Scenic Art, English Method

Travels of a Scenic Artist and Scholar: The Tyne Theatre & Opera House Conference, England, Sept. 13-15, 2023.

You may have noticed that it has been a while since my last blog post.

I was bombarded with a series of projects this summer. When I wasn’t on the road, my life consisted of scenic design, scenic art, restoration, paperwork, and caretaking (people, places, and things). My theme for 2023 continues to be “Damage Control.” If only each day could last more than 24 hours….

August and September became especially busy as my out-of-town trips included: CITT/ICTS (Canadian Institute of Theatre Technology) in Toronto, Ontario, Canada; The Western Minnesota Steam Threshers Reunion in Rollag, Minnesota; the Tyne Theatre & Opera House Conference in England; and Haymarket Opera Company’s fall production in Chicago, Illinois.

All of this travel could not have been possible without the support of my husband, Andrew Barrett, and children, Aaron Barrett, Isa Marceau, and Anna Marceau. In the midst of everything, Andrew and I celebrated 30 years of marriage on Sept. 11. Sadly, our celebration occurred 4,000 miles apart.

I finally have a moment to share a presentation from two weeks ago. My presentation was for the Tyne Theatre & Opera House Conference: Victorian and Edwardian Theatre in Performance, Music & Machinery – Stagecraft & Spectacle.

[Dr. Wendy Waszut-Barrett presenting Stage Craft & Spectacle: Immigrant Contributions to North American Theatre at the Tyne Theatre & Opera House conference on Sept. 15, 2023].

I have a “window of opportunity” to write today; one that stems from opening night of La liberazione di Ruggero dall-isola a’Alcina; all of my stage notes are done! Here is a link to the show: http://www.haymarketopera.org/caccini

I sit in a hotel room, extremely grateful for not only an exceptional group of colleagues, but also an extraordinary network of support; one that has never faltered over the years.

My journey to the UK began last fall when I opened an email from Mike Hume. Hume is an amazing theatre photographer and historian. His website showcases theaters from around the world. Here is his website: https://www.historictheatrephotos.com/

On Oct. 5, 2022, Rick Boychuk and I received an email from Hume proposing that we submit a presentation proposal for an upcoming theatre conference. He attached the following call for papers:

For context, Boychuk specializes in historic rigging systems and is the author of Nobody Looks Up: The History of Counterweight rigging History, 1500-1925.

In Hume’s October email, he described the Tyne Theatre and Opera House: “It’s one of the few UK theatres with early-stage machinery, albeit much of it rebuilt following a devastating fire in the stagehouse in 1985. The stage machinery at the Tyne Theatre is really very comprehensive. David Wilmore led the reconstruction project and is continuing with further projects at the theatre.” I first met David Wilmore in Stockholm at another conference in 2016. We managed to stay in touch over the years.

In mid-November 2023, Hume, Boychuk, and I scheduled a virtual meeting with Alan Butland, Trustee and Secretary at the Tyne Theatre & Opera House Preservation Trust. We wanted to see if there would be any interest in topics that examined stage technology and painted spectacle beyond Britain. In the end, we submitted a joint proposal for three topics under the heading “The Development of North American Stagecraft and Spectacle During the Victorian Period.”

Boychuk’s paper explored Booth’s Theatre in New York, Mike’s paper explored the Auditorium Theatre in Chicago, and my paper provided context for both, each built during a time when the demand for painted illusion was greater than the supply of manufacturers.

We received a response to our proposals almost three months later. On Feb. 17, 2023, Mike emailed, “Pack your bags, folks, we’re going to Newcastle!”

Locations of Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, England

As we looked at tentative travel dates, our discussion began to include other historic venue; nearby opera houses that would be of interest. When all was said and done, we visited a total of fifteen theaters between Sept. 10 and Sept. 19, 2023. In the upcoming weeks, I will post a series of blogs about our stops in London, York, Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, Glasgow, Isle of Man, Bristol, and Bath.

In regard to the Tyne Theatre’s auditorium and stage, here is a link to Hume’s photos and research: https://www.historictheatrephotos.com/Theatre/Tyne-Newcastle.aspx

We presented our papers on September 15, 2023. The chair for our panel was Iain Mackintosh.

Here is my full paper with PowerPoint images. It includes all of the original text, as some sentences were cut to stay within the 20-min. time limit.

Stage Craft & Spectacle: Immigrant Contributions to North American Theatre by Dr. Wendy Waszut-Barrett for the Tyne Theatre and Opera House conference.

[Slide 1]

I am going to “set the stage” for stage craft and painted spectacle between 1860 and 1890 in North America, touching on four major contributing factors – the Gold Rush, the Transcontinental Railroad, the Great Chicago Fire, and Immigration. Then, I will then explore the dissemination of two scenic art traditions, introduced by immigrants during the rise of the North American scenic studio system. These traditions merged to create a hybrid form of scenic art in North America that dominated popular entertainment for decades.

[Slide 2]

The discovery of gold in the American River during the winter of 1848 prompted what is now known as the California Gold rush of 1849, an event that drew people from all over the world. Exorbitant salaries were offered to theatre professionals, those willing to brave the journey and perform in very rough settings. Even the young scenic artist Phillip Goatcher left Sydney for San Francisco (invitation by Henry E. Abby of the Park Theater), and assisted William Porter. It was a series of gold strikes that fueled a national desire to complete the first transcontinental railroad, uniting east and west coasts.

[Slide 3]

The transcontinental railroad was completed on May 10, 1869, with the final golden spike driven at Promontory Summit in Utah.

[Slide 4]

The arduous cross-country from New York to San Francisco was reduced to 7 days by 1870. Thousands of communities were now connected, with Chicago centrally located and situated along the western shore of Lake Michigan, one of the five Great Lakes in a freshwater chain that connected the interior of North America to the Atlantic ocean.

[Slide 5]

A variety of entertainment venues were constructed in the railway’s wake, including the Tabor Opera House. Located in the heart of the Rocky Mountains, the mining town of Leadville, Colorado was approximately 3050 meters above sea-level. Horace Tabor, nationally known as the “Silver King,” constructed his flagship opera house in 1879, only a month before the railway arrived in town. Ample land, abundant funds, and an ever-expanding network of transportation offered seemingly endless opportunities for theater manufacturers and suppliers. Demand for painted front curtains, stock scenery collections, stage machinery and lighting systems outweighed the supply of craftsmen to manufacture them. An abundance of work with high profits drew people from across the country and around the world.

[Slide 6]

Hundreds of theaters were now connected by rail, prompting Chicago Illustrator and printer, John B. Jeffrey, to publish his first guide and directory to operas houses, theaters, and public halls across the country in 1878. Jeffrey provided practical information for touring groups with detailed information about stage houses, writing: “We realized the necessity for a book which would be a guide to agents and managers of all amusement enterprises.”

Jeffrey’s preface stated:

“Since 1860, the Amusement Professions have shared in the extraordinary developments visible in every material interest…Intellectual foreigners have been astounded at the rapidity with which a vast wilderness has been transformed into a Nation thickly dotted with centers of industry, commerce, and art…The full extent of this marvelous progress has not been recognized generally as it deserved…The American Stage ranks in importance with that of England and France…”

Jno. B. Jeffrey’s Guide and Directory was one of many innovations to come out of Chicago during the 1870s. At the time Chicago was in the process of rebuilding itself, reconstructing the downtown area after the Great Fire.

[Slide 7]

In 1871, disaster struck when fire ravaged 8.55 km2 of the downtown area, destroying 17,500 buildings and displacing 100,000 residents.

[Slide 8]

Two decades later the City later hosted the 1893 World Fair. In addition to recognizing the 400^th anniversary of Christopher Columbus’ arrival, the Columbian Exposition showed the world that Chicago has risen from the ashes victorious.

[Slide 9]

The rebuilding of the Chicago drew hundreds of thousands of tradesmen to the Midwest. 10,000 building permits were issued between 1872 to 1879. Chicago quickly became an American Hub of Economic and Industrial Innovation.

[Slide 10]

The rebuilding of Chicago coincided with shifts in immigration. There were three waves of immigration during the 19^th century. The first wave primarily consisted of people England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Europe. The second wave included an increased number of people from western and central Europe. The third wave lasted from the end of the 19^th century into the early 20^th century, and mainly consisted of people from Eastern Europe and Russia. With access to western lands and opportunities, immigrants arrived in Chicago by droves.

[Slide 11]

The distribution of immigrants also radically changed as the country’s transportation network shifted to include railroads.

[Slide 12]

There was a demographic shift by the mid 19^th-century from an earlier immigration wave primarily composed of those from the British Isles and northern Europe to western and central Europe by the mid-19^th-century. This shift, occurred as the railroad network exponentially increased, distributing new groups of immigrants into the interior of North America.

[Slide 13]

By the mid-nineteenth century there was a dramatic increase in German immigrants. An 1874 Harper’s Weekly illustration featured Germans boarding a steamer for the United States. German emigration peaked between 1881 and 1885, when a million Germans arrived, many settling in the Midwestern United States.

[Slide 14]

Even today, we can trace the second wave German immigrants through the lives of their descendants. Here is a 2010 tracing the largest ancestry by county in the United States. There remains a large red swath that cuts across the country, known as the German Belt.

[Slide 15]

By 1890, 80% of all Chicago’s citizens were either foreign born or children of immigrants. From a Theatre History perspective, this made Chicago a melting pot of stage craft.

[Slide 16]

Two distinct scene painting traditions dominated the production of painted illusion in Chicago at this time – The English method of transparent glazing (left-side image) and the Continental Method of opaque washes (right-side image).

[Slide 17]

On the left, is an example of the English Method; a painted detail by William Thompson Russell Smith (1812-1896) for the Thalian Hall in Wilmington, North Carolina, in 1858. This was the stylistic approach employed by many scenic artists in eastern theaters, including Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and along the eastern seaboard.

On the right, is an example of the Continental Method; a painted detail by James E. Lamphere for the Tabor Opera House in Leadville, Colorado, in 1879. Note that the shape in the left image is defined by a successive layer of dark glazes, while the image on the left uses light on dark to define the shape.

[Slide 18]

These two “schools of scenic art” – translucent glazes and opaque washes – were publicly argued for, and against, in nineteenth-century newspapers and periodicals. In 1881, the British periodical, The Building News and Engineering Journal, published an article entitled “Secrets of the Scene Painter.” It simply stated, “The English school in which the greatest advances have been made, use thin glazes” and “The German, French and Americans use opaque washes, or, as it is usually expressed work in “body colour.” This 1881 article suggests that the adoption of the Continental method by many American scenic artists had already taken place by this time. In 1889, another article published in The Theatre Magazine (W. J. Lawrence, July 13, 1889) lamented the loss of the English tradition, “the days of glazing and second painting are gone forever. What matters is that the adoption of the broadest system of treatment possible – working slapdash fashion in full body colors.” In 1891, the San Francisco Call “English scenic artists as a class possess a breadth and freedom of style that are unequaled by those of any other nationality. These qualities, which are the highest excellences in scene painting, are especially noticeable in their landscapes, which are simply unapproachable, possessing, as they do at once a beauty, a realism and a fidelity to nature which we look for in vain in the work of the scenic artists of any other land” (A. Palmer, Feb 22, 1891).

[Slide 19]

Interestingly, the English tradition of frame painting remained the preferred method in the United States until the 1920s. Here is an illustration of American scenic artists for Harper’s Weekly in 1878; this was the first year that he started working for the publication. At the time, Graham was a well-known in Chicago as a scenic artist. He was later named the official artist for Chicago’s 1893 World Fair.

[Slide 20]

Here are two examples that illustrate the differences between the English method of painting on a vertical frame and the Continental method of painting on the floor. The Nineteenth-century American scenic artists favored the use of vertical frames. Much had to do with the design of the theaters allowing scenic artists to only access their work from the stage, there was simply not enough floor space, even after scenic studios built their own structures. The scenic artists worked on fixed or movable bridges above the stage.

[Slide 21]

I always include images of women painting in my presentations, as they were often left of the history books. As with people of color, they were present, just not counted. The left image shows Grace Wishaar painting in America, ca. 1902. The right image is from the 1927 publication The Continental Method of Scene Painting.

[Slide 22]

It is important to understand that both floor and frame painting necessitated a It is important to understand that both floor and frame painting necessitated a different approach. Although both used distemper paint and similar brushes, each approach determined the economy of brushwork. Here is an example of floor painting in the Continental Method, featuring French scenographer Auguste Rubè (1815-1899).

[Slide 23]

Here is an example of the English Method featuring American scenic artist Thomas Gibbs Moses (1856-1934). I paint both up and down, recognizing that each tradition has its strengths. That being said, as an aging artist, I recognize that I will be able to paint on a frame far longer than I will be able to paint on the floor.

[Slide 24]

Distemper paint was the traditional artistic medium for the stage, solely consisting of only two ingredients: pure color (dry pigment) and binder (diluted hide glue).

[Slide 25]

Dry pigment powder was transformed into wet pulp prior to mixing it with a binder.

[Slide 26]

Hide glue requires cooking and is diluted with water to create size. Strong size was applied to the fabric, preparing the fibers for paint. Strong size was further diluted to create working size, also known as size water, for the distemper painting process.

[Slide 27]

Here is an example of an American scenic artist’s palette, filled with bowls of pigment paste. The paste and size water were mixed together on the artist’s palette, then immediately applied to the fabric. This remained the standard methodology for North American scenic art until the mid-twentieth century.

[Slide 28]

The scenic artist had to intimately know each color, as the wet paint applied to a backdrop would dry several shades lighter. In a sense, the artist worked solely from memory. Here is an example of wet distemper paint placed next to the same color once dried.

[Slide 29]

A strategic combination of colors applied by a skilled hand resulted in stunning compositions, that transported generations of theatre audiences to distant locations. Distemper paint is quite different from the pre-mixed paints used by Contemporary scenic artists as it fully permeates each underlying later; there is not a continued build-up with each successive layer paint.

[Slide 30]

Very little pigment is needed for the distemper painting process. This means that many distemper backdrops could function as translucencies. The image on the right is the same urn viewed from the backside of the drop. The original paint layer was quite thin, creating opportunities for backlighting. This also means that distemper scenes could be easily folded and packed in touring trunks.

[Slide 31]

Here is a detail from a distemper drop that I painted for the Haymarkt Opera Co. for L’amant anonyme (Chicago, 2022). When lit from behind, an entirely new range of colors is revealed, affecting the atmosphere of the scene without the necessity of colored lights.

[Slide 32]

To date, have written hundreds of biographies about American scenic artists, tracing their lineage to various countries. For today’s presentation, I am briefly going to touch on Harley Merry who painted in the English tradition in New York.

[Slide 33]

Harley Merry was the stage name for Ebenezer Brittain (1844-1914). Brittain began his theatrical career as both an actor and scenic artist. He worked in the theaters of London, Norfolk, Edinburgh, and Glasgow. It is relatively easy to trace his early career in newspapers from the time. In 1864, he married Louisa Maria Raven Rowe (1843-1915), who went by the stage name Adelaide Russell or Roselle.

[Slide 34]

After emigrating in 1869, the Merry’s worked all over the country, with Harley Merry painting scenery for theaters in New Orleans, St. Louis, Memphis, Chicago, Philadelphia, and New York.

[Slide 35]

Merry permanently settled in New York, where he operated an extremely successful studio until his passing in 1914. He was also a major influence in amusement park attractions, especially those on Coney Island in New York, as well as producing scenery for early Edison films. He was extremely influential in the development of American Theatre from both a performance and production perspective.

[Slide 36]

In America, Merry helped establish the Actor’s Order of friendship, joining Edwin Booth and Lawrence Barrett in 1888 to lobby congress against the importation of foreign productions.

[Slide 37]

He was also instrumental in the establishment of the American Society of Scene Painters in 1892. It was organized in Albany, New York, with the executive staff including Richard Marston (Palmer’s Theatre), Henry E, Hoyt (Metropolitan Opera House), Homer F. Emens (Fourteenth Street Theatre), Sydney Chidley (Union Square Theatre), Harley Merry (Brooklyn Studio) Brooklyn and Ernest Albert (Albert, Grover & Burridge). This group truly represents the English Tradition in American scenic art.

Three years later, the American Society of Scene Painters gave rise to the Protective Alliance of Scene Painters of America. In 1895, Merry was elected the organization’s first president and members included scenic artists from all over the country, representing both the English and Continental traditions. In short, it prevented stage employees from handling any scenery except that painted by members of the Alliance, stirring up excitement among English managers.

In 1896 when members gathered in their lodge rooms to install officers, the following statement was recorded: “If George Edwards brings a shipload of scenery from England to America, he will not be able to get a scene shifter or carpenter in New York to handle it, and the orchestra will not even play slow music. For that matter, no piece of scenery painted by a non-union man will be handled in any of the large cities in this country. We have to protect ourselves against the hordes of fresco men who dabble for a farthing, and some of the managers who care nothing for the art, but only for making money.”

Members included George Becker, Moses Bloom, Harry Byrnes, Sydney Chidley, James Fox, W. Crosbie Gill, Frank King, Richard Marston, Harley Merry, John A. Merry, Thomas G. Moses, Arthur Palmer, Seymour D. Parker, Frank Platzer, W. T. Porter, Adolf T. Reinhold, John Rettig, John W. Rough, Horace N. Smith, Orville L. Story, Howard Tuttle, A. G. Volz, Harry Weed, and David W. Weil were just a few of the participants actively involved in the establishment of the alliance.

This organization truly bridged the gap between the two schools of scene painting. Scenic artists across the country united for a common cause.

[Slide 38]

In addition to Merry’s legislative legacy, his artistic legacy continued from one generation to the next. One brief example was the studio established by two of his students – Walter Burridge and Ernest Albert, who partnered with Oliver Dennet Grover in 1890 to construct an astonishing scenic studio by 1891 measuring almost 4500 square meters. Brochures noted, “After a scene is painted, it can be hung, set and lighted in an open space – [the space, measuring] the full size of any stage in the country, so that a manager can not only inspect it as an entirety, and thus suggest alterations, but he can bring his company to the studio and rehearse with the new scenery.” They went bankrupt in two years.

[Slide 39]

This was a period in American Theatre History denoting a distinct shift in the manufacture and distribution of painted scenery. There was a transition from scenery being painted by itinerant scenic artists on site to scenic studio artists mass-producing and shipping scenery by rail.

[Slide 40]

No American scenic studio better exemplifies this shift that Sosman & Landis. Joseph S. Sosman and Perry Landis met and began working as itinerant artists in 1876. By 1879, they saved enough money to open a scenic studio in Chicago. Between the summers of 1881 and 1882, the firm delivered scenery to 74 theaters across the country, then established regional offices New York, Detroit, Kansas City, and St. Louis.

The success of Sosman & Landis was based on a stream of highly skilled scenic artists with national reputations coming in to do what they did best, and then leaving. This cut down on the studio’s overhead, while securing name-recognition from the beginning. Early on, the reputation of the firm was linked to the individual reputations of their scenic artists and stage mechanics.

Over time, the studio became a factory, with a main studio staff, annex studio staffs during times of high productivity, and road crews that painted some installation on site. By 1894 they had delivered scenery to 4,000 stages. Their catalogue that year announced, “Our Artists are selected with reference to their special abilities. Some excel in designing and painting drop curtains, others in landscapes, and other in interior scenes; so, we divide our work that each is given what he can do.”

[Slide 41]

In 1902, Sosman & Landis advertised that they had delivered scenery to more than 6,000 stages in the United States, Canada, Mexico, the Carribean, and South Africa. The firm produced painted spectacle for a variety of popular entertainment, including moving panoramas, cycloramas, grand circus spectacles Wild West shows, amusement park attractions, industrial exhibits, charity events, and more. They knew stage craft and how to produce painted spectacle well.

[Slide 42]

During their reign, Chicago became the largest theatrical manufacturer and supplier in the country. They also diversified their business interests. In the 1890s, Sosman and Landis established the American Reflector & Lighting Company, as well as the theatrical management firm of Sosman, Landis & Hunt; the ran theaters and stock companies. Sosman and Landis even purchased manufacturing firms, such as the Tennessee Pottery Co., to directly source materials for lighting equipment.

[Slide 43]

Over the past few decades, I have identified 113 Sosman & Landis employees, tracing their lives and careers. Although this is only a small fraction of their total employees, it exhibits an unprecedented diversity in the American Theatre industry. The Sosman & Landis scenic studio was the proverbial melting pot of stage craft, a successful blend of old-world traditions and new world innovation. Here is a list of nineteen Sosman & Landis scenic artists who were born overseas in England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Denmark, Sweden, and the Germany Empire (Prussia and Bavaria).

[Slide 44]

Here is a list of thirteen 1^st-generation scenic artists, the children of emigrants who were Bavarian, Polish, Czech, Dutch, English, French, and German. Again, these are the artistic who are confirmed, representing a small fraction of the complete employee total.

[Slide 45]

With a corresponding map, so you can see the specific region.

[Slide 46]

Seventeen employees came from families who had been in the country for quite some time, but they had been raised in the east; in the states of Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York. These scenic artists trained in the English Method.

[Slide 47]

With a corresponding map, so you can see the specific region.

[Slide 48]

Thirty-five scenic artists were born and raised in the Midwestern States of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska; a hodge podge collection of descendants representing the United Kingdom and Europe; many raised on a farm, or the children of local merchants. These individuals became scenic artists, trained in both the English and Continental methods. Many were trained in the hybrid method, using opaque washes on a vertical paint frame.

[Slide 49]

With a corresponding map, so you can see the specific region. Please keep in mind that these slides of lists do not include the dozens of stage carpenters, seamstresses, salesmen, or office staff who worked at Sosman & Landis in Chicago or many of the branch offices. The slides also failed to include those who never make the news; underrepresented communities, and those people of color who were passing for white.

[Slide 50]

Statistically, thousands of scenes painted by nineteenth-century scenic artists remain scattered across North America, with many now tucked away in storerooms, under stages, or above auditorium rafters. They are primary sources for future generations of theatre scholars and practitioners to study. These historic artifacts not only represent the legacy of American scenic artists, but also the legacy of immigrant artists and their homelands.

[Slide 51]

The End

Here is a link to the Tyne Theatre & Opera House conference web page: https://www.tynetheatreandoperahouse.uk/international-conference/

Bonus! Glazing Techniques in Scenic Art.

I just posted the following to my Facebook Group “Dry Pigment.” Every day, I explore one historic scene or design.

Below are images of a backdrop now stored at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. Manufacturer unknown at this time. However, it illustrates a point that I have been writing about. This composition shows the use of glazes, building up a shape/composition from light to dark. The use of glazing was associated with the English tradition and those scenic artists who were trained in London before working in the States. This tradition primarily settled in the East Coast and some West Coast areas. That is not to say that examples are not found elsewhere. Two schools of scenic art were established in the United States during the nineteenth century: the English tradition of glazing and the European use of opaque washes. The use of opaque washes was characteristic of many Midwestern studios, such as Sosman & Landis. I have written quite a bit about each scenic art, just do a keyword search on the subject.

A historic backdrop now stored at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities.

Detail of a historic backdrop now stored at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities.

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 409 – “Art on the Stage” 1881, Secrets of the Scene Painter

Part 409: “Art on the Stage” 1881, Secrets of the Scene Painter

“The Building News and Engineering Journal” published an article on the art of scene painting 1881. Here is the second of three parts.

“Secrets of the Scene-Painter

The next step is the laying in of the groundwork. The sky is, of course, the first point. This is done with whitewash brushes, the painter being absolutely free from all restraint in his method of putting on the colour. The principal point is to get it on quickly. And here the great advantages of painting in distemper become thoroughly plain. These advantages are two in number: the first is, that the colour dries very quickly, thus affording the artist a high rate of speed in working; secondly, all the colours retain, when dry, precisely the same tint as they had before being mixed. The addition of the sizing makes each colour several shades darker than it is when simply in the powdered state. The knowledge of this fact and thorough understanding of the effect the tints will produce after drying is one of the great secrets of the art. Oil-painters of high standing have been known to try the distemper method with utterly disastrous results. Colours mixed with oil always darken several shades and remain dark. Colours mixed with sizing always dry out to their original shade.

Image by Marc D. Hill. He has some amazing pictures. Here is the link: https://hiveminer.com/Tags/old,powder

Different painters have different methods, and there is as much variety in the school of scene-painting as in other branches of art. The German, French, and American artists use opaque washes, or, as it is usually expressed, work in “body colour.” The English school, in which the greatest advances have been made, use thin glazes. This in scene painting is the quickest and most effective. Morgan, Marston, Fox, and Voegtlin are among the leading representatives of this school in America, and their method is gradually spreading among the artists of that country. Its rapidity may be judged from the fact that one of these artist’s lately painted a scene measuring twenty by thirty feet in less than four hours.

One of the greatest differences in scene-painting from ordinary water-colour painting is that, while the colours of the latter are transparent, those of the former are opaque. For instance, the water-colour painter can lay in a wash of yellow ochre, and, by covering it when dry, with a light coat of madder lake, can transform it to a soft orange. In distemper, however, the coat of madder lake would not allow the yellow to show but would completely hide it, and the tint presented would be pure pink. From this fact results a total difference in the painting of foliage. The water-colour painter lays in his light tints first and puts in his shadows afterwards. The scene-painter may do this or not as he pleases. He may put his light tints over his dark ones and they will not lose any of their brilliancy. The advantage of this in regard to speed may be easily seen. If the water-colour painter wishes to put a high light in the middle of a shadow, he must first erase with a sharp knife a portion of his dark tint, or else put on a heavy spot of Chinese white. Over the spot thus erased or whitened he puts the required tint. The distemper painter is relieved of this roundabout process, for he simply dots in his light colour wherever he needs it over the darker shade, and it shows with perfect brilliancy. Again, in painting skies the scene-painter works by a method of his own, not unlike that adopted by oil-painters. The water-colour painter must leave all the broad light of his sky when putting in the main colour, and is obliged to work with his tints wet. The scene-painter may lay in the entire sky with blue, and paint his light yellowish clouds over it afterward. If the ordinary water-colour painter were to do this, his clouds would be green. Some scene-painters, however, work their entire skies wet. The effect of a sky painted thus is always very fine, but only an artist thoroughly conversant with the values of his several pigments can do this. For the colours, it will be remembered, present a very different appearance when wet from that which they have when dry.

Scene-painting has become so important an art that one large firm in New York makes a great specialty of imported materials. There is a long list of colours and other things used exclusively in scenic art, and improvements are being constantly made. Formerly scene-painters were obliged to grind their own colours, but these are now prepared in “pulp” – that is, ground in water. Among the colours used almost exclusively by scenic artists are English white, Paris white, zinc white, silver white, drop black, Frankfort black, Turkey umbers, Italian siennas, Cologne earth, Dutch pink, Schweinfurter green, Neuwieder green, ultramarine green, Bremen blue, azure blue, Persian scarlet, Turkey red, Tuscan red, Solferino, Magenta, Munich lake, Florentine lake, Vienna lake, and blue lake. Some of these colours are also used by fresco painters.

Those which are never used except by scenic artists are celestial blue, golden ochres, green lakes, Milori greens, French green and yellow lakes. The colours specially imported for scene-painters are carnation, royal purples, green lakes, and the English chromes. Indigo is used in very large quantities by scenic artists, but it is used very moderately by water-colour artists. It adds considerably to the expense of getting up scenery.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 393 – The Fenton Families

Part 393: The Fenton Families

In 1889 W. J. Lawrence listed some prominent English scene painting families – the Greenwoods, Grieves, Stanfields, Callcotts, Dansons, Fentons, Gordons, and Telbins. This installment looks at the Fentons (The Theatre Magazine, July 13, 1889).

There were two sets of theatrical families with the last name of Fenton during the 19^th century; both families included performers, but one was distinguished for their scenic art contributions. It is the descendants of James Gill Fenton that W. J. Lawrence was referring to when discussing English scene painting family. James Gill Fenton was listed as a prompter and stage manager. He had four children Caroline (b. 1819), Frederick (b. 1820), Charles (b. 1822), and Charlotte (b. 1825). It would be the two boys who would continue as scenic artists and later be listed as well-known scene painters.

James Gill Fenton (1794-1877) was a scenic artist and stage director to Edmund Kean. He was also noted as prompter and stage manager. He passed away in 1877 at the age of 83.

Charles Gill Fenton (1822-1877) began his acting career during the 1830s playing small parts in pantomimes. From 1844-1859 he played principal roles and began performing in Shakespearean productions at Sadler’s Wells Theatre. Between 1863 and 1873, Charles was listed as an actor and scenic artist at the Strand Theatre. In 1866, Frederick Gill Fenton(1820-1898) was an actor and a scene painter. Frederick was working at the Victoria Theatre while his brother Charles Fenton was working at the Strand.

Charles then transitioned to working in Vaudeville from 1873 to 1874. Charles married Carloline Parkes (b. 1838), a dancer and an actress at Her Majesty’s, Sadler’s Wells, Marlebone, Surrey, and many other theatres, as well as, music halls for almost thirty years. She worked in the theatre from 1849-1973. Charles died the same year as his father, 1877, at the age of 56.

A few years later, an article titled “Art On The Stage” was published from the Building News and Engineering Journal, July 29th, 1881

“Scene Painting is an art by itself. There is no other branch of painting just like it, either in the variety of subjects embraced or in the methods employed. The thorough scenic artist must be equally at home in landscape or marine work, architectural or fresco. He is not permitted to cultivate any particular branch of his art, nor any favourite style. He must be able to produce, at any time, the wild mountainous passes of Switzerland or the flat meadows of Holland; the green lanes of homelike England, or the winding valleys of romantic Spain. In his architectural work he cannot devote himself to the Gothic or the Romanesque, but must be equally master of the Moorish, the Greek, and the Oriental. He may to-day be called upon to paint the Temple of Minerva, and to-morrow the Mosque of Omar; this week the Windsor Hotel, and next week the Palace of Versailles. His art knows no boundaries, and his scope is confined by no limits. The universe must be at his command, and things unseen must live in his imagination. The methods by which he works and many of the materials he employs are altogether different from those employed by the ordinary oil or water-colour painter. They approach more nearly to those of the latter, yet even here certain qualities of the colours used by the scene-painter constitute a sharp dividing line.”

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 392 – The Greenwood Family of Scenic Artists

Part 392: The Greenwood Family of Scenic Artists

In 1796, the scene painter “Tom Greenwood” was the painter at the Drury Lane Theatre. He who worked with Thomas Bank, and both painted for a “Harlequin” production (“Life of an Actor” by Pierce Egan and T. Greenwood, 1825, page 207). This was T. L. Greenwood’s father.

“The Life of an Actor” with contributions by T. L. Greenwood.

The obituary of Thomas Longdon Greenwood (1806-1879) reported that he was “a clever scene painter.” T. L. Greenwood came from a scene painting family. His father was the son of the scenic artist for Sadler’s Wells Theatre and Surrey Theatre (originally the Royal Circus), also painting settings for the ballet and other scenic attractions by J. C. Cross.

Illustration of Sadler Wells Theatre interior, 1807, with water scene from the Ocean’s Peril

He later transferred to the Drury Lane Theatre and became an even more prominent artist there. T. L. Greenwood’s grandfather was the eminent scenic artist for the Drury-lane Theatre, working for David Garrick until the beginning of the nineteenth century. He was honorably commemorated by Lord Byron in his “English Bards and Scottish Reviewers.” Byron remarked about “Greenwood’s gay designs.”

T. L. Greenwoods obituary reported that he was “initiated behind the scenes of a Theatre at a very early period of his life.” Even though he was brought up to the study of medicine, which he followed so far as to open on his own account a druggist’s establishment in Clerkenwell, his inclinations were always toward a theatrical career. He was remembered for his “intimate knowledge of the Drama in all its varied forms, a practical acquaintance with every department of the Theatre and an administrative ability which was throughout his life associated with the most conscientious integrity, were rare acquirements, that he used to the advantage of others rather than himself.

When he was attached to the Olympic, Greenwood painted the original scenery for “Tom and Jerry” and Moncrieff’s extravaganza of “Giovanni in London.” He also wrote a series of pantomimes for the Surrey, Adelphi, and other theatres, “showing much originality of style and fanciful humour in treatment, and a number of melodramas and spectacles, popular at the time, proceeded from his always ready pen.”

In 1839, Greenwood joined Robert Honner in the management of Sadler Wells, when his adaptiation of “Jack Sheppard” and his melodramatic romance of “Paul, the Pilot; or, the Wreck of the Rover” obtained considerable popularity. In 1844, he was associated with Samuel Phelps in the lesseeship of the same theatre, and it took an active part in the direction of the legitimate campaign that did not end until 1860. Some years later, he accepted the direction of Astley’s for the Christmas period, and also accepted the position of Acting-Manager at the Princess’s during the early part of George Vining’s tenure. His obituary concluded with “Ever seeking out the means of rendering a kindly service to the deserving, and always prompt to assist those who could establish a fair claim to his generous remembrance, the announcement of the death of T. L. Greenwood will fall upon a large circle of the Profession like the tidings of the loss of a dear friend to whom they unfailingly turned for aid and advice in the hour of need. Those who knew him best will feel the deepest sorrow – for the loss of companionship, and hold his memory in highest esteem.”

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 391 – The Danson Family of Scenic Artists

Part 391: The Danson Family of Scenic Artists

George Danson Jr. (1799-1881) was the son of George Danson Sr., and Mary Ianson. His father was a prominent Liverpool maritime merchant and ship owner who died bankrupt. One of five children, George Jr. became apprenticed to T. & J. Shrigley, after his father’s death. The Shrigleys worked as decorative painters, wood grainers, and japanners. On the completion of his apprenticeship, he went to London. By the age of 24, the Royal Academy exhibited two of his paintings. Danson also exhibited occasionally for the British Institution and the Society for British Artists. In 1824, he married Ann Ireland and the couple had seven children. The two sons that survived to adulthood followed their father’s profession and also became scenic artists. By the late 1840s, the scenic art firm of Danson & Sons. Messrs appears in playbills and directories.

Danson created the Cyclorama of Lisbon with designs from Bradwell (Builder, v. 6, Dec. 30, 1848, pg. 627). He was also a popular scenic artist for Astley’s, where he worked with the famous showman, Andrew Ducrow. He was employed to paint for a variety of venues, including Covent Garden, Coburg Theater, Vauxhall Gardens, the Belle Vue Zoological Gardens, the Surrey Gardens, the Coliseum at Regent’s Park and Drury Lane.

His obituary reported, “Early in his career, Mr. Danson was engaged with David Roberts. R.A., as a scene painter at the Theatre Royal, Edinburgh. Subsequently he assisted in carrying out the constructive decoration of Vauxhall Gardens, and was employed under Macready, and with Clarkston Stanfield in the production of the scenery of the great master’s Shakespearean revivals. At the request of Mr. Braham he produced at the Coliseum in Regents’s Park the dioramas of “London” and “Paris by Moonlight,” and designed and erected various grottoes, Swiss chalets, and other scenic illusions which delighted a former generation. At the Surrey, the Adelphi, and other metropolitan theatres, he devised and produced the scenery of the Christmas pantomimes for m any years. All this long and varied experience Mr. Danson brought to bear in his vast outdoor pictures at Belle Vue, Manchester. But beyond his recognized power as a scenic artist, Mr. Danson possessed a singularly inventive capability for adapting all kinds of materials to his necessities. He was an admirable carpenter and joiner” (The Furniture Gazette, 5 February 1881, page 97).

Vauxhall was frequented by all classes and had remained one of London’s favorite pleasure gardens since the late seventeenth century. The 1823 Vauxhall Gardens in London incorporated an eighty-foot high picture of Vesuvius and the Bay of Naples used as the background to a nightly outdoor fireworks show. However, by the 1820s, Vauxhall had become somewhat rundown and other pleasure gardens began to compete with it. , such as the Belle Vue Zoological Gardens that opened in 1831. This amusement center was the idea of John Jefferson (1793-1869). The main attractions at the zoo, botanical gardens and the amusements included mazes, grottoes, an Italian garden and exotic plant house. Danson was employed to paint 30,000 square feet of canvas to create the background where performers were employed to act out a scenario of a major historic event, usually incorporating a battle. Fireworks were incorporated into this spectacle that catered to the public on an industrial scale.

In 1851, he was asked by John Jennison to be the scenic artist at Belle Vue Gardens in Manchester, a position he held until his death in 1881. Charles Dickens was among Danson’s many friends. Danson’s sons, Thomas (1829-1917) and Robert (1836-1917), each continued careers I scenic art. Thomas Danson later held an art appointment at Belle Vue Gardens. Thomas passed away in 1893. His obituary reported, “The death has occurred in London, in his sixty-fourth year, of Thomas Danson, one of the best known of contemporary scene-painters. He and his brother were well known in the North for the huge scenic “effects” produced by them at the Belle Vue Gardens, Manchester” (Birmingham Daily Post 22 December 1893).

Aerial view of Belle Vue during the 1930s

The Belle Vue zoo closed September 11, 1977; the Belle Vue amusement park closed October 26, 1980; and the Belle Vue gardens closed during February 1982.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 390 – Clarkston Frederick Stanfield and his Moving Dioramas

Part 390: Clarkston Frederick Stanfield and his Moving Dioramas

The Grieve family’s scenic work for Covent Garden was considered to be exceptional due to their use of transparent glazes, a technique first developed by John Henderson Greive. The Grieve family of scenic artists remained at the top of their profession utilizing this technique until others were able to emulate it, and improve upon it; Clarkston Frederick Stanfield (1793-1878) and David Roberts, R. A. (1796-1864) were two such scenic artsts. Stanfield and Roberts entered the scenic art picture in 1822 when they first started working at the Drury Lane Theatre. It was Stanfield, however, who would introduce movement to the wonderful scenic illusions at the Drury Lane. Roberts was a fine architectural draftsman and scenic artist draughtsman, by the spectacles produced by Stanfield surpassed both Roberts and the Grieves family triumvirate.

By 1823, Stanfield was in the lead at the Drury Lane, creating a succession of ‘moving dioramas.’ In this context, diorama does not refer to the current understanding of a partially three-dimensional painted scene, but a theatre device. Moving dioramas became features of Stanfield’s English Christmas pantomimes during the 1820s. Stanfield’s moving dioramas (what we now may term moving panoramas) were introduced into each of his successive pantomimes; they were considered artistic triumphs and fueled the competition with other scenic artists such as Roberts.

In 1871, E. L. Blanchard wrote that Stanfield “first distinguished himself at Drury Lane by the scenic effects with which he illustrated the opera Der Freyschutz, produced on that stage in 1824.” From that time he remained the chief of the Drury Lane painting-room while Roberts joined the Covent Garden team. Some of Stanfield’s earliest scenes of this kind were in “Harlequin and the Flying Chest,” and his Crystal Grotto in” Harlequin and the Talking Bird” Blanchard reported that they “created a marked sensation” (“Scenery and Scene-Painters” by The Era Almanack, 1871). Pantomimes, or Pantos, appealed to audiences not only for their favorite actors, but also for the processions, tableaux, staged spectacles, and transformation scenes. Stanfield’s moving panorama were enhanced by the use of two moving panoramas that moved simultaneously.

One moving diorama was rolled between two cylinders on the stage. Certain sections were transparent and backlit to suggest the effect of sunrise, sunset, illuminated windows, fire, or other effects. Stanfield’s use of two canvases, one placed in front of the other allowed additional elements to enhance the three-dimensional effect and potential for visual spectacle. The downstage canvas had cut out sections revealing the upstage composition and placing additional elements in the scene. Between the two canvases, profile pieces moved; one example is a sea ship. Stage machinery and the new medium of gas lighting greatly enhanced the painted illusion. Stanfield’s design for “Zoraster” at Drury Lane incorporated a moving diorama that measured 482 feet long.

By 1825, Stanfield produced the great panoramic display titled “Naumetaboia” for a Jack of all Trades (Christmas, 1825), showing the adventures of a man-of-war, from the launch at Dover, its encounter with a gale, the wreck, and the towing into a foreign port. That December, “The Times” theatre review predicted that both Stanfield and Roberts would ‘become highly eminent as contributors to those institutions which have been established for the encouragement of painting in this country’.

Other notable productions mentioned by Blanchard included the 1826 Man in the Moon, that further supported his excellence as a marine painter, with two remarkable scenes called “England’s Pride” and “England’s Glory.” In 1827, Stanfield painted a “fine reputation of Portsmouth in a Gale of Wind for Harlequin and Cock Robin. In 1828, Stanfield painted a moving diorama for Harlequin and the Queen Bee.

Playbill for “The Queen Bee,” listing the scenic effects painted by Clarkston Frederick Stanfield

Playbill for “The Queen Bee,” listing the new moving diorama painted by Clarkston Frederick Stanfield

The audience was taken on a sea voyage from “Spithead at Sunrise,” past the entrance to Portsmouth Harbour, the Dockyard, Gosport, Mother Bank, Isle of Wight with the Royal Yacht Club, Cowes Regatta, the Needles by Moonlight, the Ocean, the Rock of Gibraltar and ending with a “Grand View of Constantinople.”

Roberts was famous for his dioramas, but never produced works which equaled Stanfield’s, such as “the moving diorama of Alpine scenery, or the memorable views of Windsor and the neighbourhood, which included the sparkling tableau of Virginia water, wherein the real element was so effectively introduced” (The Era Almanack, 1871, page 37). Stanfield introduced unbelievably realistic elements on the stage that were supported by the new gaslight. Roberts left the Drury Lane to join the Grieve family triumvirate of John, Thomas and William Grieve at the Covent Garden Theatre by 1828.

Stanfield’s 1829 pantomime Jack in the Box was distinguished by his diorama depicting the pass of the Simplon, the Valley of the Rhone, Domo D’Ossola, and Lago Maggiore, with the Boromean Islands. An exceptional scene in 1831 was reported to be his diorama of Venice for Harlequin and Little Thumb. The following year he created a magnificent painting of the Falls of Niagara, as seen from the approach to Buffalo on Lake Erie, and the Horse Shoe and Great American fall from Goat Island for Harlequin Traveller.

Stanfield’s painting for the 1833 Christmas equestrian spectacle, St. George and the Dragon was “rendered remarkable by his Egyptian diorama, commencing with the great cataracts and showing the ascent of a pyramid.” The next year he depicted Penrith and Carlisle “in the days of yore” for King Arthur; reviews reported on his “admirable scenery.”

In 1837, Macready became lessee of Covent Garden, and produced the pantomime of Peeping Tom of Coventry, for which Stanfield painted a diorama comprising a series of views in the north of Italy, Savoy, the Alps, and through “French Flanders” to the sea. A special paragraph in the play-bill recorded how the distinguished artist had, “as a sacrifice and in the kindest and most liberal manner, quitted for a short time his easel in order to present the Manager with his last work in that department of the art he has so conspicuously advanced to mark his interest in the success of the cause this Theatre labours to support.”

Two years later, Stanfield created the scenery for the revival of Henry the Fifth, including panoramic illustrations of the Storming of Harfleur, the Battle of Aginciurt, and a view of Southhampton with the departure of the Fleet. Stanfield also furnished the exquisite Sicilian views, illustrative of Acis and galatea, that would become the artist’s last “labours for the stage.”

The Grieve family’s contribution to scenic art in England was the pictorial landscapes gracefully worked up with a series of glazes. Stanfield brought the movement and excitement when he set these beautiful painted settings in motion.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 389 – Clarkston Frederick Stanfield

Part 389: Clarkston Frederick Stanfield

Clarkston Frederick Stanfield was the youngest of five children born to James Stanfield and Mary Hoad. He is sometimes erroneously referred to as William Clarkston Stanfield. Like other scenic artists, he came from a theatrical family. Stanfield was born in Sunderland, County Durham, above a shop that was located at the intersection of Playhouse Lane (later known as Drury Lane) and Sunderland High Street. Behind their building was the local theatre.

His father was a merchant seaman who later became a provincial actor, traveling and playing in a variety of performance venues that included theatres, barns, and at race meetings. His appeared on stages from Edinburgh to Scarborough. Some suggest that that Clarkston was encouraged to try his hand at scene painting for his father’s shows, others suggested that it was his mother who encouraged his earliest artworks for the stage. While on the road with his father, he also performed in minor children’s roles. W. J Lawrence included an interesting tidbit in his 1889 article: “Very few people nowadays seem to have any knowledge of the fact that Clarkston Stanfield’s father was not only a capital scenic artist, but a man with some pretensions to literary fame. From his fluent pen came the popular Freemason’s song, “Friendship and Love.” That will be a tidbit tucked away for a future post!

Stanfield’s mother was both an actress and artist. She not only taught painting, but also published a children’s book. She passed away in 1801, when Clarkston was only eight years old. Soon after her death, his father remarried a much younger woman – one who had been his ward. The subsequent arrival of several additional children from the union are often attributed to the “farming out” of the older children for various trade apprenticeships. In 1806, Clarkston became apprenticed to a heraldic painter in Edinburgh. His mentor specialized in the decorative painting of coaches. This apprenticeship lasted approximately two years, until the living and working situation became unbearable for Clarkston. He ran away at the age of fifteen and left for sea on a merchant ship, later becoming pressed into service for the navy by the age of 19. Even on the seas, Stanfield continued to paint. Whether he worked on a small projects assigned by his captain or backings for amateur theatrics on board ship, he continued to hone his artistic skills while at sea. At one point he was even sent ashore to do some painting for an admiral’s ballroom.

Stanfield was discharged from the navy after an accident left him unfit to remain in service; this provided him with the opportunity to re-enter the theatre profession. From his father, he possessed many of the necessary contacts to obtain his first work at the East London Theatre (formerly the Royalty Theatre) in Wellclose Square. Although he did not have the benefit of a scenic art apprenticeship, his career soon flourished in both London and Edinburgh after he proved his worth.

It was rough in the beginning, as his colleagues often forced him to work apart – even banning access to the Scene Painting room where he could warm his size-kettle. However, Stanfield’s talent was recognized and he gradually earned the acceptance of his fellow artists. By 1817 he was earning a salary of £3 a week as a principal artist and had acquired an apprentice of his own – Robert Jones. Stanfield was well respected for the speed at which he painted, his endurance, and the quality of his work. To gain additional funds during this time, he continued to work as a decorative painter in the area.

His specialty was maritime scenes and soon met who would become his lifelong friend and fellow artist, David Roberts, R. A. (1796-1864). By 1822, both were both working as scenic artists for the Drury Lane theatre, a venue lit with the new medium of gas lighting.

An article in “The Times” (Dec. 28, 1828) commented on the stunning transformation of the painted settings and Stanfield’s contribution to Drury Lane. The article also mentioned that the prior to Stanfield’s arrival depicted “water as opaque as the surrounding rocks, and clouds;” it was “not a bit transparent.” Stanfield was credited with bringing “a knowledge of light and shade which enabled him to give his scenes great transparency.” In other words, Stanfield was employing the glazing technique as introduced by John Henderson Grieve during the first decade of the eighteenth century. Stanfield had figured out how to replicate the Grieve technique.

Stanfield married twice. His first marriage was to Mary Hutchinson in 1818, producing two children. Sadly, the marriage only lasted until 1821, when Mary died only a month after the birth of their second child. He remarried three years later, taking Rebecca Adcock as his second wife in 1824 and the couple had ten children; his second son, George Stanfield, followed in his father’s footsteps as an artist.

It was reported that the loss of his good friend Roberts in 1864 greatly affected the remainder of Stanfield’s life and his ten years were spent in poor health with rheumatism and a bad leg. He was housebound for long periods of time and unable to work. Stanfield passed away on May 18, 1867, at the age of 73.

To be continued…

There is an extremely well-written article on Stanfield by Dr. Peter van der Merwe, MBE, DL, General Editor and Greenwich Curator, Royal Museums Greenwich. Here is the link to his article: http://www.victorianweb.org/painting/stanfield/biography.html#5

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 388 – The Grieve Family

Part 388: The Grieve Family

The Grieves were a family of scene painters who worked at various London theatres during the late-eighteenth through nineteenth century, producing theatre scenery, spectacles and pantomimes. The Grieves had long been famous for the “brilliancy of their style” and the “strong feeling of reality that they communicated to the spectator.” In 1866, the Era reported, “in the taste and artistic beauty of their landscape compositions, they have since had few rivals, and have never been excelled. The Covent Garden Pantomime of ‘Aladdin’ honored Thomas Grieve. The last scene of The ‘Master of Ravenswood,’ at the Lyceum, with the storm effects introduced, was cited as a credit to Grieve’s powers (Gossip About Scenery and Scene Painters from “The Era” 4 February 1866).

The Era Almanack, 1871, reported, “The Grieves had long been famous for their Pantomime scenery, and in the brilliancy of their style, the strong feeling of reality which they communicated to the spectator, and in the taste and artistic beauty of their landscape compositions, they have since had few rivals and never been excelled” (“Scenery and Scene-Painters” by E. L. Blanchard, page 37).

John Henderson Grieve (1770-1845) was the patriarch of the family whose scenic art was primarily associated with Covent Garden. Of Scottish origin, J. H. Grieve was both a painter and draughtsman, born in 1770. Early on in his career, he moved from Perth to work as a scene-painter in the smaller London theatres. By 1794, he was employed by Richard Brinsley Sheridan at Drury Lane. By 1817 he was the lead scenic artist working for the Covent Garden. He remained there throughout the duration of his career, with the exception of extended two absences from 1835-1839 and 1843-1845.

John Henderson Grieve from “Grieve Family Collection of Theatre Designs” at the Senate House Library Archives, University of London. https://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/search/archives/3b0cd6e4-22b9-3af4-aa6c-18adba974cc5

John’s two sons were Thomas (1799-1882) and William (1800-1844), each began their scenic art careers at the Covent Garden Theatre, both training and working for their father. The three remained painting together anformed the famous scenic triumvirate at Covent Garden. Thomas was later assisted by his own son, Thomas Walford Grieve (1841-1882), and together they were credited with contributing to the development of scenic art from romanticism to realism. In 1871, the Era Almanack reported, “To Mr. T. Grieve, and his son Mr. Walford Grieve, the modern stage has been largely indebted. Several drop scenes for the late Theatre known as Her Majesty’s, though coloured by the later William Grieve, were drawn by Pugin, the great restorer of ecclesiastical Gothic

Thomas Grieve from “Grieve Family Collection of Theatre Designs” at the Senate House Library Archives, University of London. https://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/search/archives/3b0cd6e4-22b9-3af4-aa6c-18adba974cc5

Thomas was particularly known for his work on Shakespearean revivals. Born in 1799, he began working with his father at Covent Garden by the age of 18. When Mr. and Mrs. Charles Mathews became the lessees in 1839, Thomas Grieve was chosen as the principal scenic artist, painting the scenery that accompanied their Christmas pantomimes. After his father’s death, he continued working at Covent Garden, but also painted for the Drury Lane, and at Her Majesty’s Theatre. He was one of the leading artists who supplied Charles Keen with scenery during his time at the Princess’ Theatre, Oxford Street, from 1850 to 1859.

In addition to working for his father, Thomas Grieve worked with the artists who created exhibits for panorama halls. He worked in conjunction with William Telbin and John Absolon to create a panorama depicting the campaigns of Wellington, the Crimean War, Ocean Mail, and Arctic Regions. Like his father, Thomas’ style was known for its brilliancy and realism. His landscape compositions were considered to reign at the top of his profession, and he worked until his passing in 1862. He married Elizabeth, daughter of Robert Goatley of Newbury, by whom he had two children, Thomas Walford Grieve and Fanny Elizabeth “Bessie” Grieve. Thomas Walford, began working with his father in 1862. He also painted for the Covent Garden and the Lyceum, working, for many years under the title “Grieve and Son.”

Thomas Walford Grieve from “Grieve Family Collection of Theatre Designs” at the Senate House Library Archives, University of London. https://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/search/archives/3b0cd6e4-22b9-3af4-aa6c-18adba974cc5

Thomas Walford Grieve, Aged 11 by Alfred Corbould, from the Paintings Collection; http://www.artuk.org/artworks/thomas-walford-grieve-aged-11-31333

John H. Grieve’s younger son, William, was born followed the same career course as brother, and made his debut as a scenic artist at the King’s Theatre (later known as Her Majesty’s Theatre). He remained in the venue as a scenic artist stayed until his early passing in 1844, leaving a large family. William was well respected and primarily known for his transformation scenes, especially his moonlight effects. He was reputed to be the first scenic artist called before the curtain to receive the applause of the audience for his contribution to Robert le Diable at the King’s Theatre in 1832.

The three generations of Grieves were credited with not only the introduction of the glazing technique, but also as leading the transition from romanticism to realism in painting for the stage.

To be continued…

There is the “Grieve Family Collection of Theatre Designs” at the Senate House Library Archives, University of London. It is comprised of 655 original scene designs and three folders of slides that include panoramas and watercolor ‘cut-outs’ (profile pieces) by members of the Grieve family. The compositions depict various revival productions of Shakespeare plays, along with works by Isaac Pocock, M.R.Lacy, Thomas Otway, Michael Costa, Samuel Beazley, Douglas Jerrold, G.Meyerbeer, Charles A.Somerset, Edward Fitzball, Rossini and others that were staged at the Theatre Royal (Drury Lane), the Theatre Royal (Covent Garden) and Her Majesty’s Theatre, 1813-1857). Here is the ink: https://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/search/archives/3b0cd6e4-22b9-3af4-aa6c-18adba974cc5

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 387 – Trade Secrets, or the Initiation into the Mysteries of Size and Whitewash

Part 387: Trade Secrets, or the Initiation into the Mysteries of Size and Whitewash

In 1889 W. J. Lawrence commented on the English scenic artists’ contribution to the theatre (The Theatre Magazine, July 13, 1889). He detailed the evolution of “the old odor of disreputability” associated with scenic art in the 1830s, noting the condescending characterization of “daubing,” “white washing,” and “paper-hanging.” He briefly mentions the contributions of Clarkston Frederick Stanfield (1793-1867), David Roberts (1796-1864), William Leighton Leitch (1804-1883), and Joseph William Allen (1803-1852). However, he holds up William Roxby Beverly (1810-1889) as being “the first great scenic artist who knew how to uphold the dignity of the profession,” later describing those who were “initiated into the mysteries of size and whitewash” while acknowledging that most abandoned the paint frame for the easel. Lawrence quotes Chaucer in regard to the scene painting profession, “The lyfe so short, the craft to long to lerne.”

Lawrence goes on to explain that most notable English scenic artists originated from a long lineage of scene-painting families, “so habituated to the scene-loft from their youth upward.” Prominent among these scene painting families were the Greenwoods, Grieves, Stanfields, Callcotts, Dansons, Fentons, Gordons, and Telbins.” Lawrence wrote, “It comes somewhat as a reversal of the usual order of things to find a son beating his father at his own game, and completely effacing his identity by dint of superior genius.” This is a significant statement as it suggests that every generation improved upon the foundations of the previous one, as one would hope in the world of art. Lawrence also credits many of the English scenic artists as possessing a variety of other theatrical skills. He refers to Stanfield’s father as one specific example:

“Very few people nowadays seem to have any knowledge of the fact that Clarkston Stanfield’s father was not only a capital scenic artist, but a man with some pretensions to literary fame. From his fluent pen came the popular Freemason’s song, “Friendship and Love.”

This really accompanies his use of the “initiation into the mysteries of size and whitewash.” I immediately thought back to the 1881 Minneapolis newspaper article that mentioned Charles S. King and his being “initiated into some of the mysteries of stage mechanism.” Any initiation into a special group was founded on the keeping of secrets. In the case of scenic artists and stage machinists, it was the continued practice of innovating techniques that were kept secret from their competitors.

There were scene-painting families that functioned in the similar manner to that of earlier guilds. These groups of artisans closely safeguarded their painting techniques, as these were trade secrets and set them apart from the rest of their colleagues; not all scenic artists were cut from the same cloth, and some were simply better than others. Some also had taken years to master techniques that they would never hand off to a competitor. They expected any new apprentice to slowly acquire an understanding of a skill, as there were no shortcuts, or fast tracks, to becoming a master scene painter.

In London, as well as other places, the “scene-painting fraternity” practiced the ‘exclusive’ system or a closed shop, barring those who had not gone through an apprenticeship. Again, not everyone had the talent, connections, or training to make the cut. The apprenticeship system monetized on a specific artistic approach, as this was a direct attribution to their success, especially when it involved new techniques or technology.

A print depicting some merchant guild emblems.

I think about the Mosaic families in the East and how each group specialized in a unique Mosaic pattern that was passed down from father to son, or master to entered apprentice. I also think back to the cathedral builders and the close kept secrets of masonry and construction techniques. Operative masonry had a specific body of knowledge safeguarded by individual, lodges, masters, passwords and grips to identify a member of their group prior to entry in any meeting. Guilds were never intended as a free resource for inspiring artists, or any artisan who happened to pass along. The function of a guild was not to share resources, but to maintain a standard, adding skills for those who only helped your group surpass the competition. Competitors would attempt to replicate techniques, but it was unlikely that they would ever access the original formula; leaving them to create only poor imitations of the originals. Think of the generic version for a prescription medication. Almost the same, but not quite.

So, lets get back to the introduction of English glazing and its use abroad. The technique in scenic art is credited to a member of the Grieves, a well-known scene painting family in England. This is what set the Grieves apart at the Covent Garden Theatre. They established a new trade technique within their family, that brought them to the top of their profession as noted by Lawrence in 1889. In approximately 1810, John Henderson Grieve was credited with revolutionizing the “ordinary methods of scene painting” by introducing a glaze in lieu of solid colors. He is using a series of translucent layers to create a vibrant depth to the overall composition and it was an instantaneous success with the public. Grieve’s son William, also used the family practice of glazing, and eventually was recognized as the first English scene painter to whom the public paid tribute with a “call” before the curtain in 1832. This scene painting technique was eventually replicated and employed as the accepted technique by English scenic artists by the mid-nineteenth century.

So who were the other families who contributed to English scenic art tradition and eventually beat the Grieves at their own game? Tomorrow, we will start with the background on the Grieves and move to the other families.

To be continued…