scenery, and it is not unlikely that Mr. Tschudi, the artist, will secure a contract of the same at Ottawa” (page 3).

All the while, Tschudi continued to run a series of advertisements in local newspapers. Here are a few of note:

 On July 27, 1882, the “Emporia Daily News” announced, “John Tschudi, the Whitley opera house scenic artist, sent a number of ornamental signs to Colorado yesterday.”

On July 29, 1882, Tschudi’s advertisement in the “Emporia Daily News” stated, “Signs! Signs! —In Japanese, East Lake, Queen Anne, and Oriental styles by Tschudi, the artist. Leave orders at Moore’s drug store.”

By summer, Tschudi had customers placing orders at Moore’s Drug Store. An advertisement in the “Emporia Daily News” on July 29, 1882, announced “Let the work speak for itself,” is my motto, Tschudi, Artist, Fresco Decorator, Ornamental Painter, and Sign Writer. Leave orders at Moore’s Drug Store” and “Why not have a neat sign when it costs you no more than a poor one? Tschudi, the artist, can guarantee you work and figures that cannot be beat. Leave orders at Moore’s Drug Store” (page 4). Tschudi’s ads ran continuously until October 1882.

On Aug. 15, 1882, and the “Emporia Daily News” reported, “Why not have a neat sign when it costs you no more than a poor one? Tschudi, the artist, can guarantee you work and figures that cannot be beat. Leave orders at Moore’s drug store” (page 4).

His association with Moore’s drug store, meant that Tschudi needed someone to take orders, while he traveled for work. This ensured a constant stream of income when he returned from out-of-town projects. On Oct 18, 1882, “The Evening News” reported, “John Tschudi, the scenic artist, returned to-day from Wellington, where he has been painting the scenery for the new opera house at that place” (page 1). Despite his absences, Tschudi would advertise, “Remember that Tschudi, the artist, is still here, and will do you the highest and latest artistic style, and at bottom figures. Leave orders at Moore’s drug store” (Emporia Daily News, Oct 18, 1882, page 4). On Dec 21, 1882, “The Emporia Weekly News” reported, “Tschudi has made a large transparent street sign which will be placed in position soon and bear the letters ‘Ice cream and oysters.’ The same artist prepared the beautiful parlor screen upon whose surface are painted six different attractive designs in oil” (page 3).

By 1883, Tschudi was included in the Emporia Directory. Interestingly, his listing suggests pervious work in Tennessee, and not Wichita or Cincinnati: “Tschudi, John U., fr Tenn., ornamental frescoe scenic painting, and sign writer, shop 197 Commercial st, res same.” His wife was also listed in the directory at the same address. Marguerite began going by Margaret.

Painting projects for 1883 included G. T. Carlton’s Billiard Hall and Fithian’s Ice wagon in Emporia. On Feb 20, 1883, “The Evening News” reported, “Mr. G. T. Carlton to-day opened to the public his handsome new billiard parlor in the Soden building on Fifth Avenue. Tschudi. The artist has been busy for several weeks past frescoing the walls of the room and the result of his skillful hand is seen in the excellent effects he has produced…” (page 4).

On April 19, 1883, the “Emporia Weekly News” reported “A Thing of Beauty. Fithian’s ice wagon made its first trip for the season Thursday, and it attracted as much attention as a circus chariot as it rolled along the street resplendent in brilliant colors and decorations by the brush of Tschudi, the scenic artist. The arctic sketches on the sides are excellent works of art, and it will be refreshing to even look at them when the mercury begins to crawl up into the sky parlor of thermometer” (page 1).

However, he continued to paint stage scenery for a variety of venues throughout the region. On March 22, 1883, “The Emporia Weekly News” reported, “John Tschudi has received an order to paint a set of scenes for the Amateur Dramatic club of Newton” (page 4).

On May 17, 1883, “The Weekly News-Democrat” reported on the dedication of the Welsh Congregational Church on Merchants Street” (page 1). Of the new auditorium, the article reported that sections of ornamental plaster work were “artistically frescoed by Tschudi, the scenic artist, whose happy combination of complimentary colors and agreeable shades proclaim him an artist of superior merit…”

On October 19, 1883, the “Iola Register” reported, “Mr. J. N. Tschudi has been at work in the opera house all week and has made quite a change there. In addition to the business cards which adorn the front of the stage, Mr. Tschudi has been painting a new and elegant drop curtains which he expects to have ready by Saturday night. He has also made new and larger wings, to correspond with each scene, and before he leaves will paint the woodwork on the front of the stage. He expects to finish his work sometime next week, and the opera house will certainly ne much handsomer for his having been there” (page 5).

On Dec. 1, 1883, “The Humboldt Union” of Humboldt, Kansas, credited Tschudi with delivering scenery to the Germania Hall. The article reported, “The scenery [described in detail] and the arch of the stage is handsomely decorated. The artist, John W. Tschudi, of Kansas City, has performed his work in first class style” (page 3).

As in the past, Tschudi was not working alone, nor was he simply hiring local amateurs. A variety of skilled personalities were working for Tschudi in Emporia, including Charles Stebbins. On May 2, 1883, “Emporia Daily News” and “Evening News” reported, “Charles Stebbins, who is employed by Tschudi, the artist and painter, has returned from Hartford, Michigan, where he recently fell heir to a legacy of $1,000” (page 1).

Tschudi began to secure an abundance of scenic work for stages throughout Kansas. On Jan 25, 1884, “The Weekly Kansas” of Independence reported, “Of all the improvements made during the past year in Independence there are none in which so much interest is felt as in the Opera House block erected by Mr. Payne….The stage is large and commodious, it being 24×66 feet, with four dressing rooms, and the footlights are fixed with a lever so they can be shut off or put in place at will. It will be supplied with good scenery. Mr. John Tschudi. The artist, is now here for that purpose. He comes highly recommended as a scenic painter. There will be thirteen sets of scenes and fifteen set scenes” (page 4). While working on a theater project, however, Tschudi would land a variety of other painting projects. Such was the case in Chanute, Kansas. On Aug. 28, 1884, the “Chanute Blade” of Chanute, Kansas reported, “The Chanute Bank is being neatly frescoed by John U. Tschudi, and will be one of the nicest finished rooms in the city when completed” (page 3).

Tschudi’s comings and goings were announced in a variety of small-town newspapers, making it easy to trace his travels. For example, On Oct. 16, 1884, “The Chanute Blade” reported, “John U. Tschudi went to Kansas City last Tuesday, to paint some new scenery and drop curtains at Kansas City. He painted two very beautiful scenes for Williams’ Hall in this city, last week. He will return here in about two weeks to paint the scenes and drop curtain for the new opera house now being erected here” (page 3). Tschudi was also working on the new stage setting for an opera house in Red Cloud, Nebraska. On October 16, 1885, the “Webster County Argus” of Red Cloud reported, “The proprietors of the opera house expect to have the same opened on Monday, the 26th inst. A good dramatic company has been engaged for the occasion. The house will be seated with six hundred chairs. Prof. Tschudi, the scenic artist, with a force of carpenters in making and placing the scenery, which will consist of eight complete settings, besides a handsome drop curtain.”

Sometime between the fall of 1885 and 1886, Tschudi moved to Kansas City, By 1887, he was associated with the Kansas City Scenic Co. The firm’s offices were located in the Gillis Opera House.

The Gillis Opera House in Kansas City, Missouri.
A photograph of the Gillis opera House in Kansas City, Missouri.

This is where it gets interesting, and a little confusing. Sosman & Landis Scenic Studio outfitted the Gillis, with L. L. Graham and W. P. Davis working as the scenic artists on the project, while representing the firm. Sosman & Landis. Sosman & Landis opened a branch office in Kansas City in 1884; it was headed by L. L. Graham. At the same time, Graham and Davis also operated a studio, known as Graham & Davis, frequently working as subcontractors for Sosman & Landis. Sosman & Landis’ work for the Gillis was well-known and mentioned in a variety of newspapers. For example, on April 21, 1887, “The Times” of Clay Center, Kansas, reported that Sosman & Landis had “fitted the Gillis Opera House, Kansas City, and the Grand at Topeka.” Graham’s Studio in Kansas City, the Kansas City Scenic Co. and Sosman & Landis’ scenic studio were not directly competing in the region, they were divvying up work and sharing artists. Even in 1888, Dunn was listed as not only a scenic artist at Graham’s Studio, but also on staff at the Kansas City Scenic Studio. By 1890, an new iteration of the Kansas City Scenic Co. opened, solely under the management of Dunn and J. C. Bronaugh. On July 13, 1891, the Kansas Patron commented that Bronaugh was “the traveling member of the Kansas City Scenic Co.” Bronaugh secured the contracts and Dunn painted the scenery. This new iteration of the firm still maintained a close business alliance with the Sosman & Landis until the 1920s.

In 1887, Kansas City Scenic Co. advertisements list J. U. Tschudi, B. F. Dunn, C. A. Oldham and C. J. Lorella. On March 22, 1887, the “Wichita Star” reported “A reporter was shown the number of samples from scenic-artist work from the brush of Kansas City Scenic-Artist company, in which company figures, as an artist, Mr. J. W. Tschudi, formerly of the city. The work is artistic and ranges throughout the entire term of scenic work. Landscapes, rocky passes, woods, streets, palaces, parlors, chambers, kitchens, hovels – in fact every known term of scenic effects were painted in the highest style of art. The JOURNAL congratulates Mr. Tschudi on the excellent work of the firm in which his brush is prominent” (page 4).

On June 16, 1887, “The Little River Monitor” of Little River, Kansas, reported, “The carpenters’ work on the new opera hall is going on at a lively rate, Canfield & Co. are doing the work in good shape. Messrs. Tschudi, Dunn and Oldham, of the Kansas City Scenic company, are painting a set of scenes for the hall, and are doing a fine job.” On June 18, 1887, “The Little River Monitor” reported, “Messrs. Tschudi Dunn and Oldham, of the Kansas City Scenic company, are painting a set of scenes for the hall, and are doing a fine job. The mammoth drop curtain is a beauty. It is ornamented with the business cards of our merchants and others and will be first class in every particular.” 

On May 20, 1887, “The Lyons Daily Democrat” in Lyons, Kansas, reported, “Mess. Tschudi, Dunn, and Oldham, scenic artists from Kansas City, are preparing a very fine new drop curtain for Tom’s Butler’s Opera House. Tom very properly thinks the public would be pleased to have a brand new curtain to gaze at between acts. The gentlemen represent a firm of scenic artists who are furnishing many of the finest Opera Houses in Kansas with stage settings, and our citizens must admit, when their work is first shown, they understand their business thoroughly and are first-class artists in every respect. They will furnish scenery for the fine new opera house at Wichita, and when Lyon’s new Opera House looms up, they will probably again have an opportunity to display their artistic powers” (page 3).

On October 22, 1887, “The Caldwell News” of Caldwell, Kansas, reported, “Judge J. G. Woods is now moving into his new building this week. The lower story is occupied by the Woods bank, This room is elegantly fitted up in solid walnut. The south room is occupied by C. E. Flaudro’s clothing house. The opera house occupies the second story. It is the same size as the Crawford Opera House at Topeka. The stage is 50 feet wide and 25 feet deep and is furnished with fifteen complete sets of scenery including an elegant drop curtain painted by the artist John U. Tschudi…” (page 1) [reprinted on Oct 12, 1922, p 1].

On Dec. 1, 1887, “The Kingman Courier” reported, “Prof. John W. Tschudi, of Kansas City, will have completed the scenic work at Garfield Opera House by the 6th of December. The scenes painted by this talented artist display true genius, combined with the highest-class conceptions of the true and beautiful. When completed the Garfield Opera house will surpass anything of a similar character in Kansas” (page 6).

Tschudi also painted scenery for the Garfield Opera House in Kingman, Kansas. The time he was traveling with a stage mechanic named Mr. Foreman. On Dec. 7, 1887, “The Kingman Daily Courier” reported, “Tschudi, the scenic artist, and Foreman, the stage builder of the Garfield Opera House, will be given a benefit by the amateurs of Kingman Saturday night. They are worthy gentlemen and the entertainment in their interest should be ell attended” (page 3). On

On Dec. 12, “The Kingman Daily Courier” reported “Messrs. Tschudi & Foreman desire to return their sincere thanks to the ladies and gentlemen who so kindly assisted at their benefit on Saturday evening last and thereby insured its success, And they also hope that those who by their presence graced the auditorium enjoyed a peasant evening” (page 3).

Dec. 22, 1887, “The Kingman Daily Courier” reported, “Prof. John Tschudi, artist at the Garfield Opera House, will pass the holidays with his family at Kansas City” (page 3). This indicates that Tschudi moved his family from Emporia to Kansas City when he became associated with the Kansas City Scenic Co. in 1887.

By 1888, Tschudi had left the Kansas City Scenic Co. and had established Tschudi, Loffing, & Roberts at 400 East 12th in Kansas City. His new business partners were Albert Roberts and Antoine Loffing. Tschudi’s residential address was listed as R. 1731 Walnut.  

On Feb. 1, 1888, “The Kingman Daily Courier” of Kingman, Kansas, reported, “Prof. Tschudi is, beyond all doubt, the thorough, classical scenic artist in Kansas. His fine conceptions of mountain and sea, of glen and valley, of hill and dell, when spread upon canvass by his deft hand, are gems of beauty on which the eye fondly hangs. The COURIER heartily commends Prof. Tschudi to the managers of the Greensburg Opera House.” (page 5).

The Tschudi’s relocated to Omaha, Nebraska, by 1890. Tschudi is working as the scenic artist at the Eden Musee, living at 1108 Farnam. Interestingly, John S. Tschudi, artist, also listed 1108 Farnam as his address for 1890 and 1891. This may be a double listing, or John S. is actually Tschudi Jr.’s son, John Fohrman; the baby that was born out of wedlock and raised by maternal grandparents, Clara and Michael Fohrman. By 1890, John is over 21 years old. It is very possible that he reunited with his biological father and began working as an artist. The Tschudi Family continued live in Omaha, with Tschudi’s daughters also securing employment.

The 1892 Omaha Directory listed:

Tschudi John S, scenic artist Eden Musee, res. 612 S 18th

Tschudi Lucy Miss, folder O Ptg Co, res 612 S 18th

Tschudi Minnie, candy stand Eden Musee, res. 612 S 18th

The 1893 Omaha Directory listed:

Tschudi John U, scenic artist, Wonderland, res. 612 S 18th

Tschudi Lucy, clk Candy stand Wonderland, bds 612 S 18th

Miss Minnie, folder Klopp & Bartlett Co., res 612 S 18th

Tschudi’s 1892 connection with Eden Musee also makes Indiana’s newspapers. On Jan 25, 1893, “The Indianapolis News” reported, “No Chance for an Eden Musee. For two weeks past T. U. Tschudi, a scenic artist, who has been in the museum business for some years, and Mme. L. Brouillard have been staying at the Circle Park Hotel. Together they have been looking for a suitable building in which to start Eden Musee in New York. The only building in the city that seemed available was the Speigel & Thomas building on Washington street, but Mr. Tschudi was unable to agree on the amount of security that he should give for the lease, and could not make a satisfactory arrangement with the owner” (page 2).

This particular moment signals a shift for Tschudi Jr. and his family, possibly indicating a temporary separation from his wife. His family returns to Kansas City where Tschudi rejoins them in 1897.

During the mid-1890s, Tschudi Jr. heads east, traveling throughout Indiana and Kentucky.

On Aug. 28, 1895, the “Richmond Item” of Richmond, Indiana, reported, “Beautiful Scenery. The Phillips Opera House Greatly Improved and There will be a pleasing surprise to those who attend ton-night. Manager Dobbins has not been idle this summer. He has one of the country’s finest scenic artists at work in the Phillips Opera House for several months, and to day there is completed one of the most elaborate outfits of scenery to be found in the state. Artist Tschudi’s taste in this line of work is not to be equaled, and he has painted thirteen beautiful sets of scenery for the theatre, which must be seen to be properly appreciated. Last night a display was made of new property, and the few persons who were given special invitations to be present were more than delighted. There is nothing which adds more to the enjoyment of first-class performance than appropriate scenic effects and this year the patrons of the Phillips will find that all stage settings will be elaborate. Besides this plentiful supply of new scenery Manager Dobbins has gone further. Another new drop curtain has been painted by Mr. Tschudi, and it is a rare specimen of his artistic skill. The big curtain is rich in its coloring, and almost perfect in its execution. The central figure is a splendid reproduction of Turner’s celebrated painting of “The Harbor in Venice,” and it is a picture the eye does not tire to look upon. The stage of the Phillips, which is one of the largest in the state, has been thoroughly renovated and painted and it presents a neat and clean appearance. The entire auditorium will be re-frescoed within a few days, this portion of the work not having yet been completed. The opera house is now in better trim than ever before and the patrons who are in attendance at the opening this evening will not be long in distinguishing this fact” (page 3).

On Aug 24, 1895, “The Richmond item” reported, “Almost finished. Scenic artist Tschudi who has been in Richmond all summer will still be ‘one of us’ for a considerable time. His work of painting the Phillips opera house scenery will be finished next week and then he will begin work at the Grand. Mr. Bradley has given him the contract to paint the entire set of new scenery which will be of the finest and it is probable that he will get started on the work the last of next week” (page 1).

On Sept. 5, 1895, “The Richmond Item” reported, “The plasterers will soon be at work on the opera house. Scenic artist Tschudi has his scaffolding all arranged for painting the scenery for the Grand theatre” (page 4).

Tschudi was still in Richmond at the beginning of 1896. On Feb 26, 1896, “The Richmond Item” reported, “An Item reporter visited the room of Prof. Tschudi, the artist, this morning and took a hasty inspection of a number of his water-color paintings which are to be exhibited the remainder of the week. The collection represents about four years’ work, and some of the pictures re original while others are copies from celebrated paintings. Arranged as they will be at Stigleman’s studio, they certainly will be well worth the inspection of the people, whether they contemplate purchasing or not” (page 4).

In the same newspaper, Tschudi’s name popped up in a court case: “In ‘Squire Jessup’s court a judgement has been rendered against John U. Tschudi for $16 in favor of J. H. Dobbins. The suit was on account.” Whether this signaled a financial downturn or something else, Tschudi soon left town.

By summer, he was working in Lexington, Kentucky. On July 13, 1896, the “Lexington Herald-Leader” reported:

“Magnificent.

Will be Lexington’s Opera House this season.

Scenic artist Tschudi Now Hard at Work. How House will appear.

Everything is business and bustle at the Lexington Opera House, and when the coming theatrical season opens the citizens of Lexington will see one of the handsomest interior of a theatre in the country. Manager Scott will spare neither time or expense in refitting and refurbishing his house. The scenic artist, Mr. J. U. Tschudi, of Chicago, assisted by the old reliable John Uttinger, is already hard at work and has completed a number of handsome places. None of the old scenery will be used, but everything on the stage will be brand new. There will be sixteen new sets, all beautiful and fresh. The new drop curtain is going to be one of the very handsomest in the country, as Mr. Tschudi told a Leader reporter this morning that he was going to try his hand on this especial piece of work and make it guilt edge, so that our theatre goers can expect something beautiful. The work already completed by Mr. Tschudi is magnificent and shows him to be an artist of high rank. Redecorating the auditorium of the Opera House will be commenced at once, as the scaffold is now being erected for the frescoe painters” (page 5).

It was in Lexington, that Tschudi received what may have been the greatest publicity of his career. There were two extensive articles about Tschudi that I am sharing in their entirety. The first was published on Aug. 15, 1896, in “The Daily Leader” of Lexington, Kentucky (page 3). Again, not everything adds up.

“Mr. J. R. Tschudi who painted the New Opera House Drop Curtain.

An artist of some fame.

J. W. Tschudi, of Chicago, the famous scenic artist who has just completed the scenery and the magnificent drop curtain of out Opera House, was born in Switzerland (the land of William Tell) in 1852, and emigrated to America with his parents in 1857, and from childhood, was fond of painting and drawing. While at school he very often got punished for drawing cartoon on his slate, which kept the scholars laughing. After his school days he studied with his father and assisted him with his work and soon developed such an artistic taste in landscape painting that the father concluded in 1868 to send him back to France to finish his studies. ‘After five years,’ says Mr. Tschudi, ‘I returned to America and took a fancy to large work and consequently went to theatrical scene painting, and have since that time worked in many of the finest theaters both in this country and abroad. My father was a famous fresco artist (in relief); he studied under the old masters in France for ten years. His work can be seen in France, Italy, Switzerland and America at the present time. He died in his 69th year in 1886 in New York.’ Mr. Tschudi is an extensive traveler and had been to all the principal parts of the world. The Leader called on him at the Opera House yesterday, and was shown a beautiful collection of sketches and paintings from all parts of the globe. The artist’s works both in oil and water color, but the last three years there has been no sale for oil paintings, and he has devoted his time entirely to water colors. He says he will give the people of Lexington an exhibition of water color paintings at one of the prominent down-town stores. Mr. Tschudi has been frequently asked why he did not change the spelling of his name, so it would be easily pronounced. He simply answers; “I have no reason to be ashamed of it, as it is famous in Swiss history, being the name of one of the oldest royal families on record, and was borne by artists, generals and men of high rank, and at the present time there are a number of recognized artists in the family. Mr. Tschudi will remain in Lexington until October painting twelve sets of scenery for the new Parkersburg W. Va., theater, which opens about the middle of that month” (page 3).

Another article published in Lexington’s “The Daily Leader” on Aug. 24, 1896, described Tschudi’s scenic art process. I am including the article in its entirety, as this is a wealth of information for future generations:

“Scenery,

And how it is painted by the Theatre Scenic Artist.

Mr. Tschudi Tells the Leader Some of its Mysteries.

Painting a drop curtain.

How the immense canvas is stretched for the work.

A scenic artist’s life a hard one at times.

Mixing paints in buckets.

Few people are acquainted with that part of theater commonly referred to a ‘back of the scenes,’ and fewer persons have a well-defined idea of how scenery for a modern playhouse is painted. A Leader man recently called upon Mr. J. U. Tschudi, who has been busily engaged in painting new scenery for the Lexington Opera House and who is now engaged in painting some for a theater soon to be opened in Parksburg, W. Va. Mr. Tschudi has remained in Lexington to do his work as the facilities here are the very best, and then he has become conveniently settled and likes Lexington. Mr. Tschudi’s drop curtain painted for the Lexington Opera House some weeks ago is certainly a thing of beauty, a masterpiece of scenic art, and has called forth expressions of extreme admiration from all who have seen it. Personally, Mr. Tschudi is a charming man to converse with, always interested in his work and ever ready and willing to impart that interest to others. To the question, ‘where were you born,’ put by the Leader man, Mr. Tschudi said, “I was born in Switzerland in 1852, but am an American artist. I came to the United States in 1857. My father was an artist in France and I, only one of eight children, am an artist. I was fond of it from childhood. When I was a boy, I sometimes got punished for drawing comic sketches on the walls, and I would neglect my lessons to draw those pictures and frequently get kept in school on that account.’

‘Tell me something, Mr. Tschudi about the scenic artist.’

‘The scenic artists,’ said he, ‘do not wear long hair and work with a palette and brushes as most people imagine. He is an ordinary looking man, pleasant in his conversation, and if you see him at work on the paint bridge, you will see him dressed in a neat suit of white overalls and jacket, surrounded by buckets, tomato cans, tin cups, etc. containing the various tints and colors and brushes, some of them as large as our whitewashers use Every large theatre, such as the one here in Lexington, which is well up to the average in modern equipment, is provided with a paint bridge and frame of enormous size. The paint bridge is built at the back wall of the stage, reaching from one fly gallery to the other, all the way from twenty to forty feet above the stage floor, according to the height of the stage, and ranges from four to six feet in width. Between the bridge and the wall there is a paint frame, reaching from one end of the bridge to the other and ranging from 20 by 30 to 40 by 60 feet. Looking at this frame you would think it impossible to move it because of its enormous size and weight, but when you hear the artist say, “Let’er down or up Charley (Charley is the artist’s helper or paint boy) you will see Charley go to the end of the bridge where there is a windlass, take hold with one hand or turn it and the frame is moved up or down as the artist wishes.

‘It may seem strange to you that this paint boy can with ease turn the crank and raise or lower the 40 by 60 feet frame which alone weighs half a ton without the scene that may be on it, also mounted as you see it when finished. However, it is very simple, this monster being hung precisely as a window sash is hung in your house. There is a counterweight attached that balances the frame, and instead of pushing it up like you would a sash, the paint boy turns the crank, and she goes up or down. So, you see, the artist stands on the stationary bridge and can paint a scene by 40 by 60 feet without having to climb up or down a scaffold as you may imagine on seeing some of the enormous scenes in large theaters in cities.

How the artist works.

‘Now, if you will follow, I’ll tell you how the artist works. Stretched on this frame here is, as you see, a canvas 24 by 30 feet, and ‘sized’ as the artist calls it. That is, ready to paint on. With this piece of charcoal tied to a stick, which, I suppose, is about five feet in length. He commences to sketch or outline a scene, which, by the way, is a puzzle to make out at first. Presently, after having mixed all of his colors in his buckets, cans, etc., you will see him apply the colors with large brushes, giving a slap and a dab of color here and there, and before you realize what he is trying to do, you will see the bright sunny sky, the distant hills, the rippling brook, the foliage of trees, and each appear and gradually grow as if by magic until there is a beautiful and finished landscape before you.

‘And all to aid the work of the players,’ suggested the Leader man.

‘Yes, indeed, without the scenic painter’s brush what would the play amount to? The scenic effects carry the principal productions of the present day, as you know.

‘Yes, it was pretty hard at times on the artist, still we had times when we were in not rushed, as some of the scenery which we called stock, such as wood scene, modern street, kitchen, prison, plain, chamber, garden and landscape could be used in some of the modern plays. Sometimes we would have it very easy for a week or two and then again it would be a case of rush.

Artist in a rush.

‘I remember one instance in particular, while getting up the scenery for the Coleen Bawn, there was a tremendous amount of all special scenery to get up. The play was to be put on Monday afternoon matinee. On Saturday night I found myself way behind with the work. The manager came to me, excited and said: ‘Mr. Tschudi, you have been with us for six years and always ready when the time came. By heaven, I am afraid you will not get through in time.’ I said, ‘I never mind, there is lots of time between now and 2 o’clock on Monday, and I will get here just the same.’ I went on the paint bridge Saturday evening after supper and never left until Monday at 11:30, when I had all the scenery finished. It was pronounced by the manager and public as being the grandest production of the Colleen Bawn that had ever been staged. It was pretty hard on me. I went to bed after dinner Monday and slept until Tuesday at 9 o’clock a.m. There are, however, more pleasant things in an artist’s life. Our work is not a burden, it is a life’s study and a pleasure, and I may say I love it. It is the artist who dazzles and deceives the eye and carries you imagination to every part of the globe. When you witness the grand spectacular production, for if you would take the scenic effects away it would be like taking the feathers from the peacock. The bird would be left, but its glory would be gone. Mr. Tschudi will remain in Lexington several weeks while finishing up his work for the Parksburg theater. He may open a temporary studio in Lexington while here, where he will exhibit some of his studies in water colors. A display of his work can now be seen in the show windows of Brower, Scott & Frazee, and they have attracted considerable attention since being put there a few days ago.” (page 3).

By 1897, Tschudi was again listed in the Kansas City Directory, living with his family at 10 East 16th St. His son, also going by John Tschudi, was living with him. He and his son soon had embarked upon a new adventure, traveling with a new form of entertainment – Edison’s warograph. On Dec. 2, 1898, the “Keytesville Chariton Courier” of Keytsville, Missouri, reported, “The Messrs. Tschudi of the ‘War Graphic Co.’ exhibited their moving pictures at Dickenson’s hall, Tuesday evening. The entertainment was well attended, and the illustrations were both instructive and amusing” (page 8). For clarity, this was a moving picture show.

Two years later, Tschudi was still promoting the warograph. On Sept. 18, 1899, “The Evening Kansan-Republican” of Newton, Kansas, reported, J. U. Tschudi, with the warograph, who will give war pictures every night at some corner on Main street on a monster screen.”

On Oct. 2, 1899, “The Evening Kansan-Republican” went into detail about the attraction in an article entitled, “Warograph in Black Tent.” The article described:

“A very interesting attraction for this week will be the Warograph exhibition in the black tent. This exhibition presents life and action nearly all the battles fought in Cuba and the Phillipines. There you will see the charge of the Rough Riders, battle at San Juan Hill, Evacuation of Havana, Grand Parade of troops at Camp Alger, Destruction of Cevera’s fleet, the Kansas boys fighting before the trenches at Candabar and many other interesting scenes.” The article then quote the Hastings, Nebraska, Republican: “No attraction has commanded a greater patronage nor received more complimentary words than Edison’s Moving War Scenes. This feature of the carnivals has been a ‘hit’ and is certainly worthy of the good words and patronage it has been daily received. It is worth several times the price of admission charged and it is one of the attractive features at the Greater American Exposition at Omaha. The men conducting it are all affable and courteous gentlemen” (page 4).

On Oct. 3, 1899, “The Evening Kansas Republican” published a testimonial about Tschudi’s popular warograph attraction: “Don Kinney received a letter yesterday from E. D. Kipp, a friend of his in Marshal, Mo., who wrote from Fort Scott as follows: ‘I am here looking for attractions and find that your town and Fort Scott have the most of them. The Warograph, handled by J. H. Tschudi, is first class and I can highly recommend it” (page 1).

By 1900, the Tschudi family was living at 2631 Holmes. The household included John Ulrich Tschudi, Marguerite Tschudi, son John Tschudi, and daughter Lucy Tschudi. Their second daughter, Minnie Lillian was no longer part of the household, having married James Edward Brady in 1893. The Brady’s also lived in Kansas City.

Tschudi was still traveling with his warograph. On September 11 and 13, 1900, the “Sedalia Sentinel” of Sedalia, Kansas, published the following article:

“The Pictures are Here.

Splendid Scenes from the Boer War a feature.

Mr. J. U. Tschudi, who was here last year with the warograph pictures in the Ilgenfritz building on Ohio street, returns for the street fair again this year, with a much finer apparatus and a lot of new and interesting pictures, among which are fine views of the Boer war. His location is the leader building, opposite the court house on Ohio street. This is the best and cleanest show going for old and young, and the reputation Mr. Tschudi left last year insures him a splendid patronage. Open day and night” (page 1).

Tschudi traveled all over the country with his entertainment, yet still completed a variety of painting project. On Dec. 27, 1900, the “El Paso Herald” reported, “J. W. Tschudi, the scenic artist, arrived in the city with his wife this morning and will remain here until the carnival week. He has had a great deal of experience in decorating floats and his services can be secured by those who wish to put out floats and have not made arrangements” (page 5).  He was in town for the live stock exhibit and parade the morning of the 18th].

By 1910, Tschudi had relocated to St. Louis, Missouri; his family remained in Kansas City. Tschudi now lived by himself, listed as an artist and residing at 726 S 2nd Street, St. Louis. The 1910 census report listed him as a widower. The same census report listed his wife as married.  

Tschudi’s son and wife continue to live together on Holmes Street in Kansas City for the next two decades, although they moved from 2631 Holmes to 2751 Holmes. Tschudi’s son returned to using his adoptive name – John Fohrman. The 1910 Census listed Fohrman’s occupation as an artist in the Scenic Co. industry. He continued to work as a scenic artist until his passing, frequently working for the Kansas City Scenic Co. Nothing really changed for Fohrman or his mother until 1928. On October 13, 1928, Fohrman married Florence Lee Smith; Smith lived just down the street at 2709 Holmes. Marguerite continued to live with her son until 1931, when she passed. Her obituary made no mention of any former husband:

“TSCHUDI – Mrs. Marguerite Tschudi, 81 years old, died last night at the home of her son, John Fohrman, 2751 Holmes Street. Mrs. Tschudi was born in Luxemburg and came to Kansas City from Europe in 1885. Also surviving are a daughter, Mrs. Lucy Armbruster, wife of Benjamin G. Armbruster of the advertising department, Harris-Goar Company, who lives at 2711 Holmes street; a brother, John Merkes, Dubuque, Iowa and a sister, Mrs. Anna Miller, St. Louis.” It appears that Marguerite altered a little of her own history too– or it was an honest misprint.

After his mother’s passing in 1931, John and Florence Fohrman relocated west to California, settling in Los Angeles. In 1946, they moved to Culver City. Fohrman passed away on Jan 29, 1952. His obituary announced:

“John Joseph Fohrman Rites Set Tomorrow.

Services will be held tomorrow at 11 a.m. at the chapel of Smith & Salsbury for John Joseph Fohrman, 83, of 4208 Lafayette, who died Wednesday morning. He leaves his widow, Florence, and a daughter Lucia Fohrman. Born in Chicago, he had lived in Culver City for six years. He was a scenic artist. Rev. Eldred Charles, of the Cardiff Avenue Christian Church, will officiate. The remains will be cremated.”

In regard to the passing of his father, John Ulrich Tschudi, Jr.; Tschudi never left St. Louis. His career began to fade away, and his name no longer made headlines. Until his passing in 1921, Tschudi continued to work as an artist and live at South Second Street. His death certificate listed that he was 70 yrs. old, an artist, and a widower. Tschudi passed away at 614 N. 2nd in St. Louis, His death certificate listed his parents as John Tschudi and Margaretha Egli – both born in Switzerland. The informant listed on Tschudi’s death certificate was Wm Deven. A small note at the bottom indicates that he was buried in Kansas City. I have yet to locate his grave.

Seven years prior to Tschudi’s passing, he painted “Early Days on the Mississippi.” This may be his only extant painting, as I am unable to locate any other easel artworks by Tschudi;. “Early Days on the Mississippi” may be Tschudi’s sole artistic legacy; the only artwork that marks the life and career of John Ulrich Tschud, Jr.

However, it is the 1914 date and the Mississippi subject matter that is also significant.

In 1914, St. Louis commemorated the 150th anniversary of its founding; as part of the celebration, the City commissioned a two-part civic spectacle. The Pageant and Masque of Saint Louis was presented on the slop of Art Hill in Forest Park from May 28 to June 1, 1914. The pageant used an enormous stage built on pilings in the Grand Basin, measuring over 500 ft. wide and 200 ft. deep. The pageant featured a cast of 7500 volunteers. Some records suggest that there were 75,000 people in attendance on opening night. Three hundred years of local history were presented over the course of five hours, including many scenes from early years on the Mississippi River. Many historic photographs of this spectacle remain, depicting the incredible grandeur of the event. Some are digitally accessible through the St. Louis Public Library as part of the Pageant and Masque of St. Louis Collection.

Detail of a scene from the Pageant and Masque of St. Louis in 1914. Here is the link to the photograph: https://cdm17210.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/pageant/id/155/rec/55

I firmly believe that Tschudi’s painting was one of many, commissioned advertise the event; advertisements that depicted various scenes from the pageant. This is why the edges of Tschudi’s painting are hemmed, include a painted frame, and title. This artwork was intended to be tacked to a wall, as any advertisement. This painted composition was most likely part of a series depicting significant historical events reenacted at the Pageant and Masque of St. Louis in 1914.

I congratulate the Kimmswick Historical Society’s decision to invest in the preservation of Tschudi’s artwork for many future generations to come.

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 1153 – Thomas G. Moses, New York Studios, and the Binghamton Scottish Rite, 1923

Copyright © 2021 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

In 1923, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “I put in fully a week in Binghamton at the Arlington Hotel on designs for Masonic work and I believe we will get the contract.”

Arlington Hotel in Binghamton, New York

Sosman & Landis didn’t get the contract but Moses still painted the scenery. Somehow, David Hunt of New York Studios landed the profitable contract. Keep in mind that New York Studios was the eastern affiliate of Sosman & Landis, and Sosman & Landis was preparing to close.

From the “Press and Sun Bulletin,” 21 Nov 1923, page 17.

By summer, Moses wrote, “I have arranged to go to Binghamton, N.Y. for Hunt, $2,500.00 for the job.  Sent Loitz on ahead, September 5th.”

Moses was referring to Ed Loitz. Loitz, who had worked with Moses since the 1883. He was a loyal painting assistant and friend who had followed Moses across the country, working alongside him wherever he went. Whether Moses had established a partnership, or was working at Sosman & Landis, Loitz was there. Loitz traveled one step ahead, preparing the next jobsite for Moses’ arrival and then workied on site. Loitz was almost a decade younger than Moses, being born in 1865. In 1923, they had been working together for forty years together.  At the time, Moses was sixty-seven years old and Loitz was fifty-eight years old. Loitz was both a scenic artist and carpenter, taking care of everything needed before Moses arrived on site to paint.

Scenery painted by Thomas G. Moses, assisted by Ed Loitz. From the “Press and Sun Bulletin,” 21 Nov 1923, page 17.
Scenery painted by Thomas G. Moses, assisted by Ed Loitz. From the “Press and Sun Bulletin,” 21 Nov 1923, page 17.

Moses was still splitting his time between painting for Hunt (New York Studios) and Sosman & Landis. Sosman & Landis were in the process of liquidating all assets and closing their doors. Moses and Fred Megan were waiting to purchase the name.

The New York Studios project was the stock scenery collection for the Scottish Rite Theatre in Binghamton, New York. This project was completed was just before Moses realized that Chicago Studios was sending out letters to Sosman & Landis clients, explaining that they were the successor to Sosman & Landis, already having secured the same address. David S. Hunt was behind the establishment of Chicago Studios, as well as running both New York Studios and Sosman & Landis. Even though he knew Moses was going to purchase the Sosman & Landis name after the company liquidated their assets, Hunt was using his position at Sosman & Landis to his advantage to discredit any new iteration of Sosman & Landis.  This would all happen in November 1923 while he was on site in Binghamton.

On October 17, 1923, Binghamton’s “Press and Sun-Bulletin” featured Moses and his work. The article was entitled “Vies with Nature in Realms of Beauty,” and stated, “Thomas G. Moses Wields a Well-nigh Magic Brush in Painting Scenery, Curtains and Drops for New Masonic Temple.”  Here is the article in its entirety:

   “Thomas G. Moses of Chicago. Representing New York Studios, who is painting scenery, curtains and drops for the stage in the auditorium of the Masonic Temple under construction at Main and Murray streets, need no assistance of Brownies or other mystical helpers in making things beautiful in the opinion of those who have seen examples of his work.

   Fairyland in all its mystical wonderfulness could not surpass the beauty that is represented on the canvas with the paint from the brushes carefully wielded by Moses. Mechanical curtains on which a moon may be seen rising, Persian temple interiors and water, wooded and open scenes are all in the new temple to bring admiration from all the Masons who are privileged to see them all.

   Forty drops are being painted by Mr. Moses.”

[Moses was being paid $2,500 dollars for the project, so we can estimate that his average painting fee per drop was no more than $62.50/each, assuming he wasn’t paying for travel, lodging or meals out of that amount. The money equivalent of $62.50 in 1923 is $952.02 in 2021.The contract was for $12,000]

“Each set is used for some one of the 32 degrees prescribed in the ranks of the fraternity. Each degree is exemplified in a different setting. Some are on the plains, others in a temple painted from Biblical descriptions of King Solomon’s temple, extensive Egyptian quarries and water scenes.

   The full equipment will be used for the first time on Nov. 18, 19 and 20, when the annual reunion of Otseningo Consistory, Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite, will be held. Exemplification of degree work at that time will be the first that it has been done in full form in four years. Equipment of the Masonic body was destroyed four years ago in a fire in the temple on Chenango street.

   All paintings of the scenery are done by Mr. Moses from scale drawings which he completed several months ago. The small scale drawings were drawn from outlines by officers of lodges here. Mr. Moses on a platform suspended from the top of the loft sketches in charcoal on the canvass the scene which he wishes to paint.

   Mr. Moses is assisted by Edward Loitz, who has traveled from coast to coast with Mr. Moses working on many contracts. Installation of the drops is supervised by H. E. Naile. The three men have worked together in many cities, their last contract being in Little Rock, Ark.

   The stage in the temple here and the scenery and drops being painted are the largest ever handled in a Masonic Temple by Mr. Moses. He says he is well satisfied with the progress of his work and in a short time it will be finished. He expects to remain here to paint some work for another temple.

   Products of the brush of Mr. Moses and his assistant, Mr. Loitz, are not entirely new to Binghamton. Mr. Moses painted the landscapes and architectural exteriors for the State hospital theater and Mr. Loitz did the interiors. Mr. Moses painted the original scenery for the Stone Opera House and upon visiting that place a few days ago he found some of the equipment still in use.

   Tom Moses, as he is nationally known, was found today busily engaged in painting a drop 21 feet by 40 feet representing an interior of an old German chapel. The picture is complete with stained glass windows and the chapel is profusely decorated with flags, shields and bits of armor.

   Tom Moses’ father was a captain of a sailing vessel and when he left the bounding main he started a leather business. He intended his son should follow his footsteps. The world might have been richer with a reliable captain or an expert on leather, but Tom had ideas for a different vocation, and thus the world has not been deprived of a master painter who transfers the sometimes unreal to the real with an intricate movement of his paint brush.

   All this was 45 years ago. During the 45 years he has been painting scenery, Mr. Moses has gained much praise throughout the land. His friends are legion. He is short and stocky and has a radiating personality that brings a friendly reception wherever he goes and he has no enemies.

   Born in Liverpool, England, in 1856, more than 67 years ago, of English parentage, Mr. Moses came to America with his father and mother but when a little child and settled in Sterling, Ill. His father was a sea captain and later a tanner. Tom’s mother, who died when he was but a youngster, possessed an exceedingly artistic nature and did much to install into her son the love of artistic.

   Tom’s father was strict and was certain that the boy would be “better off” as a tanner with his brawny arms wrestling with a piece of hairy hide and covered with tannin. Use of a hickory switch proved to Tom that this would probably be much after his father declared only starvation faced the starving artists.

   One try at the tanning game convinced Tom that he would rather be an artist. At the age of 17 he left home “with a forwarding address.” He hired out as a paint boy in the Chicago studio of P. M. Almini. Louis Malmsha, director of the company, recognized the ability in the recently hired paint boy. In a year he had advanced in wages from $4 a week to $21, but the rapid rise was due to his persevering work.

   Robert Hopkin, a scenic artist in Detroit, Mich., was the next person to obtain the services of the rising artist. At the age of 20 he returned to his home and married Miss Ella Robbin. The couple lived there until 1880 when they went to Chicago where Mr. Moses started working for the Sosman & Landis Co. He painted the first work of this concern.

   In his long and varied career, Mr. Moses has done work for many famous artists and for many famous productions. It was he who designed and executed the original “Floradora” sets for John C. Fisher. He did them, not only once, but four times. The work of Tom Keene, John McCullough, Booth and Barrett, Col. Cody (Buffalo Bill), Julia Marlowe, Robert Lober, Joseph Murphy, Conried and Herman, Emma Abbott, Emma Juch, Sarah Bernhardt, Mme. Modjeska, and score of other greater and lesser figures of the American stage was enhanced by scenery executed by Thomas G. Moses.

   Some of the famous productions, in addition to “Floradora,” which Mr. Moses has made are “Shenandoah,” and “Old Kentucky,” famous melodramas; “Marie Antoinette,” “Mary Stuart” and “Macbeth” for Mme. Modjeska; “Judas” for Mme. Bernhardt. Joseph Jefferson’s last “Rip Van Winkle”;  “The Holy City,” “By Right Sword,” “Lost in the Desert,” “Quo Vadis,” “The Witch,” “Robinson Crusoe,” “Ben Hur” and scores of other big productions.

   He has also produced some of those famous Luna Park spectacles at Coney Island, such as “Fire and Flames,” “The War of the Worlds,” “Trip to the Moon,” “20,000 Leagues Under the Sea,” “The Streets of Delhi” and others. “The Streets of Delhi” was produced at a cost of $100,000.

   In the art world outside of scene painting he has received much recognition. He has the distinction of being a member of the world-famous Salmagundi club, that noted organization of artists in New York. Mr. Moses is also a member of the Chicago Society of Arts, the famous Palette and Chisel Club, the California Art Club of Los Angeles and the Laguna Art association of Laguna Beach, Cal.

   Rapid advance of motion pictures has crimped the scenic painting industry, Mr. Moses says. “Because of the fewer number of dramatic shows now there is a less demand for drops. Movies take the place of the dramatic productions that one time held sway.”

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 1144 – Jim Slipper of J. Slipper & Co., 1922

Copyright © 2021 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

In 1922 Thomas G. Moses wrote, “Did two pictures for Jim Slipper at Los Angeles to be used in his projecting room; both are transparent.” In 1922, Slipper was running a motion picture supply company. The “1922-1923 Film Book” listed J. Slipper & Co. as a California supply dealer, located at 728 Olive St. Los Angeles.

Moses had known Slipper for quite some time, as Slipper also started out as a scenic artist in Chicago, another Sosman & Landis employee.
James “Jim” Slipper was born in 1864, the eldest of four children to John (b. 1830) and Louisa Slipper (b. 1845). Both John and Louisa were born in England and emigrated to the United States in 1832 and 1845, respectively. They married, moved north, and began raising a family in Canada, with John working as shoemaker. The Slippers celebrated the birth of four children: Levi “Guy” (b. 1872), Isadore (b. 1867) and Ida (b. 1868) and James (b. 1864). The Slipper family briefly moved to the United States and were included in the 1870 US Federal Census. That year they were living in Corry, Pennsylvania. It remains unclear when the family returned to Canada, or where Jim Slipper began his career as a scenic artist. His younger brother Guy emigrated from Canada to the United States in between 1889 and 1891; conflicting census reports. However, by 1889 Jim Slipper was living in Chicago, publicly listed as a subscriber to the Chicago World’s Fair (Inter Ocean, 28 Dec. 1889, page 9). By 1900, all of the Slippers were living in Chicago. The 1900 Census listed John and Louisa Slipper living at 178 N. Clark St. with their son Guy, daughter-in-law Minnie, grandson Fred, and daughter Ida. Although Guy initially found employment as a barber and carpenter, he would eventually enter the film industry in California by 1913, working as motion picture operator, salesman, and assistant manager before taking the reins J. Slipper & Co.

In regard to Jim Slipper’s personal life, he married to Nellie M. Curren (b. 1876) in Chicago on Oct. 26, 1898. Unfortunately, their marriage did not last, with the couple divorcing in 1913.Jim’s younger brother Guy was also married to a woman named “Nellie” – Nellie Tuohy Their marriage announcement was listed in the Chicago Chronicle, on Jul. 14, 1896, (page 10). Guy would eventually work with his brother in the motion picture industry, so here is a little context for Jim’s younger brother. Guy’s first marriage did not last long. It was tumultuous start, with the couple appearing in court twice within the first six weeks of their marriage. The first time Mrs. Nellie Slipper charged her husband with assault and battery. Two weeks later, and Mr. Slipper charged his wife with making threats and smashing wedding presents during a honeymoon quarrel (Chicago Chronicle, 2 Sept. 1896, page 9). The marriage soon ended in divorce. By 1899, Guy married his second wife, Minnie. By 1900, Guy, Minnie, and Minnie’s 14-yrs. old son were living with John and Louisa Slipper in a very full house. That marriage was also not destined to last. Buy married for a third time, wedding Florence C. Brown in 1909. The two celebrated the birth of one son, Glenn, and moved to California where Guy began working in the motion picture industry.

Back to Guy’s older brother Jim. In the late 1890s Jim Slipper was working as a scenic artist, likely at Sosman & Landis. It was his move to Detroit and continued work as a scenic artist there that signals a connection to the prominent Chicago scenic studio. In Detroit, Michigan, Slipper became the scenic artist for the Pike Theatre Co. The Pike Theatre Co. was managed by one-time Sosman & Landis secretary and treasurer David H. Hunt. Sosman & Landis initially invested both capital and labor in the endeavor, establishing the theatrical management firm of Sosman, Landis & Hunt. The business endeavor did not last, and eventually Hunt solely managed the Pike Theatre Co.In 1901 the Pike Theatre Co. toured the country under the management of Hunt, including stops in St. Paul, Minneapolis, Washington, Baltimore, and New York. On July 1, 1901, the Minneapolis “Star Tribune” reported that the company traveled with “three carloads of scenery, specially designed and gotten up for the plays to be presented during the summer season in Minneapolis and St. Paul.”

At the time, the company’s scenic artist was Jim Slipper. Slipper was interviewed on July 14, 1901 by the Minneapolis “Star Tribune” (page 4). In his interview Slipper explained the importance of painted scenery. He stated, “People are just commencing to realize that good plays are frequently as dependent upon good scenery as good actors, and it is certainly true that a play without the advantage of scenery would be a burlesque upon the modern methods of management. We are told that Shakespeare’s plays were first produced without scenery, but we are not informed they were great success except as lectures or monologues of rare literary merit. The success of the drama depends upon the illusion it creates; acting is an illusion – that, is, it excites the auditor to tears over a situation which does not exist, or moves to mirth with an incident that is purely imaginary. So, too, is scenery an illusion. We show you a landscape in a production at the Metropolitan which seems to the spectator in front to stretch away for miles, whereas it is but a few rods distance from the eye, and, perhaps, no more than three feet away from the house, or the shrubbery, or the forest which seems so near you. Thus, if the actor deceives your ear with a cry which seems to have it in tones all the attributes of heart-felt sorrow and tragedy, the artist deceives the eye by producing an impression simply by a few touches of the brush and the proper combination of colors something akin to that produced by the omnipotent hand of nature herself as revealed in the far stretching landscape, or as is shown in the more artificial work of the man as applied to the architecture and the furnishing of apartments.” It is no surprise that he would be drawn to the motion picture industry a decade later.

In 1901, Nellie Slipper was also mentioned in the Minneapolis news. The “Star Tribune” reported, “Mrs. James Slipper, who has been visiting her sister, Mrs. O. C. Wood, left for Chicago yesterday en route to Detroit, where she will join her husband, who is with the Pike Theatre company there” (31 August 1901, page 4). The Slipper’s remained in Detroit until at least 1908, with Slipper continuing to work as a scenic artist. The 1908 Detroit Directory listed Slipper as a Detroit artist living at 168 Columbia East.
Sometime between 1909 and 1910, the Slippers moved to California. In 1910, Slipper was the owner and manager of San Bernardino’s Temple Theatre, located at 618-620 3rd Ave. The 1910 US Federal Census also listed Slipper as a Theatre owner, living with his wife and a young boarder, a 30-yrs. old theatre musician named Frank Durlise. All three were living at 619 Rex Alley. The Slipper’s marriage lasted only three years after that. Keep in mind that there was a twelve-year age difference between Jim and Nellie. There was only a three-year age difference between Nellie and their musical boarder. I have to wonder if the young musician had anything to do with the Slipper’s divorce. Although I have yet to locate any other information about Nellie after 1913. In 1913, the “San Bernardino News” reported on divorce proceedings between James and Nellie (20 Oct. 1913, page 6).


Regardless, the period between 1910 to 1913 was tumultuous for the couple as Slipper rapidly changed professions. By 1913, his younger brother Guy was also living in San Bernardino, working as a motion picture operator.
Jim Slipper was mentioned in the “San Bernardino News” in 1914:“James A. Slipper to Aid Class Play of School. Through the kindness of James Slipper, formerly manager of the Temple Theatre, the high school will have a specially painted set of scenery donated by Mr. Slipper for the class play which will be given next week. Mr. Slipper will paint the scenery to be used in the play and will donate it to the school. For years Mr. Slipper was one of the lading scenic painters of the country and has painted special scenery for all of Chicago’s big theaters. The high school students are delighted at the generosity of Mr. Slipper and also to have scenery in keeping with the play” (30 April 1914, page 5). That year Slipper was also on the committee for the 5th annual orange show in San Bernardino (San Bernardino, 16 July 1914, page 10).

Between 1914 and 1916, Slipper entered the motion picture industry. In 1916, the “San Bernardino News” reported, “James Slipper former owner of the Temple Theatre, was in the city yesterday and today visiting the orange show, Slipper is now secretary and treasurer of an establishment in Los Angeles which deals in picture machines and films” (23 Feb 1916, page 2). He soon established J. Slipper & Co, the Slipper Moving Picture Supply House.

1917 Advertisement for J. Slipper & Co. From “Motion Picture and Studio Directory and Trade Annual.


In 1917, “The Moving Picture World,” reported, “James C. Slipper, the head of J. Slipper & Company, motion picture supplies, reports business booming all along the line. Mr. Slipper has recently sold Douglas Jarmuth, manager of the Colonial Theater, 54th and Vermont, two Simplex machines, one G. E. generator, and a Minusa screen; also a Baird machine to J. O. Grant, manager and owner of the Beaumont theater, California. The local Orpheum theater has enrolled itself as a customer of Mr. Slipper with the purchase of a new Powers machine” (The Moving Picture World, Feb. 10, 1917, page 856).


In 1918, the “San Bernardino Country Sun” reported “James Slipper of Los Angeles, formerly manager of the Temple theater and hail-fellow-well-met along the amusement rialto, was in town yesterday. He is now dealing in accessories for moving picture theaters and looks prosperous as always” (28 July 1918, page 2). Slipper spent Thanksgiving that year at the Jewish Orphan Home. “The Los Angeles Times” reported, “James Slipper of the Slipper Moving Picture Supply House, showed in the dining room the fascinating film picture for children, ‘Aladdin and His Wonderful Lamp’” (30 Nov. 1918, page 18).


By 1919 J. Slipper & Co. was listed as a Simplex Distributor in “Motion Picture News,” with selling agents in Southern California and Arizona (Motion Picture News, 1919, page 3646). Over the next few years, the location of his studio shifted from 728 S. Olive St. to 838 S. Olive St. and finally 922 S. Olive St. In 1921, Slipper was listed as a “jobber” in an advertisement for Lang-made Rewinders and Reels alongside New York’s United Projector and Film Co. (“Transactions of the Society of Motion Picture Engineers,” 1921).

1921 Advertisement listing J. Slipper & Co. as a jobber for Lang-Made Rewinders and Reels. From “Transactions of the Society of Motion Picture Engineers,” VI.

Slipper was listed in very few US Federal Census reports, and the last census report that provided any information was in 1920. The census that year listed James Slipper as a 56-yers.-old merchant in the Theatre Equipment industry. At the time, he was one of many lodgers living at 655 South Flower Street in Los Angeles. By the time Moses worked for Slipper in 1922, Slipper was residing at 5333 Santa Monica Blvd.From 1924-1928, J. Slipper & Co. continued to operate at S. Olive St., with the address shifting from 838 to 922. I am unsure whether this signified an expansion of operations or not. By 1930, the name changed to J & Co. Slipper Motion Picture Studio and Theatre Supplies. Although still listed at 922 S. Olive, the firm was now managed by Guy Slipper.

I have yet to locate any information about Slipper after the 1920s, so his story ends here.

You have to give Slipper credit with his insight and timing, shifting from a scenic artist to theatre owner and then motion picture supplier. There are those that eagerly embrace new technology and trends, ever adapting their skills to current trends. Then there are others who stubbornly cling to the familiar, wherever they have invested the majority of their energy. 1914 to 1924 was a turning point for many scenic artists. It must have been very difficult at this time for anyone to contemplate a side-step in the entertainment industry, especially for those who had already spent decades perfecting their skills in one particular trade. Slipper, unlike Moses, jumped into the growing film industry, and seemed to never looked back. At this same time, Moses was hoping for a revival of painted illusion; a return of the scenic art that he worked so hard to perfect his entire life. In the twilight of his years, he should have been sitting at the top of the scenic art industry. However, he was still trudging along in the Midwest; his heart was firmly situated in the past. Although Sosman & Landis was still landing contracts in 1922, the majority of the business was theatrical draperies; a topic that I will address tomorrow.


To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 1111 – “Art vs. Skill,” by Henry C. Tryon, 1883

Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

From 1882 to 1884, Henry C. Tryon  (1847-1892) worked and wrote in the Salt Lake City area. As a scenic artist and author, Tryon’s name constantly appeared in the papers. In addition to painting new scenery during the Salt Lake Theatre stage renovation, Tryon also exhibited much of his easel art. He was in the perfect town to market himself. The “Salt Lake Daily Herald” published articles on a variety of artistic activities, including art exhibitions, theatrical productions and other creative ponderings in detail. In some ways this newspaper carried more information about theatrical productions and stage artists than many larger metropolitan publications across the country.

Henry C. Tryon, pictured in 1886

In 1883, an article on art exhibitions noted, “Henry C. Tryon stated when he came here, that he had never seen a range of mountains that afforded better opportunities” (9 Aug 1883, page 8). On May 18, 1883, “The Salt Lake Herald,” reported “Mr. Henry C. Tryon is at work on an oil painting which he has already presented to Mr. H. B. Clawson. It is a landscape in oil and is a gem much to be desired” (page 8). That spring, newspapers also reported, “Speaking of matters of art reminds us that Mr. Henry C. Tryon is still hard at work on scenery for the Salt Lake Theatre…There will not be a foot of old canvas in the building when Tryon leaves for pastures new…We congratulate Mr. Tryon, and are pleased to see the interest he takes in all that he does; and if the work referred to above is not art in its truest sense, then we would be happy to know just what art is” (Salt Lake Daily Herald, 22 April 883, page 12). Tryon was completely a large stock scenery collection, painting fine art pieces for local citizens and taking time to write on a variety of artistic subjects during the first half of 1883.  

He submitted several articles to the “Salt Lake Daily Herald” throughout 1883. In his article, “Artistic Flashes,” he ended with the statement, “Don’t falsify nature by attempting, with your petty vanity, to improve upon her work. You will fail, because nature as an artist is pre-eminently superior to you” (9 Feb 1883, page 3).

On Sunday, August 12, 1883, he elaborated on this sentiment in Tryon’s “Art vs Skill.” Here is the article in its entirety:

ART vs. SKILL

By HENRY C. TRYON

There is a story familiar to most people of two rival artists, whose relative merits were disputed by their several admirers. To settle the dispute, they engaged in a friendly contest. On painted some fruit and put it in the window. It was so skillfully executed that the birds tried to get at this fruit. The other then had his picture ready and draped. His rival, attempting to raise the curtain that covered the supposed picture, learned that it was a clever deception being a skillfully painted representation of a cloth. The first artist exclaimed enthusiastically, “You are the greater artist: for, while I deceived only the birds, you have deceived an artist.”

This story, like most of those written about artists, is the verist nonsense. Two artists are not likely to enter into a “go-as-you-please” contest, nor to put on gloves to try which is the better man for a prize medal and the applause of the public. That always has been left to public performers and to mountebanks. By assuming the story to be true, it is no proof that either of them was an artist in a real sense. It proves nothing whatever. The popular idea of art is that skill, imitation, projection and perspective are the ends of all efforts in art; and that a work of art practically is to be judges by the skill shown in these directions, with a kind of vague idea that sentiment of color, tone, harmony, force, tenderness and feeling are but a means intended for the connoisseur to “ring them in,” – as one would pretty talk, which may be thrown in indiscriminately.

An artist, for instance, paints a street scene. It matters not how inartistic and mechanical the scene may be, nor how harsh and crude may be the color, if the perspective and light and shadow be correct, the average observer will look upon the scene as a marvelous work, for ‘It appears to reach back for a mile,’ and his surprise and wonder at this success overcomes any other feeling. This misunderstanding of the aim and object of true art prevents him from being even critical or even interested in anything beyond. Yet all this is a mechanical success, pure and simple. That linear perspective has no art quality of itself, and is not even difficult of attainment, all artists know who know anything about it. It is the same with projection. Draw an object and cast  shadow from it, and it will apparently project from the paper. Anybody can do it. So, with imitation.

Every portrait painter knows the necessity of not painting laces or jewels or other flippant accessories with too much realism, else the general observer (who imagines imitation to be the greatest achievement) will never see the face at all. A certain eminent artist in painting a subject introduced in the picture a mat. After the attention of a few people had been fastened on that mat and they had analyzed its material, texture, and probably cost per yard, in disgust he painted it over, so that nobody afterward would think of it except that it was a mat, and pass on to the real picture – the material which made up the sentiment and the story he desired to express.  Suppose a person in describing in writing the wonderful grandeur and beauty of the Wasatch range, should pause lovingly in the description of some pig pen, making this description so vivid and realistic that the total impression remained with the reader that it was a picture of a pig pen with an accessory of Wasatch mountains. What would the reader think? (assuming the purpose of this piece of literature was to convey a sentiment of the grandeur of the mountains) It is exactly so with art; mere imitation requires nothing but a little knowledge, more practice, and more or less patience; but these qualities alone do not make an artist; they simply enable an artist to express art feeling. The mere mechanical ability to touch the right keys on a piano in the translation of a musical composition, does not make a musician. It merely enables one to express musical thought and feeling, if he has it; and if he has it not, he is recognized by musicians as a musical artist, but is considered a musical mechanic. We all understand what is meant by “machine poetry.” The rhyme and the metre maybe faultless, but if it contains no grand beautiful or ennobling thought, it is recognized by all as mere verse; and there is all the difference in the world between verse and poetry. Literature and the arts are precisely similar in their objects. The poet paints with language, the musician with harmonies, the sculptor and draughtsman forms. The arts are so intimately blended that the mechanical phrases even are the same throughout. Who does not feel what is meant by color as applied to musical composition, and tenderness, strength, feeling and harmony as applied to painting? Follow the terms used in all the aria and they can be applied indiscriminately to each. Art is poetry, or it is nothing. If a picture, painted never so skillfully has nothing in it except the skill and knowledge of the artist, and does not contain poetic feeling, or is in any purpose or poetic cause why should it be painted, it ranks as a work of art, no higher than a piece of literature produced for the sole object of showing the author’s knowledge of words and of the grammatical arrangement of them.

A picture should be painted to express some of the sentiment (and assuming that that has been successfully accomplished) the nobility, purity and beauty of that sentiment will determine the position of the picture as a work of art. What is generally considered to be the end of art is properly the means to an end; the real end depends upon the genius of the artist. It is always conceded that an artist thoroughly understands the mechanical means to art (before mentioned), just as it is presupposed that an author understands grammatical rules and the skillful construction of sentences. When each is thus equipped, then he has within his grasp all that is required to give expression to high thoughts and sublime images; but unless the genius – the spirit of poetry – is inherent, he can only give to the world that which time, patience and perseverance will do for any intelligent person.”

Detail of brushed used for scenic art.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 1091 – “A Reform in Scenery” by Henry C. Tryon, 1884

Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

Yesterday’s post included an article written by Henry C. Tryon and published in the “Chicago Tribune” on Dec. 28, 1884 (page 14). The headline was “SCENE-PAINTING. An Art Which Has Been Neglected and Allowed to Retrograde in Chicago.” On Dec. 19, 1884, Tyron wrote penned a response to a letter entitled “Violations of Taste in Scenery. His response was published on Dec. 21, 1884, the “Chicago Tribune” in the Amusements section (page 24). Enjoy.

AMUSEMENTS.

Why Scenery in Chicago Theatre is Shabby and in Bad Taste.

THE DRAMA.

A Reform in Scenery.

An article on the subject of scenery which was published in these columns last week protested chiefly against outraging the fundamental principle of dramatic art by mingling real with unreal conditions, and incidentally pointed out other violations of taste in matter of stage accessories. In this connection a local scenic artist writes an interesting letter wherein he supplements criticism by facts from the workshop and throws light upon the practical phases of an aesthetic question. From what he says it must be plain that artistic scenery is likely to be revived only with the stock system, and that many of the present abuses are to be attributed to the vulgar ambitions of mercenary motives of managers. Any idea that will occur to many after considering his statements is that the names of scenic artists should be put on the programs of the theatres. The letter, which in the opening sentences draws the inferences that are somewhat strained, is as follows:

“Chicago, Dec. 19.-[Editor of the Tribune]-

“As there was nothing in the dramatic line during the last week which calls for particular attention – no plays worth discussing and no acting of any consequence- the subject of scenery must be lightly touched upon.”

This is the introduction to an article in the amusement column of last Sunday’s Tribune, headed, “Violations of Taste in Scenery,” which reads as though the writer did not consider the matter of scenery to be of sufficient importance to be noticed on its merit, but simply as a means of filling his space, lacking other material.

It seems too bad that so important an element of theatrical representations should be considered to be so little of general interest, but it is a sign hopeful for scenic improvement that he has taken occasion to write on the subject whatever the cause of his doing so. He has evidently given it considerable thought, and in the right direction too. The points he makes are all true, but he possibly errs in his location of the responsibility for “violations of taste in scenery.”

He says that “since Mr. Irving’s tour through this country managers have awakened to the importance of providing the stage with suitable accessories,” and regrets “that so laudable an intention cannot be fully carried into execution.” Why not? Who is to blame? If the managers are desirous of mounting plays in an elegant manner, why don’t they do it? Because the public don’t appreciate it. And as managers conduct their business for profit, they are naturally not disposed to spend money in producing art work which will not be noticed by the public or by the press.

For eight years at one of the theatres in this city plays were mounted in a manner superior to that of any house in America and the painting was not excelled in the world. Yet it is doubtful whether 5 per cent of the play-going public of Chicago were aware of the fact – well known and universally conceded by the entire theatrical fraternity. Probably not 1 per cent of the patrons of that house knew the name of the artist or cared. The newspapers certainly took no great pains to direct attention to him or his work.

Every person in this country at all interested in theatre, whether he has ever been in New York, or not, from frequent newspaper repetition is familiar with the fact that plays are magnificently mounted at the Union Square Theatre. Here is a case where the newspapers and the public value genuine art work, and the management, finding that it is looked for an appreciated, is willing to spend the money necessary to produce it; and the artist at that house, with his three or four assistants (each a competent artist), has three months, and sometimes more, in which to get up the scenery of a piece. How is it in this city? Three or four days is the usual time left after the ‘scene plots’ are placed in the artist’s hands, and he considers himself lucky if he gets a full week.

But this is not the worst difficulty of the artist. Canvas and lumber are expensive, and the manager is not willing to provide them; consequently, the artist is obliged to use the old stuff. A general overhauling is made of the stacked-up scenery, and anything will do which is near the size of what is required – the shape doesn’t matter. It is put on the frame and it is the artist’s business to paint a row of tents on a square piece of stuff and get along the best he can. Of course, no artist can alter the form of the set piece to deceive the public. It is still obtrusively a square piece of framework and canvas. The same set pieces have done versatile duty in most of the theatres here for years.

Again, the traveling combinations get most of the money that comes into the house, and if they cannot draw on their own merits the manager feels that it is not justifiable business policy to increase his expenses when this will not add proportionately to his receipts. How can the public expect proper scenic mounting under such circumstances?

If the newspapers in this city would notice scenery in detail, giving proper credit to the artist, naming him when he does something well, and condemning him if he does something badly (if it is his fault, which the dramatic critics should take pains to ascertain) they would soon and that the public eye would be turned in the same direction, and managers would then be glad to do what your dramatic critic thinks they are now anxious to do, but which they are not.

As long as the public pass unobserved as artistic production and applaud a trick, managers whose business it is to cater to the public will give them what they want. Audiences will clap their hands with delight at a skillful mechanical change of scene or an illuminated boat crossing the stage on “set waters” with the wheels turning around; a locomotive running across the stage, or the moon passing behind the clouds with the flicker on the water – mechanical tricks which have nothing to do with art. They don’t care anything about art. They don’t know it when they see it. Was Malmsha appreciated here while he lived?

A boxed-in parlor, with a multiplicity of angles loaded with “properties” like a bric-à-brac shop, pleases the public, therefore pleases the manager, and consequently has to please the artist. It goes that way, anyhow, whether he likes it or not.

An artist may paint an arch ever so characteristic and beautiful. Nine time out of ten his manager or the manager of the visiting combination will insist upon hanging curtain in front of his architectural work. The draperies borrowed from some furniture store and the elegant brass rods which sustain them must be displayed to their best advantage, and the protests of the artist are unheard.

No matter how an interior may be painted, if it is literally covered with elegant borrowed furniture, covering all the character in the scene, the “set” delights all. No matter how elegant and artistic the scene may be, without this trumpery it attracts no attention from anybody, and this is the first time any newspaper in Chicago has noted this. The artists are glad of it, even though it has been made the occasion for an undeserved attack upon their taste.

In Europe and in the leading theatres in the East the scenic artist has entire charge of everything that makes up the stage picture, limited only by the requirements of the “business” of the play. This properly and naturally, should be the case in this city, but practically he is overruled just enough to call forth the objections of right-thinking and discerning critics. Your dramatic editor has got the correct idea, and he has only to note violations of taste and encourage managers and artists by also noting exhibitions of taste as they occur, and he will influence the theatre people to take such care as in the Eastern cities.

Could the managers be assured of the same recognition of true art work as the Union Square Theatre constantly received there is no doubt but they would be glad to make the same efforts here, and the public would then find that the artists are here, and have been all the time, and it is not their fault nor their lack of ability that has prevented the proper mounting of plays heretofore. If the artists now in Chicago could have the opportunity of producing anything like what we are capable of doing the discerning public would be astonished at their artistic ability, now practically latent.

It is undeniable that our people have made great strides in art culture in the last few years, and if their attention is properly directed in the matter there is no doubt but that they will soon become as appreciative of true art in stage pictures as they are now in home decorations.

-H. C. Tryon

On the same page of the “Chicago Tribune” article above, an announcement reported, “Apropos of the subject of scenery, The Haverly Theatre recently burned a large number of old “sets,” their destruction being the only guarantee that they would not at some time be pressed into service.” (21 Dec 1884, page 24).

To be continued…


A repainted nineteenth-century set piece at the Tabor Opera House in Leadville is an example of Henry C. Tryon’s statement: “A general overhauling is made of the stacked-up scenery, and anything will do which is near the size of what is required – the shape doesn’t matter… The same set pieces have done versatile duty in most of the theatres here for years.”
The original set piece was intended to be displayed with a practical door.

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 1090 – “SCENE-PAINTING. An Art Which Has Been Neglected and Allowed to Retrograde in Chicago,” by Henry C. Tryon, 1884

Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

For the past few days I have been sharing some articles pens by Henry C. Tryon in the 1880s. Simultaneously, I am writing about the life and career of Tryon’s one-time partner, Henry E. Burcky as part of “Travels of a Scenic Artist and Scholar” after identifying Burcky’s scenic art for the Tabor Opera House in Leadville, Colorado.

In 1884 Tryon returned to Chicago, accepting a position at Sosman & Landis scene painting studios.  Previously, he had worked as the scenic artist for both the Tabor Grand Opera House in Denver and the Salt Lake City Theatre in Utah.

Clipping of Henry C. Tryon pasted in the scrapbook of Thomas G. Moses.

On Dec. 28, 1884, “Chicago Tribune” published an article submitted by Tryon about the scenic art industry (Chicago, Illinois, 28 Dec 1884, page 14). The headline reads, “SCENE-PAINTING. An Art Which Has Been Neglected and Allowed to Retrograde in Chicago.” The next two subheadings of the article state, “An Important Accessory of the Theatre Which Managers and Public Alike Disregard. Turning Out So-Called Art Work by Wholesale – Culture in Europe and America.” This is possibly the most insightful article that I have located to date, written by someone who was a Sosman & Landis employee. Tryon not only tales aim at scenic studios, but also examines the root of many problems in the industry.

Although it is quite long, this 1884 article is well worth reading. Here’s Tryon’s article in its entirety:

“Are audiences when viewing a stage picture, distant 100 feet or so from their seats, aware of the immense difficulties under which the artist labored when painting it? Are they aware that he was compelled to stand within three or at most four feet from his canvas and unable to see more than a few square yards at a time? Do they realize the accurate knowledge of drawing, composition, perspective, and color required to enable hi under such circumstances to produce and effect which will be realism to them? The artist must carry in his mind’s eye the completed scene as it will appear from the auditorium, and make no error in the relative proportions and harmonies of the different piece which compose the set and which are placed on his frame one or two at a time to be painted.  The theatrical and artistic character of theatres is especially governed by the stage appointments, Beauty of scenery is the most interesting and attractive kind of theatrical decoration.

No richness of auditorium will compensate for its absence.

The qualities required of a first-class scenic artist are of a much higher order than is generally supposed, and many technical difficulties are to be overcome before he can produce any brilliant effect whatsoever. One of the chief difficulties arises from the fact that his colors “dry out” several shades lighter than when they are applied. (Moisten a piece of wall paper in a room and the difference in color will illustrate this difficulty.) The artist is compelled to paint with one color while thinking of another.

Then the effect of a night light is a serious drawback. Everybody must have noticed that some colors are heightened, and others dimmed be being brought under the yellow gaslight. The scene-painter working in the broad glare of day must consider with every mark he makes the effect of this gaslight on his color. A brilliant effect by daylight may under an artificial  light be entirely destroyed, and also the reverse is true; but the scene-painter must not depend upon accident in the matter.

DEAD COLORS.

Stage scenery and drop curtains are never painted in oil colors. As the effect of realism is to be attained, all glare must be avoided. The artist is limited to the use of dead color and must get his brilliant effects by skillful harmonies and combination.

Scenery then, being painted with water colors, the danger from fire is much less than s popularly supposed. The canvas is much less combustible than it was before being painted. Scene painted on both sides are almost fireproof.

The scene-painter seldom has leisure to do work at his best, and has neither time nor opportunity to correct his errors. When a picture is painted in an artist’s studio, before being finally finished and exhibited the artist will see where a change here and there will enhance the value of his painting, and he can perfect it. The scene=painter is (of necessity) denied this advantage, and his first chance to even see his completed work properly set and lighted is when he is one of the audience.

The result of seeing his work as he proceeds with the eyes of the audience is that, as he acquires knowledge, experience, and consequent skill, he gradually gets to using larger brushes, so that he is enabled, with the roughest and apparently most reckless “swashes” of the calcimining brush, to produce effects as soft, tender, and full of appropriate meaning  as is done on smaller surfaces by many landscape painters.

The popular impression is that because scenes are thus painted with broad, bold, rough marks it is scarcely more than a grade or so advanced beyond mechanical work; but really it is this which makes it indisputably art and not mechanical skill.

In scene painting as in any other art, it is only the novice who takes the life out of his work by petty, contemptible smoothing down with small brushes. “Picture are made to be seen, not smelled,” said Reynolds. In decorative painting mechanical finish is the important requisite, but in scene painting this is no more an excellence than is mechanical finish in any other art.

METHODS.

The “modus operandi” of designing, painting, and arranging a set of scenery for the stage is about as follows: A descriptive “scene plot” is sent to the artist, locating the position of such portions of the scene as will be necessary to or in harmony with the “business” of the play and of the dramatic people. This plot also states the piece and period for which the scene is to be painted. The artist is not aided in his composition by the plot, but he is limited by it, the scenery, of course, being an accessory to the play and the acting. The “scene-plots” being in the artist’s hands he proceeds to study out the entire picture as it will appear when set before the audience, making a rough charcoal drawing as he thinks and composes. When his ideas have been condensed into form, he makes a cardboard model to a scale of such pieces as are required, ending his work with the “set pieces,” which were made while his work was progressing on the large canvases. His assistants having “primed” the canvas with a coating of “size” water and glue, and this being dry, he sketches in his work roughly with charcoal in a large porte crayon fastened to a large bamboo fish-pole. Having satisfactorily located the leading lines of his drawing, he corrects and gives it character with ink-marks, using a small brush. (These ink-marks will show though his color just enough so that he will not lose his drawing.” He is now ready to paint. His colors are in water pails and in paint-pots, besides which he has a palet board – a table on wheels – about eight or nine feet long and three feet wide, painted with white oil-color, and the surface polished like glass. Along one side of this palet are boxes about five inches wide for different crude colors as they come from the store. With the colors already mixed and varied by such as he wishes to get from the palet he lays in the general tone and color of his scene. This dries almost as fast as he applies it – if the weather be not too cold or damp – so that he can soon, by the assertion of culminating lights and shadows, give character to his work (before somewhat chaotic), and also make his effects of color more brilliant and his pictures more spirited.

The different portions which make up the scene having been made and painted, they are the night of the performance set on the stage and the gaslights arranged under the direction of the artist, and this arrangement is carried out thereafter by the stage carpenter under the direction of the stage manager. This is the way it is done in such theatres as the Union Square, Wallack’s, and Daly’s in New York, and the Boston Museum and Boston Theatre.

In Chicago, of the painter’s work be well done, the management is praised and artist’s individually overlooked, just as if the keeper of a picture gallery were given credit for the canvases displayed.

PICTURES.

The means employed by the masters in landscape-painting are similar to those of the best scene-painters, and it is only great artists – picture-painters are here spoken of – whose technique bears a resemblance to scene-painting. The nearer a theatrical scene is like a correct and beautiful picture the more artistic and meritorious is the scene. Much of the knowledge that scene-painters lack could be supplied them by studio artists, and studio artists could obtain from scene-painters knowledge of means to improve their own “technique”  that of the best scene-painting being the best possible for their own pictures.

With their ideality in composition and boldness and facility in execution and expression, the scenic artist needs only closer study of the outdoor nature to enable him to fully demonstrate his ability to successfully compete in all respects on his immense surface, with the productions of our best landscape artists on their smaller canvases.

The method used in Continental Europe of this making up a scene with arches,” “drops” and “set pieces” is one important cause of the nobility and beauty of the spectacular scenes which have been imported here from time to time. These effects of grandeur-produced by means the most simple and natural 0 have also been shown at the operatic and dramatic festivals in Cincinnati by American artists.

In an artistic sense “flats” which run in grooved across the stage are an abomination. They require an immense width of stage to run in, and narrow the scenery to small dimensions. For instance, in one of the theatre here the “flats” are twenty feet high and twenty-eight feet wide, while the “drops” are thirty feet high and fifty feet wide, so that the full width of the stage and the height of proscenium opening are only shown when the continental method is used. Even in interior sets the apparent height of rooms would not be too great when painted on a large drop if as much stage space as necessary were taken up with the ceiling in perspective, as is done in Europe. We already use their method of elaborate exteriors. The society drama is responsible for the continuance in theatres of “flats,” and the increased height to “rigging loft” or ceiling in modern theatres makes the further use of “flats” unnecessary. It will certainly be eventually abandoned if the influence of scenic artists prevails.

FOREIGN NOTES.

In Europe each scene-painter studies and practices exclusively certain branches in his art and is not required or expected to do any scenic work outside of the field which he has made his special study. One artist there paints landscapes, foliage and exteriors; another architecture, figures and drapery, and so on. In Paris, certain artists are exclusively engaged in designing “models” of scenes which other artists paint. The perfection which these artists reach is wonderful, and this, with the care and deliberate thought which they are allowed to give to a scenic production. Is, of course, followed by grand results. In America each scene-painter is expected to excel in all these specialties.

In New York here, four, or six artists are engaged on the scenery for one play, and each painter has his own scene, for which he has to receive praise or blame.

In Chicago one scene painter is required to paint all the scenery for a play in less than a week, and when he has longer time the amount of work called for is so much greater proportionately that he must force himself to do it with too great speed and with too little thought to do him justice and his ability anything like justice.

The discerning public of Chicago perceive the scenery is not prepared for them with the same care and elaboration that they were accustomed to see exhibited in theatres a few years ago. They feel that something is amiss, but wat it is they can only surmise.

LOCAL DRAWBACKS.

The obstacles to adequate scenic mounting of plays here are numerous, but none of them are insurmountable. The “run” of pieces is brief, managers of combinations are negligent about sending their scene plots in time for proper preparation, and sharing terms will not always justify the local manager in incurring expense, experience having taught him that there is not sufficient additional patronage to repay him. The attention of the public is entirely engrossed by the dramatic features, so that very little attention is directed to the scenery. The management is not criticized by the press for lack of care in this direction, except spasmodically, and consequently the public, who are influenced by the press, take less notice of scenery here than they do in some other cities, notably the East, and in San Francisco, where the scenic artist upon producing genuine art work finds it recognized by the public and his individuality as fully stablished as is that if a favorite actor, The careful and excellent system of stage management of leading Eastern theatres is not exercised here, all attention being given to the auditorium end to the business policy of the house. Theatres here do not have stage managers, and although the artist – theoretically – has absolute control of every feature that has an influence on his scene, practically the stage-carpenters, property-men and managers of combination set things according to their own ideas. The artist is rarely consulted in the matter. His opinions of the fitness and harmony of things from an artistic standpoint are too esthetic for the practical (?) ideas of those who have the handling of productions.

These scenery for the regular theatres is constantly being changed, and much of the work done is only retained during the run of the play for which it was painted, but in the provincial towns, where no artist is regularly employed, the house being once “stocked,” the same scenery is seen over and over again by the audience for six or eight years, until they grow weary of even artistic work long before it is worn out, and scenery which is cheap becomes absolutely disgusting even to those unlearned in art.

Cheap art is valueless, but is in altogether too great demand in the provincial cities in this country. One man is not as good as another in science, literature or art. A picture by Meisonnier will sell for $50,000. Because John Smith or Peter Jones paints a similar subject and use as much or more paints, it is not considered a logical reason why the works of Smith or Jones are equal to those of Meissonnier. This is self-evident, and a little thought would make it self-evident that the same idea applies as well to scene painters.

SCENE FACTORIES.

It is known to those interested in such matters that an opera-house or a public hall is being erected, and at the proper time applications are made for the contract for furnishing the scenery. Competent scenic artists are too modest and reticent in speaking of their abilities, while competing for “outside” work. The greater their abilities and reputations as artists the less are their chances of success, outside of the regular theatres. They erroneously suppose that an engagement in a first-class theatre is sufficient evidence of their capabilities, but this goes for little with nontheatrical people who construct theatres. With them the cheapest man or the shrewdest businessman has the best chance.

Artists rarely possess business talent, but it would seem that a business man engaging one would understand that it is art ability he should employ to do art work.

The agent of a scene-factory makes his bid and his figures are so much lower than those of the capable artist that he usually secures the contract, The competing artists have based their bids in their intentions of producing genuine art work, while the successful bidder has no such idea.

The proprietors of the “factory” known nothing about art and care less. They know nothing about the requirements of a theatre, as they have never had any experience in one. They, however, succeed in obtaining the contract, and the agent having taken the various measurements, goes back to the factory, where the work is all done, to have the stuff rushed out as fast as possible.

Yet these establishments employ some really capable artists, who hate their work and despise themselves for being compelled to do it. The methods are such as effectually to crush out all their art feelings, and they themselves have nicknamed the place in which they work, “the slaughterhouse.” All these methods are ruinous to a noble art.

Scenery should always be painted in the theatre in which it is used. The conditions vary so much in different houses than an intelligent knowledge of them should be ever present in the mind of the artist who is engaged upon the scenery for each. The proprietor should select an artist who is known to be competent by theatre men, one whom they themselves would employ. He should be paid enough money to warrant him cheerfully giving all the time and thought necessary to produce the best work in his power, and after having made his contract he will forget all other interests except his purely artistic ones. This will advance him as an artist. He has a reputation to gain or lose; his pride is stimulated to the advantage of his employer, and the results are sure to be bountiful in satisfaction to both parties, and consequently to the advantage of the community.

These factories are not recognized in any way by Chicago managers, but so successful have they been in driving legitimate scenic artists from the provincial field that their  owners openly boast that in a few years they will be supplying all the scenic requirements to our city theatres. How do the play-going public like the prospect?

The solution of the question, “How can scenery be produced as elegantly here as possible with the means available?” sums itself up simply in the employ  of more artists, absolute authority of those artists in their own domain, with the burden of responsibility attached, greater expenditure of money by the managers for material to paint on, and careful, critical, and discriminating notice in detail by the public press.

PROGRESS OF CULTURE.

The advance of ideas among scene-painters in this country has kept pace with the general advance in art. What would have been regarded as “high art” a generation ago would hardly be tolerated now. Scene-painting is now studied, thought of, and handled as an art. All good artists have their distinct characteristics, each painting according to his individual nature and feeling.

The advance of steel-engraving in America far beyond that reached in Europe was the result of the demand for it, caused by the multiplicity of the “wildcat” banks and stock enterprises. The absorbing interest of the whole people in pictorial reproductions of incidents of the War was probably the main cause of the advance in wood-engraving, which has also reached its highest production here. Theatrical posters and lithographs are now works of art, as are also the labels upon the wares of merchants. Demands upon art ability have always been fully supplied by the talent of Americans. Business houses, banks, and public buildings are now expensively and tastefully decorated. The general art education has advanced and is still advancing with strides. Auditoriums of theatres are elegantly and artistically decorated. One step remains – the only one. The public will demand, recognize, and appreciate the highest art excellence behind the prosceniums of the theatres. Managers and artists must then do their best, and the result will be increased attraction of the theatres and an influence from them which will elevate the general tone.

-Henry C. Tryon”

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 1088 – “Bright Beams, Artistic Flashes from the Pen of H. C. Tryon,” 1883

Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

Henry C. Tryon was a friend and colleague of Thomas G. Moses. During the early 1880s Tryon was working in the western states as a scenic artist for the Tabor Grand Opera House in Denver, Colorado, and the Salt Lake Theatre in Salt Lake City, Utah. In 1884, Tryon returned to Chicago for a year, working alongside Moses at Sosman & Landis Studio on Clinton Street. The two would even take a sketching trip to West Virginia in 1885.

There are many reasons why Tryon was considered an asset to any studio. As a skilled scenic artist, he was well-versed in painting Masonic scenery, having delivered two collections to the Indianapolis Scottish Rite from the onset of their staged degree work. He entered the Masonic scenery scene at a time when scenic studios were starting to identify this new and lucrative client. He also came with connections to theatre managers and artists across the country. Well-known scenic artists on staff helped studios secure contracts.

However, Tryon was considered a fine artist, as well as a trade artist. This would prove to be a challenge for any employer, as profit margins were not always first and foremost in an artist’s mind when creating a masterpiece. As Tryon wrote in 1883, “The true artist will approach nature with awe, reverence and fear. It is audacious of him to attempt to represent with pigments his feeble thoughts.” This would have been difficult to do when painting an exterior scene in a shop with an imposing deadline.

Tryon published his thoughts about art in a “Deseret News” article in 1883 (Salt Lake City, Utah, 9 Feb 1883, page 3). It provides a little insight into this interesting character whom Moses described as “clever, but awfully eccentric.”

Here is Tryon’s 1883 article in its entirety:

“Bright Beams

Artistic Flashes From the Pen of H. C. Tryon

Some time since we published a few flashes from the artistic mind of Mr. H. C. Tryon, scenic artist of the Salt Lake Theatre. We understand that they many of our readers perused them with pleasure. We present another collection of intellectual gems form the same source:

“The higher order of true genius usually manifests itself in the child. It is developed in the man. “Art is long and time is fleeting.” The world’s greatest artists are old men, and with all their power of genius it has required the study and experience of a long lifetime to develop the possibilities. As a rule the artist who early develops his genius never reaches a very exalted position. His precocity promises great results in the future, but they are seldom realized. If we build a pyramid of sand, the height we can reach is proportionate to the width of the base. If that be narrow the pyramid, is soon erected, but it cannot reach a great height. It is so with the human mind. If it is not wide, deep and comprehensive, it cannot rise to great heights or accomplish really great things. What we understand by the title a “smart man” is never a great one.

The true artist will approach nature with awe, reverence and fear. It is audacious of him to attempt to represent with pigments his feeble thoughts. But he cannot help but to symbolize the love and awe which nature impresses on every sensitive soul. He cannot have out door nature in his dwelling, so its counterfeit must suffice him there, but he will forget, when he approaches her, all ideas of egotism and proceed to his task with veneration. “Take the shoes from off thy feet, for the ground whereon thou standest is holy ground.” The simplest object in nature is a thousand times more beautiful than he van paint it. The most common weed he cannot imitate. The stagnant water by the roadside is palpitating with the most exquisite hues.  The pure ethereal blue and the clear brilliant amber he can merely suggest with his crude pigments. But when nature pours its flood of brilliant sunshine over the face of all the landscape, lighting up with its Master Artist’s touch each point of sublimity and beauty, arising out from the delicious mystery of its veils of transparency, glittering gems in the rivulets sparkling among the streaming silver; the grand infinitude of interest bewildering even in its detail, massed and thrown together with such power, such delicate art. Think of the beauty of a leaf of a twig, of a cloud, of any object which is purely nature’s. Think of all this design, this loveliness, multiplied into infinity, and arranged with nature’s matchless art, and then think of man in his puny efforts to get this on canvas.

How poor and pitiful must be the work on the grandest mind in competition! How small a thing an artist seems to himself when he throws aside his vanity and tries to catch some inspiration from nature’s art! I think if we could at all times have nature’s grandest work before us, that no true artist would dare copy her. Whoever saw a real artist that was not ashamed to have you look over his shoulder while sketching outdoor nature? He knows he is guilty of an impertinence, yet cannot help it. He must try. He must study her, he must adore her, and he must realize the pain and humiliation of feeling, how poor are the powers of the human mind. But when he gets that same sketch in his studio, how vain he is, where he has not nature present to show him his feebleness.

The artist should never let sentiment run away with him. He should consider every poetic and sentimental thought to be precious to him and to the world, and use it legitimately on his canvas, never forgetting that this is a practical world, and that tangible and practical means are the only ones that can disseminate sublime and beautiful thought. Is not Shakespeare an example of proof? He put his grand poetic thought into his plays. He did not waste it among the low associates whom he seemed to prefer as companions. I cannot help thinking that if artists would be more practical in their ordinary lives, and more poetic on canvas their influence (being better directed) would be far greater.

Do not sacrifice a grand object for a petty one. It is of greater importance that the graceful, wide spreading undulating infinitude of glittering, twinkling foliage of that grand old elms, be fitly expressed, than that bird’s nest be given conspicuous and undue prominence among the boughs. You did not see it until it was pointed out to you. Nature did not intend that you should see it, still less that you should sacrifice that tree for it. The bird knows where it is; that is enough. Nature intended that you should see the tree. When you paint a tree, paint a tree and paint the nest some other time; but then don’t want the tree. Don’t falsify nature by attempting, with your petty vanity, to improve upon her work. You will fail, because nature as an artist is pre-eminently superior to you.”

To be continued…

Travels of A Scenic Artist and Scholar: Henry E. Burckey and Henry C. Tryon, Scenic Artists at the Tabor Grand Opera House

Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

Back of a jungle wing noting stage carpenter and scenic artist, dated October 6, 1890.

 “W. J. Moon carpenter and H. E. Burpey [sic.] scenic artist, October 6, 1890” is penciled on the back of a jungle wing at the Tabor Opera House in Leadville, Colorado. William J. Moon was a local resident and Henry E. Burkey was a scenic artist who began his career in Chicago. By 1884, “Harry Miner’s Dramatic Directory” listed “Burckey, Tabor Opera, Denver” as the scenic artist for the Tabor Opera House in Leadville; he was working for both venues. Burckey was still working for Tabor five years later. After completing the jungle wings for the Tabor Opera House in Leadville, the “Herald Democrat” reported his departure for Denver on October 16, 1890, noting “Mr. H. E. Burcky left last evening for Denver.” 

Yesterday I wrote about stage carpenter and stage manager W. J. Moon. Today I explore the life and career of  Henry E. Burckey (1852-1908). Burckey was been a bit tricky to track down, as the spelling of his name greatly varies in newspaper accounts and historical records. Variations included Burckey, Burkey, Bercky, Berkey, and Burcky; I am going with Burckey.

Born in 1852, Henry E. Burckey was the son of German immigrant Frederick Burckey (1813-1902). The 1850 US Federal Census lists that Frederick Burckey was born in “Frankfurt-Main” and emigrated from Germany in 1830. He eventually settled with family in Chicago area where he resided until his passing on October 21, 1902. Frederick was employed as a confectioner until he opened a restaurant with Augustus Berlin. He later worked as a clerk.

The 1870 census listed that Burckey was living with his three sons William, Henry and Charles, ages 16, 13 and 7.  Between 1870 and 1875, Henry entered the theatre industry and became a scenic artist.  He entered the scene about the same time that Thomas G. Moses did, about 1873-1874. By 1875 Henry was listed as “scenic artist” in the “Chicago Directory” living at 83 S. Halsted. Interestingly, Henry’s younger brother Charles followed him into the painting business and was listed as a “painter” in the 1880 Census. Burckey remained in the directory for the next decade, despite working for extended periods of time in other regions. At this time Chicago was a major theatrical hub with equal access to almost all of the country; it was the place to be during the second half of the nineteenth century. Ever-expanding railways provided easy routes for the marketing and shipping of both goods and services. A vast transportation network allowed remote communities access to a variety of services when constructing a performance venue that included scenic art. Many scenic artists, such as Burckey and Moses, made the Windy City their home and constantly traveled to new venues. Even when working for a studio, their lives remained that of itinerant artists.

By 1880, Henry Burckey, painted an old mill scene for the “Frog Opera.” The production toured New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore. By the spring the production played at Chicago’s Central Music Hall (Chicago Tribune, 16 May 1880 page 11). As Burckey made a name for himself, he began to partner with other well-known and respected scenic artists, such as Henry C. Tryon.

In 1880, Tryon was working as a scenic artist at McVicker’s Theatre, where he came in close contact with Thomas G. Moses, as well as Joseph Sosman, of Sosman & Landis. Moses joined Sosman & Landis in 1880 as their first employee, Tryon would follow four years later. There was an abundance of work for many, and the fortunate few secured permanent positions in popular theaters and opera houses.

By 1881, “H. E. Burcky” was listed as scenic artist at Hooley’s Theatre in Chicago. At this same time Burckey partnered with Tryon to provided scenery for Cincinnati’s Opera Festival. They worked alongside some other very respected gentlemen, including Fox, Magnani, Humphreys, Hughes, and Rettig & Waugh. An article in the “Cincinnati Enquirer,” reported, “Messrs. H. E. Burcky and Henry Tynor [sic.], the young and talented artists who came here from Chicago to assist painting the scenery, have been doing excellent work. They are bright, intelligent and rapid worker and but for their assistance it would have been difficult to have the scenery ready by Monday next. Mr. Burcky is scenic artist at Hooley’s Theater in Chicago, and Mr. Tryon at McVickers. They express themselves as amazed at the extent and magnitude of the affair” (“Cincinnati Enquirer,” 15 Feb 1881, page 4).” Burckey and Tryon were applauded for one “Magic Flute” setting, heralded as a “Beautifully painted scene.” The “Cincinnati Daily Enquirer” article described the painting; “…massive rocks in the foreground appear so real as almost to deceive the eye.  Rich masses of dark foliage relieve their barrenness while their golden-yellow color is projected boldly from the deep blue sky.  Two transformation tableaux occur in this scene, the first the ordeal, by fire, remarkable for its brilliancy and warmth of color; the second, the ordeal by water, for its cool and delicious coloring, complete contraries delightfully portrayed” (23 February 1881, page 4).

The opera festival was not only a game changer for each artist, but an incentive to travel westward. By the fall of 1882, Tryon had left Chicago and was working in Denver, Colorado, for Horace Tabor. Even when Tabor traveled to Salt Lake City for work, newspapers listed the artist as “Mr. Henry C. Tryon, of the Tabor Grand Opera House” (“Ogden Standard,” 30 Sept, 1882, page 3).  Two years later, Burckey became known as “H. E. Burckey, the artist of the Tabor Grand” (“Memphis Daily Appeal,” 19 Nov. 1884, page 2). It remains unclear if they worked together on scenery at the Tabor Grand between 1882 and 1884.

An example of Henry E. Burckey’s scenic art.
An example of Henry E. Burckey’s scenic art.
An example of Henry E. Burckey’s scenic art.
An example of Henry E. Burckey’s scenic art.
An example of Henry E. Burckey’s scenic art.
Jungle wings by Henry E. Burckey stacked against the upstage wall at the Tabor Opera House in Leadville, Colorado.
An example of Henry E. Burckey’s scenic art.
An example of Henry E. Burckey’s scenic art.
An example of Henry E. Burckey’s scenic art.
An example of Henry E. Burckey’s scenic art.
An example of Henry E. Burckey’s scenic art.

Regardless, Burckey became the sole scenic artist at the Tabor opera house by 1884, the same years that Tryon returned to Chicago to work for Sosman & Landis. In 1884, Moses wrote, “Henry C. Tryon came to the studio to work.  He enthused Young and I more than anyone ever had.  He was a pupil of Thos. Moran and James and William Hart and was very clever, but awfully eccentric.” Tryon also joined Moses and John H. Young on a sketching trip to West Virginia in 1885. I will expand Tryon’s story in the next few weeks.

Between 1880 and 1884, Tryon submitted a series of articles about the scenic art profession in papers across the country. On Dec. 19, 1880, the “Chicago Tribune” published “ Scene Painting: Some hints to the Public Regarding a Special Department of the Painters’ Art Not Well Understood” by Henry C. Tryon (page 19). Here is the link to the article as I included it today as part of my “Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar” storyline (part 1087): https://drypigment.net2020/10/11/tales-from-a-scenic-artist-and-scholar-part-1087-henry-c-tryon-scene-painting-some-hints-to-the-public-regarding-a-special-department-of-the-painters-art-not-well-understood/

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 1087 – Henry C. Tryon, “Scene-Painting, Some hints to the Public Regarding a Special Department of the Painters’ Art Not Well Understood,” 1880

Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

Yesterday I resumed “Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar” after a short break. Although I returned to the year 1921, an 1884 article prompted me to revisit a friend and colleague of Thomas G. Moses – Henry C. Tryon. This is just one example of the many rabbit holes I get sucked into while doing research. But I have no deadline and can enjoy these sidetracks.

Moses first worked with Tryon at Sosman & Landis in 1884, writing “Henry C. Tryon came to the studio to work.  He enthused Young and I more than anyone ever had.  He was a pupil of Thos. Moran and James and William Hart and was very clever, but awfully eccentric.” In 1884, Tryon left two scenic art positions; one as scenic artist at the Tabor Grand Opera House in Denver, Colorado, and the other as scenic artist for the Salt Lake Theatre in Utah. He returned to Chicago, joining the Sosman & Landis staff for a year.

Now I am in the midst of writing historical analyses, conditions reports, replacement appraisals and collections care programs for the historic scenery collections at the Tabor Opera House in Leadville, Colorado. Some of the scenery is signed and dated, including jungle wings painted by Henry E. Burckey in 1890. Burckey and Tryon partnered in the early 1880s and then both worked at the Tabor Grand in Denver.  Burckey was still working at both the Tabor Opera House in Leadville and the Tabor Grand Opera House in Denver in 1890. You can find more information about Burckey at www.drypigment.net (keyword search “Tabor Opera House” or “Burckey”).

So, I am killing two birds with one stone this week, but there are lots of moving parts. While researching Burckey and Tryon for the Tabor project, I came across a series of article written by Tryon in the 1880s. He describes the scene painting profession, and I am compelled to share them as part of the “Tales of a Scenic Artist and Scholar” storyline.

Visual reference for article: dry forms of pigment and hide glue used by nineteenth-century scenic artists.

Here is the first one published in the “Chicago Tribune” on December 19, 1880:

SCENE PAINTING.

Some hints to the Public Regarding a Special Department of the Painters’ Art Not Well Understood.

Chicago, Dec.8.-

Theatrical scenery is painted in “distemper,” dry color being mixed with a vehicle consisting of glue and water, much the same as is used with whiting for calcimining rooms. Stage scenery and drop-curtains are never painted in oil colors. While the color is less brilliant than when mixed with oils (the artist being compelled to get his brilliancy by skillful arrangement of dull color), the glare of varnish and oil is avoided which would destroy the realism of the scene. Scenery, then, being painted in watercolors, the danger from fire is much less than popularly supposed; in fact, when it does take fire it burns very slowly for a long time. The canvas is much less combustible than before being painted. Scenes painted on both sides are almost fireproof.

The qualities required of a first-class scenic-artist are of a much higher order than is generally supposed, and the technical difficulties to be overcome to produce any brilliant effect whatever for the stage are so numerous that, with a thorough knowledge of drawing, color, and composition, and the clearest possible idea on the part of the artist of what he desires to do, he will fail utterly, without great practice, to convey to the audience the effect that he may have already, in his brain, arranged in the clearest and most tangible shape. The artist in oil colors can produce any effect which his mind conceives. The scenic-artist must first overcome many very difficult obstacles. One of the chief difficulties arises from the fact that the colors dry out several shades lighter that they are when applied. (Throw a little water on the floor and the difference in color will illustrate this difficulty). The artist is compelled to paint with one color while thinking of another. He must think with every brush mark how the colors will “dry put.” The difficulty in doing this can be imagined when it is considered that all exterior scenes are painted from a pallet making a constant change of thousands of different tints. Then the effect of a night light is a serious drawback. Whoever has observed the changes in the colors of fabrics from the light of day to the artificial light of gas must have noticed how some colors are heightened and others dimmed by being brought under the yellow gaslight.

The scene-painter working in the broad glare of day must consider with every brush mark the effect of this gaslight on his color. A brilliant effect by daylight may, under an artificial light, be entirely destroyed, and also the reverse holds true; but must not be accident with the scenic-artist.

Do the audience in the theatre ever realize the immense difficulty of painting a scene while within three or at most four feet from the canvas, to produce the proper effect at a distance of from fifty to 150 feet, the artist being compelled to see his work in his mind’s eye this distance, when his first opportunity to dee his entire work is after it has been finished and on stage? The result of constant practice in this direction is, that, as he acquires knowledge, and consequently power and decision, he gradually choses larger brushes, until the skillful artist is enabled with the roughest and apparently most hideous “swashes” of the calcimining brush to produce effect as soft, tender, and full of appropriate  meaning as is done by the most labored, painstaking care on smaller surfaces by many landscape painters. In scene-painting, as in all other art, it is only the novice who takes the life out of his work by petty, contemptible smoothing down with small brushes. “Pictures are made to be seen, not smelled,” said Reynolds. In decorative painting mechanical finish is the important requisite, but in scene-painting it is no more an excellence than is mechanical finish in any other art.

The popular impression is that because scenes are thus painted with broad, bold, rough marks it is scarcely more than a grade or so advanced beyond mere decorative painting; but think for a moment of the knowledge of drawing, perspective, composition, and color required to enable the artist to produce on these large surfaces a scene which to the audience must be realism, when he can only see at any time a limited portion (say ten feet square) of his work – on a “drop” say thirty feet by fifty – while working within three feet of his canvas, and to be seen across a large theatre, The fact is, that a scenic artist is able to paint a small picture with much greater ease and readiness that he can with his theatrical work, because he has the knowledge to paint the small subject without very great obstacles attending his work on the large canvas.

Another thing to be considered in this connection: The scenic-artist does not always – in fact, seldom- have the leisure to do work at his best. He has neither the time nor opportunity to correct his work. When a picture is finished in an artist’s studio the artist sees where a change here and there will enhance the value of his work, and can perfect it. The scene-painter must call his work “a go” and start on the next scene. “We press your hat while you wait,” is the sentiment. The manager comes to the artist, and says we want a street – Paris, 1600 – to-night. He must have it then, though the heavens fall. “Time, tide, and managers wait for no man.” Many times in the experiences of all scenic-painters are they obliged to work thirty-six hours at a stretch,, their meals brought to them, and stopping for nothing else, each of those hours working against time, with no sentiment other than to get through, get out of the theatre and to the rest that exhausted nature loudly demands. Still he must be criticized on this very work. The audience doesn’t know anything about his having worked all day, and all night, and all day.

The great scenic-artists of the world are great artists, and so recognized in the world of art. Poor dead Minard Lewis was the very Prince of scenic artists, and his genius was the wonder and admiration of every artist of every department of art in New York. Yet the theatre-going public who for thirty or forty years had admired and applauded his beautiful work did not know or care to know his name.

The position of scenic-artist in a first-class theatre is one of great responsibility, which is properly recognized “behind the curtain line,” but the general public has no interest in the personality of the scenic artist, supposing in a vague sort of way that the manager paints the scenes. It is no unusual thing for scenery to be lavishly commended by the press and public, the manager receiving the press and praise for his “enterprise, taste and liberality,” while the artist whose brain and hand has created it all is never mentioned or even thought of. Scene-painters, like all other artists, have their ambitions, and are grateful for proper and honest appreciation. Much injustice has been done to them (perhaps through thoughtlessness) by the public press and this is strongly felt by every scenic-artist. If the newspaper dramatic critics would take the same interest in the scene-painters themselves that they do with other individual members of the theatrical business and that they do with other artists, and would find out under what adverse circumstances they generally labor, their sense of justice would cause them to be more discrimination in their reports. If a theatre during an extended period is uniformly negligent in the matter of scenic accessories, it would be but simple justice for the public critics to inquire whether it is due to the incompetency of the scenic-artist or to the economy of the manager. The truth in this matter can always be easily discovered, and when blame is laid, as it frequently is, it should not be done in loose and indiscriminate manner which injures most the artist who is frequently not to blame. If the dramatic critics would visit and become acquainted with the scenic-artists they would be welcomed, and would perhaps gain in the interest of dramatic art and progress some ideas from that unknown and unthought of portion of the theatre 9the paint gallery) that would be a revelation to them. The sooner the press and public recognize the scene-painters as artists and deal with them individually as with other artists – commending or condemn them on their own merits, – the better it will be for the elevation of scenic art.

            -Henry C. Tryon

To be continued…

“American Scenic Art: The Immigrant Contribution” by Wendy Rae Waszut-Barrett published in DIE VIERTE WAND #010

DIE VIERTE WAND #010 is now available. Many thanks to the editor Stefan Gräbener at Theatre Initiative Berlin (https://www.facebook.com/InitiativeTheaterMuseum) for all of his hard work to make this publication possible!

My article this year is “American Scenic Art: The Immigrant Contribution” (English, pages 88-97, and German, pages 172-177).  Scenic art in the United States began as a large melting pot of languages, traditions and techniques, with two dominant approaches emerging between 1850 and 1900.  For more, read the digital version online at https://archive.org/details/itheam_d4w-010_202009/mode/2up or https://issuu.com/itheam/docs/itheam_d4w-010 or download it as PDF http://www.initiative-theatermuseum.de/index.php/news-reader/items/die-vierte-wand-010-bilingual.html

Die Viert Wand #010

The printed issue is also available for a nominal charge of €10 (plus €3 postage + packaging within Germany). Please consider ordering a copy, as all funds support the production of this wonderful publication http://www.initiative-theatermuseum.de/index.php/news-reader/items/die-vierte-wand-010-bilingual.html?fbclid=IwAR0E3SEAXgXpMOBcuIGaimdHJIF-4EoK7K_zVVDyVHfDtZzk2i0RNNJ95t4

Dr. Stefan Gräbener at Stage|Set|Scenery in 2019