Scenic Art Articles – Page 5

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 172 – Thomas G. Moses’ Protégé, John H. Young

While researching scenic artists who worked with Thomas G. Moses, John H. Young kept reappearing in many documents. One of the best articles that I came across was a loose piece of paper from the John R. Rothgeb Papers at the Harry Ransom Center, University of Texas, Austin. It was a photocopied page of an article without any citation titled, “How Scene Painting is Done in a Big Studio, John H Young Goes About His Work in Systematic Fashion and Gives Public an Idea of How His Difficult Work is Performed.” There was no date or source to credit to this article. I have searched in vain, trying to track it down.

“How Scene Painting is Done in a Big Studio” Article in John R. Rothgeb Papers, Harry Ransom Center, University of Texas, Austin. No date. The information provided by John H. Young, scenic artist is wonderful. Illustration is one of his sketches from “The Highwayman.”

“How Scene Painting is Done in a Big Studio” Article in John R. Rothgeb Papers, Harry Ransom Center, University of Texas, Austin. No date. This is the only image that I have seen of John H. Young!

“John H. Young at Work” illustration in “How Scene Painting is Done in a Big Studio” John R. Rothgeb Papers, Harry Ransom Center, University of Texas, Austin. No date.

However, this is not a document that should be lost. It signifies a well-known designer and artist who got his start with Thomas G. Moses. Here is the article in its entirely as it is a treasure trove of information:

“No scenic artist in this country enjoys a higher reputation than John H. Young of the Broadway Theatre. Hardly a play of any moment which has been produced in the metropolis has been written without evidences of his careful and skillful touch, and for the road attractions they bristle with the touches of his brush.

But Mr. Young’s position in his special line has not been reached without long and conscientious work dating back nearly a score of years. Born in the early 60s, Mr. Young soon gave signs of his artistic bent by turning his back upon the allurements of Michigan farming, and he was barely out of his teens before he was turning out pictures, which, though the evinced talent, were lacking in that technique which can only come from study and practice. About this time Mr. Young had the good fortune to come in contact with Thomas Moses, the veteran scenic artist of the West, and the latter was quick to see signs of talent in his young protégé.”

For several years Mr. Young worked in concert with his instructor and the scenes that he painted caused so wide comment, that in time he came to New York, where he could find a better field for his abilities. New York managers were quick to appreciate his efforts and thus came about that the subject of this sketch was installed as chief artist at the Broadway, which position he has held for more than seven years.

The average manager, when he has selected a play, has but seldom anything more than the vaguest idea of what he wants in the way of scenery to enhance it. It is just here that Mr. Young steps in a rescues the befuddled manager from the slough of theatrical despondence. He gets the main incidents of the author’s story and suggests the possibilities of scenic illustration. Oftentimes the manager who is to produce the play has ideas of the most impractical nature and Mr. Young shows him a hasty sketch of the utter folly of attempting to reproduce them. Provided Mr. Young and the manager come to an agreement, the decided-upon scenes are first done in watercolors, and these, when finished are subjected to another inspection by both artist and manager. Changes are suggested here and there, and sometimes even, the whole work is gone over, when it is found advisable. When the preliminary sketch is satisfactory, the next step is to transform into a miniature set scene, which duplicates down to the most trifling detail, the contemplates larger on for the actual performance. For this performance Mr. Young has in his studio, a small stage fitted with all the appurtenances which belong to the most complex of the regular stages; there are trap doors, wings, fly-galleries, a drop curtain, electric light, and a maze of small cords and fixtures for managing the whole.

If it be a mill scene, for instance, that is being arranged, the duplicate in miniature must have the revolving wheel, the running water, the sluice-box, and nothing whatever must be lacking. Very often when all is completed and in place on this trial stage, something of an impractical nature may be discovered and remedied, before the expense of the larger model is incurred. Theoretically many wonderful stage scenes may be all right, but the little trial stage prevents all failures and fiascos so far as the mere scenery is concerned. Of course, after this point is reached – the test on the trial stage – nothing remains but the putting of the scenes into the proper shape for the public. Time is the principal factor in this, and the more scenes and the more full of mechanical contrivance they are the longer it takes, Mr. Young has been most fortunate in overcoming the difficulties which put the mere spectacular plays beyond the abilities of many scenic artists. In “Under the Poplar Star,” for nicety of construction and naturalness of action, Mr. Young’s iceberg scene has seldom been equaled, and in all of his work there is the same evidence of thorough art, combined with a broad grasp of mechanical detail.

To the layman, scenic painting is somewhat of a mystery, and if he gives any thought to it at all it is doubtful if he realizes the high order of artistic ability which one must possess in order to faithfully deploy upon mammoth stage canvases the scenes which reflect the spirit of the play. Not only has one got to be an artist to begin with, but he must be a perfect jack-at-all trades in order to transfer his preliminary small sketch to a back drop measuring sometimes more than 100×40 feet; in the main, the small pattern picture is ruled off into squares, each of which is consecutively numbered. Similar squares, but on a much larger scale are then drawn upon the great canvas and the sketch is then “blocked in” square for square and number by number. As long as four months is needed on some of the more pretentious scenes, though about six weeks is the average for an ordinary scene. To enumerate the plays for which Mr. Young has painted scenes is no easy task, but among them may be mentioned, “The Highwayman,”

“The Highwayman by John H. Young” illustration in “How Scene Painting is Done in a Big Studio” John R. Rothgeb Papers, Harry Ransom Center, University of Texas, Austin. No date.

“On the Bowery,” “Power of the Press,” “In Old Kentucky,” “Cumberland ’61,” “The Player,” “Pousee Café,” “Woman in Black,” “Under the City Lamps,” “Le Voyage de Susette,” “The Diamond Breaker,” “Monongahela,” “Trip to the Moon,” “Naval Cadet,” “Roaring Dick,” “La Falotte,” “Fallen Among Thieves,” “Polar Star,” “For the Crown,” “Lion Tamer,” “Across the Potomac,” “Power of Gold,” “Wang,” “Hamlet,” “Sidewalks of New York,” In addition, Mr. Young has painted many of the best drop curtains in the country, and as a water color artist he stands in the foremost rank. Nearly every exhibition of note is contributed to by him, and his work command a high price among discriminating purchasers.”

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 131 – The Scene Painters’ Show

Thomas G. Moses began working for Sosman & Landis in 1880. During his first decade at the studio, Moses continued to drift away and migrate toward other people, projects and partnerships. He was the proverbial “soaring star” and Sosman & Landis were could not entice him enough to solely work in their studio. By 1885, Moses formed a partnership with Walter Burridge and Mr. Louderback.

*Advertisement clipping from John R. Rothgeb Paper at the Harry Ransom Center, University of Texas – Austin. Photograph by Wendy Waszut-Barrett, 2016.*

All three had participated in the October 12, 1885, Scene Painter’s Show in Chicago.

There was an article written by John Moran for the “Art Union, a Monthly Magazine of Art” (Vol. 2, No. 4, 1885, p. 85) about the Scene Painters’ Show. The magazine noted that “The American Art Union, a society of American Artists, including representations of all the different schools of art, has been organized ‘for the general advancement of the Fine Arts, and for promoting and facilitating a greater knowledge and love thereof on the part of the public.” The Board of Control for 1884-1885 included D. Hentington (Pres), T. W. Wood (Vice President), E. Wood Perry, Jr. (Secy.), Frederick Dielman (Treasurer), W. H. Beard, Albert Bierstadt, Harry Chase, Harry Farrer, Eastman Johnson, Jervis McEntee, T. Moran, and Walter Shirlaw. This was a BIG deal!

*Cover of “The Art Union” from October 1885 that included the Scene Painters’ Show review. Image from online source.*

“The Scene Painters’ Show. Chicago, October 12^th, 1885

The first Exhibition of Water Colors by American Scenic Artists has been open free to the public for some weeks past, in this city, and the eighty-four examples hung on the walls of Messrs. Louderback & Co.’s galleries include some praiseworthy and valuable works. Such a collection proves that the broad pictorial treatment requisite for adequate stage effect does not incapacitate a man for the finer and more delicate manipulation essential to good aquarelles, and shows, moreover, a healthy progressive spirit among scenic artists. The name of Matt. Morgan has long been gratefully familiar to us, and he is represented by diverse and facile contributions. “Alone in the Forest Shade” (1), shows lumbermen with their load descending a wild ravine flanked on either side by towering pines. The feeling of solitude and gloom is forcibly conveyed and the tree forms and foliage broadly yet carefully handled. “The Lost Comrade” (27), and “Waiting for Death” (14), are strong and weird aspects of prairies life, the former representing a horseman, lasso in hand, who has come upon the skeletons of a horse and rider among the pampas grass, and the latter a bull calf standing over the moribund body of a cow, striving with futile bellow to keep advancing wolves at bay. A nude figure, “The New Slave” (71), standing expectantly against a rich low-toned drapery, is exquisite in drawing and color and charmingly beautiful in suggestion. Mr. Walter Burridge runs the gamut of landscape figure and decoration and is good in all! His “Spring” (9), “Autumn Leaves” (39), and “Old Mill” (49), are deftly washed-in landscapes, true to nature and aerial in quality, while “My Assistant” (16), a study of behind the scenes life, and a “Ninety Minute Sketch” (83), of his friend Mr. Ernest Albert, show character and a nice sense of texture. Mr. Ernest Albert’s “Winter Twilight” (12), is full of sentiment of the season and excellent in composition, and his “October Morning” (31), “moonrise” (40), “Sunset” (79), and “Autumn” (80), are severally individual as transcripts and prove his mastery over the vehicle he uses. “A Decorative Flower Piece” (84), by the same artist, groups of roses, pansies and forget-me-nots in a most artistic and harmonious manner. “Nobody’s Claim, Col.” (65) and “Near Racine, Wis.” (76) By Mr. Thomas G. Moses, are among his best examples and are freely treated and with fidelity to locale character and sky effects. Mr. Albert Operti gives us some reminiscences of his Lapland tour in 1884, which are realistic and worthy, and Mr. J. Hendricks Young, “A Busy Day on Chicago River” (38), which together with the local bits by Mr. Moses, Mr. C. E. Petford and Mr. Burridge, is of historical value as it is skillfully painted. “Rats, you Terrier” (59), by the same hand, is a “snappy” and bright treatment of a dog’s head and fully catches the spirit of the English. Mr. Henry C. Tryon’s “Source of the Au Sable” (34), powerfully conveys a sense of somberness and grandeur, and though ample in detail loses nothing of the vastness and breadth which such a landscape motion calls for. Other works deserving of notice are Messrs. George Dayton, Sr., George Dayton, Jr., the late L. Malmsha, C. Boettger, Chas. Ritter, H. Buhler and John Howell Wilson, whose “Country Road” (76” is especially fresh, verdurous and bright. It is to be hoped that this is only the forerunner of many like exhibitions and it marks a decided growth in the national art spirit.

This wasn’t just a group of artists linked by a common style or profession – this was statement made by a closely-knit community of passionate individuals. They shared their work, their lives and their passion for painting.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 130 – Art for Art’s Sake, L’art pour l’art

The nineteenth century phrase “art for art’s sake” made me think of scenic artists interpreting fine art compositions for the stage. Although “l’art pour l’art” first emerged in French literary circles, the phrase rapidly spread to other countries and became a rallying cry for many artists. There was the perceived threat that the creation of art would become solely subject to utilitarianism. Taking an existing fine art work and retrofitting it for the stage, especially if mass-produced in a scenic studio, is pretty utilitarian. I started to ponder the eventual perception of painting scenery as a “lesser art.” Could this have contributed to the belief that art hung in a theatre was far less significant that that hung on a gallery wall? That backdrops were “just backings?”

Then I thought back to the late-nineteenth century artists who produced scenery for both the theatrical stage and the fine art galleries. Their work was praised for both venues. They remained a respected part of the fine art world. I immediately thought of the the 1885 Scene Painters’ Show in Chicago and how the work of scenic artists were received by their peers. I also kept returning to the saying, “imitation is the greatest form of flattery.” This was the case for many art movements as a group of artists emulated a particular style, Scenic artists were also imitating the popular aesthetic, whether it be the Düsseldorf school or some other artistic movement.

The first historical example that I ever encountered of a scenic artist copying a fine art work in its entirety for a drop curtain was at the University of Minnesota Performing Arts archives. I stumbled across a paint-spattered print by Thomas Moran, copyright 1906. On the back of the print was written, “”Reverse and use right half of picture only. No figures. For West.”

“Sunrise in Old Mexico” by Thomas Moran, 1906 print. In supplemental box 1 of the Twin City Scenic Company Collection (PA43), University of Minnesota Performing Arts Archives.

John Z. Wood drop curtain base on “Sunrise in Old Mexico” by Thomas Moran, 1906 print. Inbox 2 of the Twin City Scenic Company Collection (PA43), University of Minnesota Performing Arts Archives.

It matched the drop curtain in the Twin City Scenic Company collection by John Z. Wood. I was so excited to identify the match. This occurred while I was assigning metadata for the scenery collection database and I immediately noted the pairing in the description about each piece. The design for the painted drop curtain was in box 2 and the print had been tucked away in supplemental box 1. The artist for the drop curtain was John Z. Wood, an unknown at the time. I wondered what his scenic art would look like, especially in light of his imitating Moran’s “Sunset in Old Mexico.” It was this encounter that made me first contemplate the eventual division between fine artists and scenic artists.

Initially the scenic artist was also the designer, respected for his creative vision and mechanical genius. David Austin Strong is a great example for nineteenth century American stage design. His painting, in conjunction with stage machinery, created magical effects during many visual spectacles for the stage, such as ‘The Black Crook.” He might have only created the scenery for one act of the production, but his contribution was well noted in the program. If his setting were successful, critics might be herald him as a genius, or note that his work the highlight of the production!

Then there was a shift during the early twentieth century as scenic artists became theatrical manufacturers in a studio setting. They now would make multiple copies of each other’s vision. Scenic artist still designed the compositions to show prospective clients. Then, a new position emerged in the form of a scenic designer and it became his vision that a legion of artists created. Some scenic artists were reduced to simple manufacturers of a painted product, almost as in a factory setting. I think of the same camp scene for the Scottish Rite’s 32^nd degree that appeared over and over again across the country.

El Paso, Texas, Scottish Rite Camp scene.

Galveston, Texas, Scottish Rite camp scene.

This mass-production of a painted scene is just one of many factors that I think attributed to the shift. Other factors would include electrical lighting innovations, the emergence of a lighting designer, modern stage design and the onset of the scenic studio system. It seemed like the perfect storm to remove the scenic artist from the initial “vision” for the stage.

What I find fascinating is that during the early through mid-nineteenth century, artists easily shifted from the fine art studio to a paint bridge high above the stage. They could paint a picture, paint a show, paint a carriage, or paint a sign. Possibilities were everywhere. In some ways this might suggest that the establishment of scenic studios offered a position that eventually limited the aspiring artist. A full-time position in a studio would lead to working on a never-ending stream of projects depicting the artistic composition of others. This meant far less time for sketching trips or other artistic projects that would later appear in galleries. Prior to the studio system, artists would have a project, but then there would be a break and they would work on a variety of other artworks. Feast or famine; it is still a problem for those who freelance. A permanent position limits the opportunities for artistic escape.

Thomas G. Moses was just one example of an artist who crossed the line of stage art and gallery art, constantly trying to participate in art shows throughout the country. He joined a variety of groups, including the Palette and Chisel Club (Chicago), the Salmagundi Club (New York), the Laguna Beach Art Association (California) and others. As a young many, he had pondered, “Would I ever be able to paint pictures framed in heavy gold frames, my name on the corner, and hanging in an Art gallery?” Some of his contemporaries eventually made a permanent transition to the world of fine art, but most remained in the scenic studio, reproducing the artworks of others over and over again.

Examining historical scenery collections is a wonderful way to track popular fine art images for the stage and the artists who manufactured them. The Egyptian settings for the Scottish Rite’s thirty-first degree depict many popular fine art compositions, incorporating various aesthetic shifts and changes in painting techniques. It is one of the easiest scenes to identify discrepancy in interpretation, color palette and brush stroke.

The Great Collosi of Memnon, Ernst Weidenbach, 1850.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 124 – David A. Strong on Louis Malmsha’s Passing

Part 124: Memories of Malmsha

When Malmsha passed away, scenic artists from across the country bemoaned the loss of his painting skills for the stage. Although he died in Chicago, the New York Times on 21 October, 1882 (page 4) published comments by a fellow artist, “Mr. David A. Strong, scenic artist at Haverly’s theatre, says that Mr. Malmsha, as a scenic artist, had no superiors and only two equals in the country – Marston and Roberts.” Remember, Strong was credited by Moses as the “Daddy” of Masonic stage design in his typed memoirs (see previous installment #65). He was a well-recognized artist himself and one of the original artists for the 1866 production of “The Black Crook” at Niblo’s Garden. The two artists that Moses credits Malmsha as the only two equals are Richard Marston (1842-1917) of New York and David Roberts (1796-1864), the famous English artist and scene painter.

One of David Roberts images from his portfolio depicting the Hold Land.

Henry C. Tryon also wrote a tribute to Malmsha that appeared in the Salt Lake City Herald on October 22, 1882. Tryon was born in Chicago in 1847. At the age of seventeen, he enlisted in the army in a regiment attached to the Second Army Corps, Army of the Potomac, serving until the close of the Civil War. He later became a student at the Pennsylvania Academy of Design, intending to become a landscape painter and was a pupil of Thomas Moran and William Hart. Tryon work with Malmsha at Wood’s Theatre in Cincinnati and later at McVicker’s Theatre in Chicago.

The title of Tryon’s article was “Louis Malmsha. A Tribute to the Great Scenic Artist.” Here is the article in its entirety:

“Editors Herald: Malmsha scenic artist of McVickers Theatre, Chicago, reputed the best in his profession, died last night. The above appears in the Associated Press reports in the morning papers.

As an humble follower, ardent admirer, friend, and confrere of this dead artist I felt it my duty to render tribute and homage to his transcendent genius. He was “the best in the profession.” Every artist who has seen his work has without qualification given him this position as a matter of simple fact. I have seen samples from the hands of the best scenic artists in England, France, and Italy, and from what I have seen and learned. I am convinced that Mr. Malmsha was the greatest scenic painter in the world. His identity appeared to be unbounded. The most familiar with his work could not guess how he would paint next. Week after week and year after year his productions were a constant succession of surprises. He was entirely an artist, and used none but purely art means to accomplish even a mechanical object. His compositions (the motive of which was ever noble and elevated) were entirely original, and were produced with astonishing rapidity. He united power and strength with the sweetest, tenderest delicacy, dignity with grace, sublimity with loveliness. I have yet to see in American any art example which manifest the wealth of genius that this man proved that he possessed. I am quite certain that had he turned his attention to the painting of pictures, that he would have ranked as the greatest artist that our country has ever produced, for his genius was certainly preeminent. His position in his profession was an isolated one. He had no peers. His place, vacant now, there is none can fill. We have great artists among our scene painters, but no Malmsha; just as there was but one Charlotte Cushman among many great actors.

Mr. Louis Malmsha commenced his career as a scenic artist at Crosby’s opera house, Chicago, in 1865. He was then a mere boy, and while working in the auditorium under the employ of a fresco painter, he saw the scenic artist painting the scenery for the stage. He became so infatuated with this (to him) new art, that he could not be kept at his work, spending all of his time from his employers. From this time forth fresco painting was distasteful to him, and he accompanied the artist to New York. He there improved his advantages to such a degree that in a few years he was the peer of the best of his brother artists.

Examples of the boat races at Hammersmith Bridge.

He returned to Crosby’s Opera House about the year 1869, producing “Hammersmith Bridge” and an English boat race at Putney. This scene astonished Chicago –(no easy matter) as it was the finest of the kind that had ever been painted there. He remained at Crosby’s for several months, until engaged by Mr. McVicker to paint the entire stock of his rebuilt theatre. (It was by the study of his beautiful work at this time that I drew my own first impressions of the possibilities of scenic art.) He remained at Mr. McVicker’s until the destruction of the theatre by the great fire in 1871.

Illustration of the great fire of Chicago in 1871.

The following fall and winter he was engaged at Woods’ theatre, Cincinnati, returning the next summer to Chicago to paint scenery for Aiken’s Theatre and for Myers’ Opera House.

Wood’s Museum became known as Wood’s Theater, where Tryon worked with Malmsha. Note yellow highlight crediting Malmsha with the scenery

His drop curtain at Aiken’s Theatre (Dearborn Theatre) was undoubtedly the finest and most artistic of any in the country. He then left Chicago for a year or more returning to McVicker’s theatre where he remained until the time of his death.

Such is the brief career of this brilliant young man. He was (I judge about) 37 years of age. For the past ten or twelve years he had been afflicted with consumption so that it was difficult for him to exert himself violently or to do more that two or three hours a day, but as he was for the past few months required to do none but purely artwork, other artists doing all of the preliminary work possible to make his labor easier, he was enabled, no doubt up to a recent period to astonish and delight the audiences at McVicker’s with the exhibition of phenomenal genius. He will be sadly missed in Chicago, and now that he is dead the general public will join the artists in appreciating as he deserved to have been appreciated during his life.”

Detail of McVicker’s Playbill with scenery credited to Malmsha.

McVicker’s Theatre Playbill with scenery credited to Malmsha.

To be continued…

Historical Excerpt – “Women in Scenic Art,” Vyvyan Donner

“Women in Scenic Art,” final excerpt from 1927 article as posted yesterday: “Oh yes, there are plenty more, the Misses Hancock, Farrington, Vickers, Bernstein, (Vyvyan) Donner…”

Vyvyan Donner (1895-1965) was a native of New York and will be my subject for the next few posts. Breaking into the business at an early age,

Donner became much more than a well-known scenic and costume designer. She excelled at everything she tried her hand at, including poster art, directing, writing, fashion design, jewelry designer, film commentator, and a producer at Twentieth Century.

By the age of 21 yrs. old she was already noted as an extremely costume designer in Green Book 1916 (shown below).

She worked at a variety of venues, including for Ziegfeld and the Schuberts, becoming a sensation by 1922 and primarily working from her studio was located on 44th Street at the beginning of her career. When she started or left this studio is unknown.

As many other theatre artists she travelled extensively– especially to Chicago. During 1927, Donner was one of a handful of artists to create decorative banners for the 1927 Scenic Artists Ball in Chicago. Artists from all over the nation gathered at this event to enjoy and evening of performance, network, and socialize. She was the only female displaying her art for this event – to me, this said a lot. At this same time, she remained extremely active as a costume designer.

In 1926, Donner was credited with designing the “modern costumes” for the production of “The Desert Song.” This was a musical operetta that appeared at the Casino Theatre. Mark Mooring also designed costumes for the production, a show inspired by the 1925 uprising of the Riffs (a group of Moroccon fighters) against French Colonial Rule.

Donner also entered the world of clothing design and fashion journalism. In 1929, at the age of 34 yrs. old she became the fashion editor for Fox Movietone News. In 1938, she began writing her “Fashion Forecast” series that was filmed in Technicolor with each item running for about eleven minutes and narrated by Ilka Chase. Later, Donner designed the sets and costumes for each of her own fashion shows, carefully selecting models from theatre, night clubs, schools and colleges, not agencies alone. She also was a commentator on the Movietone Newsreels during the 1930s.

For videos of Vivian Donner Fashion Shows and clips, go to:

http://mirc.sc.edu/islandora/object/usc%3A1990 for April 17, 1929 on women’s summer styles

http://mirc.sc.edu/islandora/object/usc%3A40693 from August 6, 1942.

It is delightful to see the costumes and the setting from the 1920s and the 1940s. They are both in the University of South Carolina Libraries digital collections. Finally, here is one of the Movietone News reels from 1940 with Donner’s narration: https://archive.org/details/NewsreelClip1940 (her fashion section is immediately after the military update)

In 1946, the Scarsdale Inquirer (No 42, 18 October) noted Donner in “News of the Women’s Club.” They noted Donner as a woman “who is in constant touch with creators of feminine styles and one of the greatest individual influences in the field of Fashion.” They note that 95% of all the creations shown in her films were American made with her films were now made in New York on Tenth Avenue and Fifty-fourth Street.

For film, Donner was a director, writer and producer for a variety of productions, including: “What It Takes to Make a Star” (1945), “Music from Manhattan” (1946), “Behind the Footlights” (1947, producer), “Something Old, Something New” (1948), “Talented Beauties” (1949), “Music of Manhattan” (1950).

For me, her most fascinating work was the design of the “Question Producer Pin!” Donner designed this piece of jewelry with Julio Kilney casting it. This pin dates form the suffrage period and represents the fight for Equal Rights Amendment. Donner’s pin is now part of the National Woman’s Party archives and can be viewed at http://nationalwomansparty.org/are-you-wearing-your-question-producer/ This needs a come back!

The next few posts are going to cover an interview with Donner in an 1922 called “Vitalizing the Silhouette.” This interview examines in detail her art, training, creative approach, and challenges.

Historical Excerpt – “Women in Scenic Art,” Nellie Leach

The last part of the 1927 article “Women in Scenic Art”

“Oh yes, there are plenty more, the Misses Hancock, Farrington, Vickers, Bernstein, Donner, Roche and Nellie Leach who is perhaps an actress who paints but, without disparaging her histrionic talents, more likely a painter who acts. Whether they are doing art directing, designing or actual painting of scenes, they are all going to “stay a while, thank you!” for what is particularly nice about them, they never asked more that a fair field and no favors.”

Without the first names for these women, a search is exceedingly difficult and the results are questionable at best. I actually happened to know of “Miss Donner” and will leave her for tomorrow and focus on Nellie Leach (dates unknown).

There are several performers with the name of “Nellie Leach” who appear all across the country and in both England and Australia. Some list her as a soprano who was married to Fred Leach and others note her travel on various theatre circuits. The verifiable connection that I could make is her performance in two Broadway productions during 1926. She is listed in the Broadway database for the productions of “The Jeweled Trees” and “Love ‘em and Leave ‘em.” I also tracked down her portrait in the Billy Rose Theatre collection at the New York Public Library. The age and location suggest an appropriate pairing.

It has always been difficult to track down scenic artists. Many names are misspelled in programs and last names might include only initials, or the title of “Mr.” For women scenic artists it is even more difficult as their names will change from their maiden name to a married name, while still remaining misspelled. Their first name may become entirely forgotten, being gradually erased over time and disappearing from printed history. Shadows of their husband remain, becoming a “Mrs.” tacked onto another person’s name.

Looking beyond the names and the identities, ten women were noted as scenic artists in a 1927 article in ONE city! This is a remarkable number, signifying a shift in an industry. The article publicly acknowledges the contributions of women in technical theatre.

I have continued to stumble across the names of women scenic artists since I first starting my research as an undergraduate. Some believe that any mention of women painting or illustrations of women painting suggested their activities were simply “helping out.” I have to wonder about this previous assessment by theatre practitioners and historians as there were multiple activities that continually incorporated women into other trades at this time, such as architecture, illustration, sculpture and art. Was it common? No, but it was a constant move toward progress. Women represented a small percentage of the scenic art world, but they were still there. One example is the women’s building at the 1893 for the Columbian Exposition. It was designed and decorated by women; an endeavor that could not have been accomplished with solely unskilled individuals who were new to the trades.

To think about Nellie Leach as “an actress who paints” or “a painter who acts” reminds me of Joe Jefferson’s variety of theatre skills. His painting was looked upon as an asset to all of his other stage work. Why would not the same belief apply to any female theatre artist such as Nellie Leach?

I will leave today with my favorite quote from the article: “Whether they are doing art directing, designing or actual painting of scenes, they are all going to stay a while, thank you!”

We certainly have stayed a while!

Historical Excerpt – “Women in Scenic Art,” Gretl Urban

Here some more of the 1927 article listing some women in the field of scenic art:

“Look at the diminutive parcel of wonderful feminine personality peeking up at you from beneath the bonnet rim. Gretl Urban – even the name is diminutive – and then remember her setting for Louis XIV. If you did not see them, you missed something.”

Gretel/Gretl Urban Thurlow (1898-1997) was the daughter and Josef Urban (1872-1933), the well-known architect, illustrator and designer. Her mother was Meizzi (b. 1873) and the step-daughter of Mary Porter Beegle (married to Urban from 1919-1933). Gretl’s birth name was Margarete Urban and she was born in Vienna, Austria on January 7, 1898. Studying art in Boston, she joined her father’s New York studio to paint and design costumes for several of his productions. Gretl worked with her father for both the Ziegfeld Follies and the Metropolitan Opera New York, later becoming a well-known designer in her own right.

Very little is known about her private life and marriage.

By the 1920 census, she has married John Thurlow (b. 1892) and lived with her birth mother Meizzi (sp?) and her sister, Elly Helliwell (b. 1901 in Austria). Her husband is listed as Meizzi’s lodger in Boston, Mass. with Gretl listed as the lodger’s wife. Gretl, Meizzie and Elly, are listed as all immigrating from Austria in 1912, the year after Josef. At this time, Gretl is listed without any occupation, while her husband is noted as salesman for a Broker. John Thurlow was born in Colorado with parents originating in Massachusetts. What is interesting about this census is that her husband is listed as a lodger and Gretl is listed as the wife of the household’s lodger with her mother as the head of household.

She is repeatedly mentioned for her work in various papers from 1921-1922 and follows her father to California, working in Hollywood from 1923 to 1925. Whether her husband travelled with her at this time is unknown. Her film credits include “When Knighthood was in Flower” (1922, costumes), “Little Old New York” (1923, costumes), “Enemies of Women” (1923, costume design), “Princess Yolanda” (1923, costumes), “The Value of Beauty” (1923, costumes), “Janice Meredith” (1924, costume design), “Zander the Great” (1925, costume design). In most instances she was working on films crews for her father or with her father who was either the art director or scenic designer. By 1925, she again returned to New York and was scenic designer for the musical comedy “Louis XIV” at the Cosmopolitan Theatre. This is the work that is mentioned in the 1927 “Women in Scenic Art” text. That same year, she also designs costumes for the Metropolitan Opera. Although I have included some to depict her rendering style, , they are available at http://archives.metoperafamily.org/Imgs/TurandotUrbanDesign.htm

An interesting side note for 1924 historical context: Gretl was one of the guests on Hearst’s boat, the Oneida, during the incident involving William Randolph Hearst. They had been travelling for a private screening of “Enchantment.” More on THAT can be found at “William Randall Hearst: The Later Years” by Ben Procter.

Her father passed away in 1933 and she continues with her career. By 1935, she designed the original Broadway play, “The Season Changes” at the Booth Theatre and in 1939 she designed the stage settings for “East River Romance” by Edwin Gilbert for the Studio Players of Yonkers, performing in the Waverly Terrace Auditorium. Gretl later served as a consultant for Billy Rose while he restored the Ziegfeld Theatre in 1943.

Between 1950 and her retirement in 1981 she worked for the music publisher Carl Fisher, working as the Vice President for the company. She lived last at the Holiday Care Center in Toms River, New Jersey.

Her costumes for the movie “Janice Meredith”

Her designs for “Turandot”

It was surprising difficult to find information any information on a woman that was a well known designer and daughter to an infamous father! Other than a few credits – little is left of her painting.

Historical Excerpt – “Women in Scenic Art,” Gladys Calthrop

WOMEN IN SCENIC ART, part 3
As posted yesterday, this is the next line in the 1927 article that discussed women in scenic art:

“The work of Lillian Gaestner in the New Ziegfield and Gladys Calthrop in the Eva LaGallienne Company may, as a matter of opinion, be as unlike each other as you please, but it is real work.”

I delved into the career and work of Gladys Calthrop (1894-1980).

Gladys was a set and costume designer for theatre in both London and New York.

She was born Gladys Treeby in Ashton, Devon, the daughter of Frederisk Theophilus Treeby and his wife Mabel. Educated at Grassendale School, Southbourne, West Sussex, her parents sent her to finishing school in Paris where she met Army Captain Everard E. Calthrop from Norfolk. Treeby married Calthrop and had a son, Hugo, whose care was entrusted mostly to her mother. Hugo was later killed during fighting in Burma. Soon after Hugo’s death, she separated from her husband.

Gladys met Noel Coward in Italy during 1921 and they subsequently became friends. She commenced her theatre career in 1924, working for Coward on “The Vortex.” Staged at the Everyman Theatre in Hampstead, she designed both sets and costumes, later recalling, “It was the first play I had ever designed so I was terribly excited, though there was nowhere to paint the sets except outside the theatre in Hampstead High Street, and the costumes all had to be made in a kind of basement there.” This became the first of many collaborative projects with Coward.

She stayed in New York after “The Vortex” and became Artistic Director for Eva la Galliene’s Civic Reperatory Theatre. Her designs for Broadway included “Cradle Song” (1927), “This Year of Grace” (1928), “Bitter Sweet” (1929), “Autumn Crocus” (1932), “Private Lives” (1935), “Design for Living” (1933), “Conversation Piece” (1934), and many, many more. She continued to work as a designer until 1964, doing some work for film that included four Coward adaptations in the 1940s.

She also did some design work for film, including four Coward adaptations in the 1940s. She also published her first and only novel, Paper Pattern in 1940.

During World War II, she served in the Mechanical Transport Corps and by 1953, Calthrop illustrated the Noël Coward Song Book (1953). In 1980, she passed away at the age of 85

Here are a few examples of her design work. I was unsuccessful in finding any scene painting examples.

By 1953, she illustrated the Noel Coward Song Book (1953). In 1980, Gladys passed away at the age of 85 years old.

Historical Excerpt – “Women in Scenic Art,” Lillian Gaestner

This is the next line in the article that I started yesterday on women in scenic art:

“The work of Lillian Gaestner in the New Ziegfield and Gladys Calthrop in the Eva LaGallienne Company may, as a matter of opinion, be as unlike each other as you please, but it is real work.”

I want to put their nameswith faces and look at the various accomplishments of each woman.

The first mentioned is Lillian Gaestner. They actually misspelled her name in the article as it is Gaertner! She was one difficult woman to track down. She was a fire that burned brightly and then was quietly snuffed out by either circumstances or her husband.

Lillian V. Gaertner (July 5, 1906-?) was a painter, muralist, illustrator, decorator, scenic designer and costume designer, primarily working in New York City during the 1920s and early 1930s.

She is wearing high heels on that beam!

She was born in Manhattan Assembly District 9, New York City, in 1906 to immigrants Rudolph Gaertner (b.1874) and his wife Ida (b. 1878). Various publications list different countries for their origin -Germany, Bohemia, and Austria. Lillian had one sibling – Edward. Lillian’s talent as an artist were immediately recognized by Joseph Urban at the age of 14 yrs. old. At that time she was only eight years younger than Urban’s own daughter Gretl! Some even consider Lillian as his protégé. Regardless, Urban sent Lillian to study art in Paris and Vienna, under the direction of Josef Hoffmann (a Bauhaus designer who worked with Urban on other theatrical projects) and Ferdinand Schmutzer. Back in the New York, she studied with Urban and Emeline Clark Roche (1902-1995). Clark is fascinating in her own right and primarily worked as both a scenic and costume designer.

Lillian was commissioned to paint numerous murals at hotels, restaurants, clubs, office buildings, and other public spaces. In 1927, she even created a massive artwork for the Ziegfield Theater. Other notable murals were created for the Montmatre Club at Palm Beach, the Persian Room murals at the Plaza Hotel, the Maritime Exchange Building, the Hotel Pennsylvania, and the Essex House. As a scenic and costume designer, Lillian worked for Carnegie Hall and the Metropolitan Opera.

A side note regarding her mural created for the Ziegfield theatre: Some of her mural artwork from this demolished building appeared in 2006. Ziegfeld opened this theater on 6th Avenue and 54th Street, where it became home of the “Ziegfeld Follies.” Designed by Joseph Urban, it was situated well out of the theater district and featured a unique “egg-shaped” auditorium. Lillian painted the 24’ wide by 14’ high mural (designed by Urban who titled it “The Joy of Life”). Her painting originally covered the walls and ceiling in the main auditorium and included brightly colored depictions of eastern hunts, banquets, and characters from literature, history and mythology. The theater was demolished in 1966 to make way for an office tower that now occupies the same spot. In 2006, an immense section of the original painted mural resurfaced. The link for this discovery is: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2007/01/prweb499705.htm

Lillian’s career continually soared throughout the 1920s. On January 18, 1930, Lillian married Harold B. Palmedo (1898-1983). Little is know of him and Harold certainly wasn’t a shooting star. Born in New York to Alrich (a stockbroker) and Emma Palmedo, he shared his childhood and early adulthood with two other had two siblings, Roland and Eleanore. Palmedo’s career is sketchy at best and his brother Roland was the great success of the family. The 1920 census listed Harold as living at home with his parents and working as a chemist in a manufacturing facility.

In 1931 the couple celebrated the birth of their first and only child. On January 27^th, 1931, Lillian was born to the Palmedos, then living at 240 East 79^th Street in New York.

Lillian continued her artistic career and mural painting. By 1934 she was celebrated for her murals in the Persian Room at the Plaza Hotel. Strangely, this same year, she moves to Milford, Conn. and starts showing dogs – Boxers.

It is at this point that the name “Lillian Gaertner Palmedo” starts to disappear. During this time, her husband becomes and early founder and first President of the American Boxer Club and she fills a space as a board member. Lillian’s mother Ida is the designated Treasurer. The greatest function that Lillian and Ida initially fill at the club is translating the German Standard and Austrian Standard for the dogs.

By 1939 the Palmedo’s win best of breed (Ch. Biene v. Elbe-Bogen se Sumbula). All their dogs were campaigned extensively by Harry Harnett, with Biene finishing her career with four Best in Show and still winning best of breed from the Veteran’s Class in 1941 – also a first. Also in 1939, The AKC Gazette column notes Lillian’s new role on the new Publicity and Promotions Committee.

By 1940, her daughter is living with grandmother Ida Gaertner in Mount Vernon City, Westchester, NY. In 1940, newspapers note that Lillian was living in New Milford, Connecticut. At this point in her life she constantly travels across the country appearing in various newspapers, showing their dogs and promoting her new clothing design (clothing created for owners to match their dogs). At this point, she is solely known as a clothing designer and dog fancier. Her painting career is no longer mentioned at all.

By 1942, she divorced Harold and appears to have faded from all printed record. The last mention of her in print that I could locate were divorce notifications in both New York and Reno, Nevada. No census records, death notice, memorial – nothing.

This is one of the more tragic tales. A woman with so much drive and potential gradually faded behind her husband’s name. Initially listed as Lillian Gaertner, then Lillian Gartner Palmedo, she eventually became Mrs. H. B. Palmedo. Lillian was redefined in from “Lillian Gaertner, one of New York’s most promising young artists” in the 1920s to “Mrs. H. B. Palmedo, clothing designer and dog fancier” in the 1940s.

I sincerely hope that she found much joy with activities at the American Boxing Club and attending dog shows. Wishing that she gladly abandoned all of her hard work, training, and artistic potential and left a promising career as a theatre artist and muralist. Maybe she continued to paint in any spare time that she could find and all of her works have yet to surface. It would be tragic to think that her husband’s passion for boxers, or marriage in general, caused Lillian to abandon her artistic career.

Historical Excerpt – Women in Scenic Art, part 1

The following was published in the 1927 issue of “The Scenic Artist.”

“It is quite interesting to note among other elements that have invaded the theater within the last decade, the active interest that women are taking in scenic work.

For many years women felt themselves barred from taking a part in the painting of scenery, because it involved extreme physical stamina, which, excepting in rare cases, women do not possess. However, being more or less tenacious, it is a foregone conclusion that women will work out their own salvation and this will perhaps, lie in the line of designing or art directing rather than the actual painting of scenes which take on large portions.

Women as a rule, have an excellent color sense and the knack of lending those almost indefinable touches which make a setting look as tho’ it was actually being lived in and not a make-believe room.” When in addition, they equip themselves with the necessary technical knowledge, they have every reason to expect not only to reach a high place but to retain it.

The women members of our craft are making a wonderful showing, and certainly, none of them can be classed as athletic, yet they are an extremely valuable asset to our craft. Effeminacy is sickly, disgusting and degrades anything it touches – and it has no place in art. Feminism is sound healthy and refining – There is no sex in art. Feminism means among other things – Tact, Temperament and Tenacity. These are needed and wanted.”

Image from “Theatrical and Circus Life; or Secrets of the Stage. Green-Room, and Sawdust Arena” (St. Louis: M.S. Barnett, 1882)