Scenic Effect – Drypigment.net

Travels of a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Tyne Theatre & Opera House Conference, 2 August 2024.

My week at the Tyne Theatre & Opera House in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England, culminated with a conference on Friday, August 2, 2024. “Theatrical Scene Painting in the 19^th Century: The Artist and the Picture Frame” was the second theatre conference held at the venue.

*Photograph by Mike Hume of Historic Theatre Photos*

The first conference occurred less than a year before (Sept. 13-15, 2023), with 120 delegates attending from the UK, Europe, Canada, and the United States.

*Second Annual Conference at the Tyne Theatre & Opera House, 2 Aug. 2024.*

Both events were organized by David Wilmore of Theatresearch and Rachel Snape, Heritage & Development Project Manager at the Tyne Theatre & Opera House. This year, the entire conference took place upon the stage, with delegates facing the auditorium. An Act Drop was hung (in reverse, facing the upstage wall), to set the stage for the delegates. The painting was from the brush of Deborah Mitchell in 1997, replicating an earlier curtain painted by Ernest Howard for the Royal Theatre Opera House, Northampton, 1896.

*Backside of Northampton Act Drop painted by Deborah Mitchell.*

The morning panel featured three papers.

Raymond Walker (left) explored the visual aspects of Victorian scenery and how it evolved during the 20^th century. Dr. David Wilmore (center) explored the original portraits for Gilbert & Sullivan’s “Ruddygore”, now on display at a private theatre (Normansfield). Karen Thompson (right) examined the Normansfield Scenery Collection and its conservation.

After lunch we were invited back to the stage for a stage machinery demonstration. The sloats in the stage cuts supported three of the eight ground rows I painted for the venue. The previous evening David Wilmore and Colin Hopkins (Project Site Manager & Stage Carpenter) led a crew to install the ground rows.

*Colin Hopkins attaching a ground row to a sloat. Photograph by Mike Hume of Historic Theatre Photos*

*Preparing a ground row for attachment to the sloats.* Photograph by Mike Hume of Historic Theatre Photos

The afternoon panel in my presentation, “Scenic Art, Past & Present”, Grit Eckert’s presentation “We are still here!!! Scene Painting – a Historical Study and still a Theatrical Trade”, and Prof. Christina Young’s “19^th Century Scottish Scenic Painters: Paint Frame to Picture Frame”.

As promised to those who could not attend the conference, here is my Powerpoint with text:

My name is Wendy Waszut-Barrett and I come to you as a theatre historian, scenery preservation specialist, scenic designer, and – most importantly – scenic artist. My presentation will look in detail at the paint medium used by 19^th century scenic artists and its capabilities. Then I will explain how I became so passionate about the history of scenic art and how both past and present research has altered my understanding of theatre history.

Each aspect of my career creates a lens through which I view theatre history. For me, the phrase, “Preserving the Past” goes far beyond the conservation of historic artifacts; it also applies to the preserving the theatrical trades.

Although many scene painting techniques remain well-documented in various publications and memoirs, much has been lost from contemporary application – more specifically, the institutional memory in most scenic studios. I am going to shed some light on nineteenth-century scene painting practices. Understanding the nuances of the distemper painting system helps us appreciate the metamorphic nature of stage settings created by 19th- and early-20th-century scenic artists.

Distemper paint solely consists of two ingredients: color (dry pigment paste) and binder (cooked and diluted hide glue). It really is an amazing artistic medium. In dry form, both pigment and glue can be stored for decades, weathering a wide range of temperatures. There is also no waste during the painting process, as dried piles of pigment paste on a can be quickly reconstituted with water.”

In 1903, American scenic artist, Grace Wishaar (pictured on the left) explained “Distemper is a really beautiful medium. You can produce such fine effects with it! But it’s very tricky unless you know JUST how to handle it.”

Over a decade later, her colleague Frank Atkinson wrote the following statement about distemper paint in his scene painting manual “.. distemper colors change greatly in value as they dry out…the student must not let a few failures discourage him. True ‘color deductions’ will come with experience.”

In 1924, Joseph Harker described distemper paint in his publication “Studio and Stage” as ”a peculiarly difficult medium to handle” explaining “In some instances the color, when applied, dries several degrees lighter in tone than it was originally, while in others remains unaltered. Considerable skill, if I may put is so baldly, is therefore needed in the direct painting with this medium and no fixed rules can be laid down for overcoming the characteristics I have mentioned. Long and pain staking experience is alone capable of solving each fresh color problem as it arises.” For over 35 years, I have been challenged with each distemper painting project. That being said, there is no other paint I would rather use for stage settings.

Every time I pick up a brush and paint a backdrop, I become part of the scenic art timeline, continuing the legacy of those who came before me. I still prefer painting stage scenery with distemper paint. Nothing feels quite so pure to handle, or reflects stage lights quite so well.

Let’s look at how the paint was prepared. Pigment arrived at the scenic studio in three forms – dry powder, compressed block, or wet pulp. Blocks of dry color necessitated grinding prior to their transformation into a paste.

Pigment paste was placed on a scenic artists palette and mixed with diluted hide glue, also called “size water” or “working size” or just size – hence some artists referring to this as “size painting.” Both color and binder necessitated careful preparation, the tasks completed by skilled individuals. In larger studios, “Color men” supervised preparation and distribution of colors, as ill-prepared pigment paste (pigment granules that weren’t fully dissolved) could compromise an entire composition.”

Making size from hide glue was also a skilled task, each batch affected by heat and humidity. Water is added to dry hide-glue granules, or a slab, and slowly-cooked to a honey-like consistency, then diluted with water.

Here is an example of a scenic artist’s palette, filled with bowls of pigment paste, and a size warmer below. The pigment paste and size water were mixed together on the large palette, then immediately applied to the fabric. The preparation of pigment paste, cooking of size, and set-up of a palette takes time. However, the actual distemper painting process makes up for any lost time in the set-up.

As presented in my paper last year, there were two prominent scenic art traditions at play in 19^th century; each defined by the viscosity (or thickness) of paint and its application. There was the use of transparent glazes (depicted in the left images) and opaque washes (depicted in the right).

Distemper was applied to scenery in two ways – “up” on a vertical frame or “down” on the floor. Both versions were transported to the United States, and referred to as “English” method (for up) and the “Continental” method (for down). Painting a drop that was tacked to the floor require long handles, or bamboo poles that extended the handle of a brush. Tacking backdrops to vertical frames often meant that either the frame or bridge upon which the artist stood on was movable.

Where do I fall within the framework of scenic art history? I am a hybrid. I was trained in the Midwestern United States using distemper paints (in the form of opaque washes) on a motorized frame at University. However, as a freelance scenic artist, pre-mixed paints and the continental method (floor) were preferred.

This is the motorized paint frame that I use in the States. My past eight shows have featured distemper settings.

Distemper paint and vertical paint frames were made for each other. As distemper paint permeates each underlying layer, drips are not an issue, even when the viscosity looks like milk. Distemper paint permeated the underlying layer, so even a drip will soon reabsorb into the fabric. Some contemporary (pre-mixed) color may reactivate, but not to the same extent as distemper paint – there is more of a layering effect which will cause pre-mixed paints to run.

From a paint process standpoint, a motorized paint frame allows the artists to quickly and accurately lay in vertical lines without a straightedge. It is an extremely quick way to paint lines.

Which means that painting vertical drapery folds is extremely effective, as you can play with the viscosity of paint for translucent effects.

Here is a view from the back of the frame, to show how thinly the paint is applied to the muslin.

Backlit with a simple white light, muslin painted with distemper can take on the appearance of glowing silk.

Here are three of the distemper palettes that I use while painting scenery, all ranging in size for the scale of the project. I have tweaked the traditional methods to use large baking pans – easier clean-up.

Regardless of what type of paint is used for stage settings, scenic art is more. It is a way of seeing and applying color.

That being said, distemper paint is the easiest was to teach color theory and scenic illusion for the stage.

The success of scenic illusion for the stage is understanding the nuance of each color, strategic color combinations, and economy of brush stroke.

I want to get us all on the same page in terms of color, as painted illusion necessitates the alternation of warm and cool colors. The three primary colors are yellow, red, and blue. Each primary and secondary color also has a characteristic – warm or cool.

The easiest example to see warm versus cool is yellow. I don’t want to get caught up in any specific color name – as they are dependent on suppliers. On the left is a warm yellow, and on the right is a cool yellow.

Of supreme importance in painting is the true understanding of value – going from light to dark. The success of painted illusion is based on the contrast of value

Scenic artists paint for a distance. This means that their artwork is intended to be viewed from afar – any careful blending will make a painted composition appear “fuzzy” from a distance. That is why a scenic artist contracts both value and hue. The audience’s eye needs to work, so the scene will appear more dimensional and realistic. When you examine the painting close-up, it all falls apart into dashes and dabs – an economy of brushstroke.

There is a rule of three for value selection – light, medium and dark, to work up any object. This contrast applies to foliage, architecture, drapery painting, etc. making the painted details remain visible at a distance.

Light, medium and dark values also alternate warm and cool colors. For example, the dark base is predominantly cool, the mid-tone warm, and the highlight cool.

Even when applying the same value, some compositions – such as foliage- with place warm and cool colors next to one another. This helps give definition to the shape. This strategic color placement helps reflect stage light and accentuate painted details, providing dimensions.

Here is a drapery example (on your left) of over blending, painting that shows a lack of contrast in both value and color. It can make the subject look fuzzy from a distance. The drapery painting on the right shows the contrast of value and color; draperies that will have definition when viewed from a distance.

And if we take color out of the composition, we can still see the difference and need for contrast with value for an object to remain visible from afar.

Many 19^th-century, and early-20^th-century, scenic artists were visionaries, They fully understood how painted illusion was supported with stage machinery and lighting. Pause – Scenic art is an interactive art form, partnering with various stage lighting systems.

Scenic artists understood the characteristics of various lighting systems, adjusting the color and value accordingly. Here is an example of scenery produced for electric light – blue, red and white, a popular combination from the 1890s to 1920s.

This all goes back to the color selection and application of distemper paint. The use of a warm and cool consistently creates a color that will reflect stage lights. Strategic color combinations increase the opportunities to reflect light – supporting day to night transitions on stage. So if you have a blue sky, you always make sure there is a small amount of warmth added (orange, red, etc.).

It was through documenting and preserving historic scenes that I realized so many backdrops could function as translucencies.

Here is an example from 1902. You can see hoe the view from behind the drop (on your right) reveals how little color was applied to the fabric.

This practice continued into the 1920s, despite stylistic changes.

Here is another comparison with a view from the front and from behind – to show how thin the paint is applied to the fabric. Those white areas on the left are stage lights shining through the fabric.

Here is a distemper detail that I painted for a Haymarket Opera Company production in Chicago, Illinois – L’amant anonyme by the Chevalier de St. George. I firmly believe that the key to distemper painting is how little pigment is used and the body of the paint – whether it is dense or flowing. Very thin paint, or low viscosity, will appear opaque with front lighting, but will remain extremely flexible. That is how I was able to pack eight 27’ ground rows, ranging in high from 30 to 60 inches in a standard suitcase. Although the scene appears quite opaque, there is very little pigment applied to the fabric. When you stand behind the scenes you recognize how thin each layer of paint was applied.

Another painted detail from the same show. In many cases, we have forgotten how much we can do with any ordinary white light source placed behind a distemper drop. And this has to do with the viscosity and layering of colors. The image on the left shows a section of distemper drop under work lights. The image on the right is the same painting, but with a standard white lamp behind the painting. Underlying colors are revealed – transitioning the entire palette without the necessity of colored light. No glass or gels. Again, this is the metamorphic nature of distemper paint that supported 19^th century scenic illusion and spectacle.

Another detail with a gelled incandescent on the right. This is more of what we are used to. But when we combine colored front lights and illumination from the backside – possibilities are endless and the whole scene glows.

Another example of a translucency – one created with distemper paint – not dye; one that we are more familiar with in contemporary effects. This one shows how a sky can transition to sunset without the use of dyes.

Many audiences have never experienced the magical allure and metamorphic nature of distemper settings on stage.

This beauty, however, can instantaneously be destroyed with poor lighting.

When lit poorly, painted legacies from our past resemble dull-colored and thread-bare rags at best. Side light will especially accentuate wrinkles. Front light erases wrinkles in an instant.

In some cases, however, seeing is believing. Here is an 11-second video showing the transition from side light to front light.

This is nothing fancy, just a shift in direction. Keep this in mind the next time you encounter a deteriorated backdrop, because with proper lighting, some of the most damaged scenes can look fresh.

So why am I so passionate about the history of scenic art? It all started in college. As I took one scene painting class after another in college (same distemper painting class, different levels), I repeatedly queried my professor about early women scenic artists. His response – “They were all boys, get over it.” This was not a subjective statement, or one intending to put me in my place. My teacher was teaching what he had been taught. His statement, however, really lit a flame inside me. I decided to learn everything I could about scenic art, the people, and the processes.

Part of this quest involved extracurricular studies and museum exhibits. In 1989, I received an Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program (UROP) grant to process an historic scenery collection – the Great Western Stage Equipment Company, established in Kansas City, Missouri, ca. 1920s. I worked in the Performing Arts Archives, part of the University of Minnesota archives. This UROP grant was followed by another – Holak Collection. The second collection contained designs from two primary firms – the Chicago-based studio of Sosman & Landis Studio and their affiliate studio New York Studios.

The acquisition of these collections, spearheaded by my mentor, Prof. Emeritus Lance Brockman, was contingent upon their open access and use by students. Copy work was critical to his scenic art program. This meant that University students could request a design, set up their watercolor palette, and replicate the composition in the reading room. In addition to copying historic designs, I enlarged them on 5’ x 5’ flats – using traditional materials and exploring painting techniques. His future hope was to digitize the collection so that theatre students, academic colleagues, and professionals would have free access to all of these materials.

From 1999-2000, I worked with these two collections, and a previous, the Twin City Scenic Co. Collection, Minneapolis, MN, to create an online digital database. I was in charge of layout, contents, text, content and assigning metadata to over 3000 artifacts.

I still return to the collection, examining details of many designs. This project has continued to inform my own research.

Assigning meta data, replicating designs, and preserving historic stage scenes have all helped me make a series of immediate connections while working on site. It is my continued work with these collections over 35 years has allowed me to immediately locate many original designs for extant curtains. For example, when I unrolled a drop curtain at the Theatre Museum of Repertoire Americana in Mount Pleasant, Iowa, last January I remembered that the design was part of the Twin City Scenic Collection in the database, and quickly located the file in the scenery database.

For me, the past continues to informed my present, as a theatre historian, scenic designer, and artist. I still have that fire burning, a drive to learn all I can, while I can.

Such was the case when I catalogued and repaired the scenery collection at a 1912 Theatre in Santa Fe, New Mexico. From 2002-2005, I led a crew of eighteen local hires to preserve this 74 drops over the course of three years. I was also leading the preservation of a sister collection in St. Paul, Minnesota – same design, same scenic studio, but installed in 1911.

From 2016-2018, I worked with photographer and one-time scenic artist, Jo Whaley, on the publication “The Santa Fe Scottish Rite Temple: Freemasonry, Architecture and Theatre.” Jo and I were the volume editors; I was also one of three contributing authors.

We were granted permission to photograph all of the scenes with original costumes and properties. Again, these were scenic designs that I first encountered in 1990 while processing the Holak collection. The descriptions, installations, sizes, signatures were all engrained in my memory.

This is one of the reasons that I am so adamant to share my research, to help jog the memories of others, whether they be theaters owners, back stage crews, or the descendants of scenic artists and designers; many historic theaters do not understand that they are part of a much larger network. It also re-frames our understanding about scenic artists, painting process, and liberties taken from design to installation.

I am going to conclude with a topic that I introduced last year during the conference, English Scenic artist Harley Merry, aka Ebeneezer Brittain. He worked as a performer and scenic artist, emigrating to the United States in the late 1860s. I bring Merry to your attention, as it brings another aspect of the scenic art trade into focus. After moving to America, Merry was integral in organizing serval groups, including the Protective Alliance of Scene Painters in America.

This organization became the current scenic art union known as United Scenic Artists. Recently, the Union produced a video about their history, still listing these men as…

There is no doubt that each was skilled, but this group does not comprise the best that America had to offer at the time.

They only represent a small number of scenic artists working in a few specific regions. The picture is very telling, especially when you start realize those nationally-renowned scenic artists missing from the picture.

For me, these men represent those who had…

…the most to lose without establishing a protective alliance and keeping OTHER scenic artists out.

Artists like Mabel Buell. It was not until 1918 that women were allowed to join the Union – 2 years before women were able to vote. Mabel A. Buell’s late entry makes it appear that women were just beginning to enter the scenic art field; few and far between. This perpetuated misconceptions that the scenic artists were primarily white men.

It’s important to understand that when Mabel joined the Union, she was not only a scenic artist, but also was a scenic studio owner. Both she and her mother worked as scenic artists, as did her father and brother. As in many cases, it was a family affair.

By the way, this is Mable directing her employees (center picture). At times her staff numbered over twenty people.

When Mabel joined the Union, she was described as the “only girl in the profession.” Buell continued to be listed as such in the early 1920s. By this time GENERATIONS of women had worked as scenic artists. Some were wives, some were daughters, some were sisters, and some entered the profession all on their own.

Here are three examples of women scenic artists identified as the “Only” over the course of two decades. On the left is Grace Wishaar, listed as the only woman scenic artist by 1901 She had been painting for over a decade at this point. On the right is Irene Kendrick, listed as the FIRST and ONLY scenic artist in 1909. In the center is Mable Buell – pictured in the 1921; still listed as the only woman scenic artist in America throughout that decade.

Well, that wasn’t necessarily the case – Here are a few names women scenic artists from the mid-19^th to early 20^th century.

Although there are many, many more. These were women who painted stage settings and were listed as such in census reports, city directories, and newspaper accounts. Not all scenic artists were listed as such.

I believe historians try their best to represent the world as it was. However, at some point, the contributions of generations of artists were left out of theatre history. Aesthetic shifts, new design movements, and innovative technology continue to be credited to a select few.

The use of “ONLY” to describe a female scenic artist in newspapers, sends an underlying message – they are not a threat. After all, there is only one. The same language was used to describe scenic artists who were people of color.

Over the past few years, I have identified women, indigenous people, and people of color who worked as scenic artists in the 19^th century. Many of these discoveries occurred while writing the 120 biographies of Soman & Landis studios). This research is for my upcoming book, “Sosman & Landis: Shaping the Landscape of American Theatre.”

Today, online databases provide massive amounts of information about individuals who worked as scenic artists. We are now able to identify thousands of individuals whose contributions to theatre history were either forgotten or ignored. This means that we are responsible for reframing the history of scenic art and theatre history.

Women and people of color who were often not counted, but they were present, they contributed to our shared theatre industry.

WE can no longer solely teach theatre history from the same books that have been used by generations of students.

WE are completely in control when choosing the lens through which we depict our industry’s past, present, and future of our industry.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 1115 – The Tryon Brothers and “Tale of Enchantment,” 1879-1880

On Christmas Day in 1880, the “New York Clipper” included an advertisement for the sale of scenery painted by Henry C. Tryon: “SCENERY for a tropical transformation , properties, dresses , etc… and the manuscript and music or The Tale of Enchantment are offered for sale by Henry C . Tryon , who advertises.” (New York Clipper, 25 Dec 1880). 1879 advertisements in Baltimore marketed “A Tale of Enchantment and the Grand Transformation Scene” (Baltimore Sun, 1 March 1879, page 1).

It was the inclusion of “tropical transportation” that caught my eye, and I immediately thought of the tropical wings painted for the Tabor Opera House by Henry E. Burcky in 1890. Burcky and Tryon had worked together in 1881, painting scenes for the Opera Festival in Cincinnati. Both worked for the Tabor Grand Opera House in the 1880s. Burcky’s extant jungle wings at the Tabor may be our closest visual example for Tryon’s tropical transformation, both in period and technique.

*Photograph of tropical wings at the Tabor Opera House, 1933 Scenery Project led by Muriel Sibell Wolle.*

*Painted detail of tropical wing painted by Henry E. Burcky in 1890. Tabor Opera House, Leadville, Colorado.*

*A tropical wing painted by Henry E. Burcky in 1890. Tabor Opera House, Leadville, Colorado.*

Based on “The Black Crook,” the Tryon Brothers presented a “grand spectacular romance in four acts” (Baltimore Sun, 24 Feb 1879. Page 1). It was first performed at Baltimore’s Front Street Theatre in 1879.

*Advertisement for the Tryon Bros. “Tale of Enchantment” production. From the “Baltimore Sun,” 24 Feb 1879, page 1.*

The Tryon Brothers presented this advertisement promised, “Replete with all the elements of the most wildly romantic interest, produced at an actual cost of three thousand dollars. 100 superb and costly dresses, rich appointments, and glittering paraphernalia.” Ethe advertisement went onto describe the inclusion of eighteen members from the “Great Vienna Ballet Troupe,” under the direction of “well-known Maître de Ballet, Mons. A. Blandowski.” In all, there were one-hundred member’s in the company. The “Baltimore Sun,” reported the inclusion of a “beautiful and charming transformation scene – Fairy Palace of Pleasure – Dazzling and Glittering Dresses and Gorgeous Lovely Cupids” (“Baltimore Sun,” 27 Feb 1879, page 1).

Although it had been thirteen years since the premiere of “The Black Crook,” the current owners of the show filed objected to the close imitation, again. A legal notice was also posted on February 24, 1879 in the “Cincinnati Daily Star” – “The injunction against the Front-street theater for presenting “A Tale of Enchantment,” is threatened by owners of the “Black Crook, which is claimed to be the same play” (Cincinnati Daily Star, 24 Feb 1879, page 1). This legal notice became a great marketing devise for the Tryon Bros. show; two days later, only standing room was left to see the show at the Fourteenth Street Theatre in Baltimore. This also did not stop the show from completing the Baltimore run or touring that year. If anything, “A Tale of Enchantment now embraced its similarities to the “Black Crook.”

Advertisement for “Tale of Enchantment” advertising similarities to “The Black Crook,” from the “Cincinnati Enquirer,” 26 May 1879, page 1.

Litigation issues, citing “The Black Crook” imitations, were not new. On November 30, 1867, the “New York Clipper” included an article entitled, “The ‘Black Crook’ in Court” (page 270). The article noted “On the 16th inst. an injunction was issued in Memphis, Tenn., enjoining George Deagle from performing the spectacle of a ‘Tale of Enchantment’ at the Greenlaw Opera House. The injunction was granted at the instance of J.H. Vicker, who appeared as ‘attorney in fact’ of John E. McDonough, who purchased the right to produce the spectacle entitled ‘The Black Crook’ from the author, C.M. Barras, in Memphis and several other prominent cities of the country. The injunction was granted on the grounds that the ‘Tale of Enchantment,’ as produced by Mr. Deagle, was ‘a colorable imitation of the ‘Black Crook’,’ and hence there was an alleged infringement of the rights of Mr. McDonough in the premises.”

Despite legal concerns in 1879, the Tryon Bros. took their show on the road. On May 26, 1879, a “Hartford Courant” advertised the show at the New National Theatre, announcing, “A Tale of Enchantment. Producing fac similes of all the dazzling effect of the Black Crook. New music – new ballets – new effects in illuminations – new properties – new and beautiful scenery – new costumes etc., etc.” (Hartford Connecticut, page 1). The tropical transformation scene was now referred to as, “Grand Manœuvre de Amazon.” It featured, “twenty-four young ladies of the Ballet, led by Stilecta. Grand Transformation Scene, introducing the Enchanted Home of the Fairies.”

The production did not always receive positive feedback from theatre critics in newspapers. When it was performed at Hamlin’s Theatre in Chicago, the “Inter Ocean” published a scathing review. Keep in mind that at least two of the original scenic artists for the original 1866 production of the “Black Crook” were living and working in Chicago during 1879. The Aug. 20 “Inter Ocean” article reported, “That old and much-abused spectacular drama, “The Black Crook,” is being presented at this place, under the precautionary title “A Tale of Enchantment.” It is not being severe to say that it is badly presented, at that. It is wanting in the two primary elements of success, the scenic gorgeousness and ballet effects.( The display of the latter respect is rather inadequate, to put it mildly. Imagine, moreover, 200 pounds of embonpoint as Queen of Flowers, and a corresponding obesity as the heroine of the mortal story! And the fairies correspond to all possible shapes from their queen down to the diminutive proportions of May Treat. Inasmuch as there is no call for good acting, that feature is not to be expected, and in the failure of all other traditionary features, the piece fails sadly into inferiority in every department. To somewhat atone for this, an olio is interspersed through the fete scene, made up of the Hamilton sisters, Fredericks, and Gloss Brothers, Forman and Butler, John Welch and Harry Stanly, who succeed in the duty of propitiation. Success would be more assured for the week is an addition was made of the limbistic attractions. The concluding or transformation scene is good” (Inter Ocean, page 7).

Regardless, the show was still touring at the end of the year. On Dec. 3, 1879, the “St. Louis Globe-Democrat” included an advertisement for “The Tale of Enchantment” at the Globe Theatre, noting that it had proven to be “a mine of popularity and patronage to this theater, and the specialties which are introduced and greatly to the interest of the spectacular show” (page 3).

By 1880, the Tryon Brothers production was soon faced with competition when the Kiralfy Brothers decided to produce the exact same show, but better. The Kiralfy’s version of “A Tale of Enchantment” advertised “On a scale of magnificence and grandeur surpassing anything ever seen in America. Entirely new and novel costumes. Brilliant and glittering armors and jewels, marvelous mechanical effects. Full corps de ballet, Grand cosmopolitan ballet of fifty ladies in glittering armor. Immense demon ballet. The world’s greatest premiere De Rose, Mlle. Pagaleri and Mons. Arnold Kiralfy introducing the following great European Specialty artists: Les Fantochs Valotte; the famous Ulm Sister in their eccentric Styrian Songs; the Three Ronaldos; Master Carling, the extraordinary Caricaturist; Grand Amazon March, and led by beautiful and charmingly formed young lady.” In regard the scenery, the advertisement noted, “A few of the numerous Stage Pictures are Village in Harz Mountains, a Wild Cross Path in Brocken, the Grotto of Stalacta, Palace of Lace, Laboratory, Pandemonium, Subterranean Vaults, the Grand Staircase of the Golden Terrace, Burning Forest, and the Grand Transformation Scene – the Homes of the Fairies.”

*The Kiralfy’s production of “Tale of Enchantment, from the “Intelligencer Journal,” Lancaster, PA, 23 Jan 1880, page 3*.

At the end of the first successful year for the Kiralfy’s production, Henry C. Tryon posted notice for sale of his scenery, indicating that the run of his production was over. By the summer of 1881, however, a new production of “A Tale of Enchantment” was advertised in Cincinnati. It is possible that this new production used Tryon’s scenic investitures. By August 31, 1881, the “Cincinnati Enquirer” reported “Vine-Street Opera-House now open with the TALE OF ENCHANTMENT, superior in every way to the renowned BLACK CROOK. New scenery and gorgeous costumes, with Signor Novissimo and his magnificent Spanish Ballet of 24 young ladies. Also, a number of America’s best specialty artists” (page 5).

*From the “Cincinnati Enquirer,” 31 Aug 1881, page 5*.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 1113 – Henry C. Tryon and “Not Guilty,” 1882

In the summer of 1882, Henry C. Tryon left Denver, Colorado, and traveled west to Salt Lake City, Utah. By that fall, Henry C. Tryon painted a ship setting for the Salt Lake Theatre’s upcoming production of “Old Shipmates.” “Old Shipmates” starred Frank Mordaunt and featured a ship scene, a scene that did not tour with the company. Each theatre on the tour provided scenery from their stock. In Salt Lake City, Tryon painted a scene for the touring show to use at the Salt Lake Theatre.

Around this same time, Tryon also painted a Steamship setting for a production of “Not Guilty,” also at the Salt Lake Theatre. Of the production, the “Ogden Standard” announced, “On Monday night Watts Phillip’s thrilling sensational drama of ‘Not Guilty’ will be given with a strong cast, fine scenic and mechanical effects, embracing the new ship scene, recently painted by Henry C. Tryon of the Tabor Grand Opera House, Denver, and acknowledged to be one of the most realistic sets ever put upon the stage” (Ogden Standard, 30 Sept 1882, page 3). The settings included a rural setting, a ship scene and a quarry.

*“Not Guilty,” advertisement in the “Deseret News,” 25 Oct 1882 page 2*.

“Not Guilty” had been around for a while, having premiered at the Queen’s Theatre in London, over a decade earlier. The playwright was also an artist, with a pretty specific vision for the 1869 piece. For more about Watts Phillips, read “Watts Phillips: Artist and Playwright.” Here is a link to a free pdf of the book: https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=CB_zKT2aMrsC&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA11

In 1869 “Sharpe’s London Magazine” described the Phillip’s new production (Vol 34, Jan 1869, page 166):

“’Not Guilty’ the new melodrama at the Queen’s, possesses Anglo-Indian incidents connected with the dreadful mutiny of 1857; but there are more incidents relating to home life, including that convict-life which the stage too often holds up to the view, and which the convict-life is low, disgusting, and so unfit to be reproduced in dramatic pictures, that we wonder at its toleration by any audience. Before dismissing “Not Guilty,” we will admit that it possesses highly sensational elements, but protest against any phase of that terrible mutiny of the troops being represented by a man or two prowling about the side of a wall as British soldiers, and another man or two bobbing their heads up, now and then, on the other side of the wall as mutineers. The main incident in “Not Guilty” is founded on a fact recorded in a remarkable criminal trial: we allude to the fate of Silas Jarrett, the convict.”

“Not Guilty,” received unfavorable reviews when the show premiered in 1869. Even American newspapers reported that it was “rather roughly handed” and “a bad specimen of the worst class of plays” (“Buffalo Courier,” 1 April, 1869, page 4). However, the production was still running a year later, premiering in America at Niblo’s Garden in New York. On June 6, 1870, the “New York Daily” announced, “Another novelty will be the new military drama by Watt’s Phillips entitled ‘Not Guilty,’ which will be brought out at Niblos’s to-night with all the paraphernalia of war, love, murder, virtue, villainy, and every sensation that the stage is capable of” (page 7).

By June 13, 1870, “Brooklyn Daily Eagle,” reported, “Whatever may be the literary and artistic deficiencies of the play ‘Not Guilty,’ it is met with a decided popular success at Niblo’s. It is a succession of varied and exciting incidents, happening in three quarters of the globe, introducing Australians, Sepoys and English convicts. The interest never flags, there is so much life in every scene. This is why it attracts and pleases, and fills the house” (“Brooklyn Daily Eagle,” 13 June 1870, page 3). The failure of the production in London was now credited to poor production values. In New York, the “Brooklyn Daily Eagle,” reported, “Great preparations have been made for its proper production,” including 150 soldiers from the Garibaldi Guard and the Fifth Infantry Regimental band and drum corps (“Brooklyn Daily Eagle,” 7 June 1870, page 2). The increased spectacle immediately won popularity with American audiences. Niblo’s advertised the show as a “grand romantic military drama in four acts,” produced with new scenery, new mechanism, new properties, new uniforms, new overtures, &c., &c.” (New York Times, 9 June 1870, page 7).

“Not Guilty” was playing again at Queen’s Theatre in 1882; the same year that it was produced in Salt Lake City. Of the Salt Lake production, the “Deseret News” reported, “The Salt Lake Dramatic Combination will repeat the play of ‘Not Guilty,’ with its thrilling sensations and beautiful scenery, including the Great Steamship Scene, painted by Mr. Henry C. Tryon of the Tabor Opera House, on Saturday evening, October 28.” The Dramatic Combination was “composed of Messrs. McKenzie, Margetts, Graham, and Lindsay,” assisted by a full company and full orchestra (Ogden Standard, 30 Sept 1882, page 3). On October 29, 1882, the “Salt Lake Herald,” announced “the painting that has recently been done by the scenic artist, Mr. Tryon has added wonderfully to the attractive appearance of the stage and shows Mr. Tryon to be a scenic artist of the highest order. It is hoped that while he is here, the gentleman’s services will be secured to make other improvements which would not only contribute to the appearance of the interior but add to the stage effects and thus add materially to the pleasure of its patrons. What has been done so far has given a taste to the public for more – and the more the better.”

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 1112 – Henry C. Tryon and “Old Shipmates,” 1882

In the 1880s, one well-received scene could guarantee a whole host of other projects for a scenic artist in the city. This is exactly what happened to Henry C. Tryon in Salt Lake City, Utah, after he completed the stock scenery for both the Tabor Grand Opera House and the Tivoli Theatre in Denver. By mid-summer in 1882, Tryon ventured west to paint a ship scene for the Salt Lake Theatre. Although it was solely produced for the touring production of “Old Shipmates,” it was a hit with local theatre patrons and immediately secured additional painting projects for Tryon in Salt lake City.

“Salt Lake Herald” advertisements for “Old Shipmates” announced, “The piece will be produced with entirely new scenery, including the great SHIP SCENE! Which is now being painted by Mr. Henry C. Tryon, of the Tabor Opera House, Denver” (23 Sept 1882, page 4). “Old Shipmates” was performed at the Salt Lake Theatre on September 26 and 27, 1882 (“Salt Lake Herald,” 23 Sept 1882, page 4).

“Old Shipmates” was the comedy-drama by Robert Griffin Morris. In 1882, the touring production starred Frank Mordaunt and toured the country, playing to audiences in New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, St. Louis, New Orleans and many other large metropolitan cities. As standard with most touring productions of the time, the show relied heavily on stock scenery provided at each venue. A ship set was not considered standard stock scenery, so this left both stage managers and scenic artists scrambling to improvise before the performance date. In the 1880s, the deck of a ship was not a standard stock setting. Even elaborate stock scenery collections only horizon settings, generic ocean views with water and sky. Site-specific sea settings, such as the deck of a ship, would have to be quickly painted before the touring production arrived at the venue.

*Shutters and wings for a generic horizon scene. Tabor Opera House, Leadville, Colorado, c. 1888.*

After performing in front of Tryon’s ship setting, the touring “star” of “Old Shipmates” congratulated the scenic accommodations at the Salt Lake Theatre. Mordaunt stated that nowhere had the piece been better produced with better stage or scenic effect than at the Salt Lake Theatre, even in New York (“Salt Lake Herald” 28 Sept. 1882, page 8). This was quite a compliment and added to Tryon’s credibility as a topline scenic artist in Salt Lake City.

When “Old Shipmates” opened, the “Deseret News” reported, “There was a crowded house at the Theatre last night to witness the performance of the genuine old-fashioned nautical drama of ‘Old Shipmates.’ It had been liberally advertised and the public naturally looked forward to an evening of genuine enjoyment and they were not disappointed. It was clearly evident that the performance gave very general satisfaction. The scenery was admirable and appropriate and too much cannot be said in praise of the large, new, spectacular Ship Scene painted by Mr. H. C. Tryon, of Chicago. Everything moved like clockwork. The ship extended the full width and length of the large stage and presented a realistic picture of a ‘Life on the Ocean Wave” (27 September 1882, page 2).

Another review of the production reported, “As on the first presentation, the ship scene in the last act forced admiration and applause form all, and it shows Mr. Tryon to be a first class scenic artist, and the public will be pleased to learn that this gentleman has been engaged to do a considerable amount of work of the kind” (Salt Lake Herald, 28 Sept 1882, page 8). The “Ogden Standard” reported, “the scenery provided by the Salt Lake management was excellent. Especially was this the case with the ship scene painted for this play, by Mr. Tryon, of Chicago. I understand that this gentleman is going to paint the new scenery for the theatre before returning East” (30 Sept. 1882, page 3). The popularity of Tryon’s ship scene guaranteed him additional employment.

By Nov. 8, 1882, the “Deseret News” included an article that featured Tryon and his work for the Salt Lake Theatre (page 3). The headline read, “Artistic Scenery, Effective Work by Mr. Henry C. Tryon,” and the article continued:

“Mr. Henry C. Tryon, the artistic scene painter, now engaged at the Salt Lake Theatre, is doing some splendid work. The ship scene introduced in “Old Shipmates” caused him at once to leap into favor with the Salt Lake public, and every piece of work executed subsequently has increased the estimate of his ability, being the most capable in his line that ever painted in Utah. Mr. Tryon is quite and original in his style and pays great attention to details. He first conceives the general plan of his picture, and fresh ideas brighten his mind in flashes while at work, enabling him to throw fine effects, with which the canvas on which he operates is always illuminated. One of the secrets of his success lies in the fact that he is passionately in love with his labor.”

The article went onto described some of the scenes painted by Tryon, “One of Mr. Tryon’s latest is an old garret, which conveys such a vivid picture of dry, dirty, dingy old beams that it looks as if one could brush away accumulated cobwebs. A powerful effect is introduced by bringing a dash of warm sunlight through an open skylight. But the best piece from the brush of this genius is a wood scene, the body of which is finished. It exhibits the depth of perspective combined with intensity of light and shadow that render wooded scenery so attractive, and when the foliage borders are done, to take the place of the proscenium wings and drapery in woodland scenes the spacious stage will wear the appearance of a forest glade. One of the chief points of excellence displayed in Tryon’s work is the effect of largeness which he throws into it, having the seeming appearance of expanding the stage, making it look larger than it really is. A moonlight woodland is among the future scenes to be painted by Mr. Tryon, and, judging from the work he has already done, and the scope presented in such a subject, it may be confidently expected to fairly gleam with strong and brilliant effects.”

To be continued…

Travels of A Scenic Artist and Scholar: A Railroad Scene for the Tabor Opera House, ca. 1886

*Train profile discovered in the attic of the Tabor Opera House in Leadville, Colorado*

From Sept. 21-27, 2020, I led a group of volunteers to document the nineteenth-century scenery collection stored in the attic at the Tabor Opera House in Leadville, Colorado. The wings, shutters, borders and other set pieces primarily dated from 1879 to 1890; each painted before the stage was renovated in 1902. One of the more interesting scenic pieces uncovered was a train. All that remained of the profile piece was the front end, with only a headlamp, chimney, cowcatcher (pilot) and boiler front remaining. The rest of the train was missing; the fabric likely removed and repainted for another setting over a century ago.

*Detail of train profile discovered in the attic of the Tabor Opera House in Leadville, Colorado*

There were many nineteenth-century melodramas with exciting railroad scenes, complete with painted tracks and steaming locomotives. A variety of productions included that terrifying moment when a train raced full speed toward the hero or heroine. Whether the performer was tied to the tracks, or lying unconscious on the rails, the victim was always snatched away just prior to the train’s passing.

*One of the many shows that featured a train scene*

On Dec. 30, 1886, Leadville’s “Herald Democrat” noted the train scene in the recent production of “Under the Gaslight” at the opera house. The review reports, “The opera house was crowded last evening to witness this great scenic melodrama, which so entertainingly depicts may phases of high and low life in the great city of New York…The exciting railroad scene was given in grand style and evoked the heartiest approbation.” The touring show featured Lew Morrison and his Dramatic Company. However, “Under the Gaslight” was just one of the troupe’s offerings. The company also performed in “Not Guilty,” “Celebrated Case,” and “Faust.”

It is almost impossible to determine the exact production that first used the painted train before it was relegated as part of the stock. There are clues, however, that help estimate manufacture date. First and foremost, the construction of the piece was with odds and ends, not finely planed theatrical lumber. The profile piece also incorporated remnants of a wood shipping container for the cut edge. A portion of a company name, stenciled for shipping purposes, remains – Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. This helps determine an approximate date when added to the roughhewn board. Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. means that the piece was created after 1884, and not before.

*Backside of the train profile at the Tabor Opera House in Leadville, Colorado. Note the partial shipping stencil with Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co.*

The Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. has quite an interesting history, once running a regional office in Denver, Colorado. Founded by John Moses Brunswick, the J. M. Brunswick Manufacturing Co opened on September 15, 1845, in Cincinnati, Ohio. Although initially specializing in the manufacture of carriages, the firm soon turned their focus to billiard tables. Brunswick billiard tables were an immediate success, and soon the company expanded nationwide, opening regional branches across the country that included Chicago, St. Louis and New Orleans. By 1866, the firm was renamed J. M. Brunswick & Brother, as Brunswick added family members to run their regional offices. Keep in mind that in the 1860s, there were three main billiard manufacturers in the United States: J. M. Brunswick & Bro; Julius Balke’s Great Western Billiard Manufactory, and Phelan & Collender. In regard to Phelan & Collander, the name changed to the H. W. Collender Company after Hugh Collender’s father-in-law (Michael Phelan) passed away.

*J. M. Brunswick and Bro. became J. M. Brunswick & Balke Co.*

By 1874, J. M. Brunswick & Brother merged with Julius Balke’s Great Western Billiard Manufactory, becoming J. M. Brunswick & Balke Co. The firm incorporated in 1879, and then merged with another competitor – H. W. Collender Company. In merging with Collender, Brunswick acquired Collender’s patented billiard cushions, but the company was not renamed for another five years. In 1884, the formation of Brunswick-Balke-Collender Company indicated a monopoly of American billiard manufacturers.

*Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. opened regional branches across the country.*

*Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. opened a regional branch in Denver, Colorado..*

As the years passed, the company manufactured many other products that included bar counters, saloon fixtures, bowling alley supplies, poker checks, cigar counters, beer coolers, refrigerators, chairs, tables, lamps, and other products. It remains unclear what was in the wooden shipping box that was used for the train profile at the Tabor Opera House. By the twentieth century the Brunswick-Balke-Collender Co. product line was further diversified, adding toilet seats, car tires, phonographs, WWII target drone aircraft, school furniture, golfing equipment and pinsetters. Such variety! The company again changed its name in 1960, becoming the Brunswick Corporation on August 10. For more information about the history of this fascinating company, visit: http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/brunswick-corporation-history/

For more information about the Tabor Opera House’s historic scenery collection, visit www.drypigment.net and keyword search “Tabor Opera House.”

To be continued…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An example of Henry E. Burckey’s scenic art.

Jungle wings by Henry E. Burckey stacked against the upstage wall at the Tabor Opera House in Leadville, Colorado.

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

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

To be continued…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SCENE PAINTING.

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

Chicago, Dec.8.-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Henry C. Tryon

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 1011 – Buhler & Peltz at the Criterion

There are four scenic artists whose histories are entwined: Harry James Buhler, William Fletcher Mann, Herman Peltz and Robert R. Carsen. They all worked independently, but also partnered for form the scenic studios of Buhler & Mann, Buhler & Peltz, Buhler, Peltz & Carsen, and Peltz & Carsen. Carsen was occasionally spelled Carson in directories, newspaper listings and articles. I am exploring each of their lives, as Thomas G. Moses mentioned the possible rental of Peltz & Carson studio in 1918. Today’s post begins an exploration of the Peltz family.

The story is a bit complicated, as there was a Herman Peltz, Sr. and a Herman Peltz, Jr., who both worked in theatre. The elder Peltz was a German immigrant born on May 1, 1869. He passed away at the relatively young age of 45. On June 14, 1919, the “Chicago Tribune” announced, “Stage Carpenter Drops Dead in Woods Theater. During a performance in the Woods theater last night, Herman Peltz, 45 years old, the house stage carpenter, died of apoplexy in the box office. He had just turned in his weekly pay roll when he fell over dead” (page 17).

I’ll start with connecting Peltz with Harry J. Buhler and William F. Mann at Chicago’s Criterion Theatre.

On October 29, 1906, the “Morning News” described the artistic process at the Criterion Theatre, mentioning the master machinist Herman Peltz and scenic artist Harry J. Buhler (Wilmington, Delaware, 29 Oct. 1906, page 2). Here is the article in its entirety:

“There is no dramatist now before the American public, who endeavors to please the eye with beautiful scenery, as does Lincoln J. Carter. In fact, every play he has produced in the last twenty years, is built on a foundation of scenic effect, with locales of exceeding great beauty, or where Dame Nature’s whims have erected some eccentric upheaval upon which to lodge a Carter situation.

“His Chicago theatre – the Criterion – contains a labyrinth of scene painting bridges and curios (to the layman), workshops for the construction of those scenic wonders, that are a part, and no inconsiderable parcel of the equipment of his many road shows. The models of these scenes are made of cardboard, according to scale and beautifully colored in gouache by the manager-author – for Mr. Carter is an artist of marked ability and decided merit in originating. From the author’s studio they are sent to his master machinist, Herman Peltz, who, having built the great scenes, in turn, passes them onto Mr. Carter’s scenic artist, Harry J. Buhler, who colors them with the Carter conceptions. In the newest play by the dramatist. ‘While ‘Frisco Burns,’ which will be scene here, commencing this afternoon there is a very riot of scenic coloring. The first act opens in an old English fire-lit oak chamber; from here it passes to a balcony dining room in the famous Cliff House. The scenic transition from here to the finish of the play, carries you through conservatories, ball rooms of the nabobs of Knob Hill, into the murky and foul-smelling dens of mysterious China Town to City Hall, when the earthquake begins to demolish man’s handiwork, and, the avenging fire, as if seeking to obliterate the cruel cracks and chasms, finishes the work of desolation by wiping the earth’s face clear of his puny efforts. It is in a scenario like this, that the Garter genius shines best. A special matinee will be given to-morrow.”

In 1906 Buhler and Peltz were credited with delivering scenery for the “Cow Puncher.” The show was still touring two years later. On Jan. 9, 1908, the “Abilene Semi Weekly Farm Reporter, announced, “’The Cow Puncher’ by Hal Reid and under the direction of W. F. Mann. Opens a one-night engagement at the Lyceum Theatre on Tuesday, Jan. 14^th. If good newspaper notices, backed by large box office receipts, are any indication of successful plays, the ‘The Cow Puncher’ comes in the category of those manager hunted offerings. It is the simple pure Americanism of this play of western life, that not only endears it to its audience, but places it in a class of unique originality. Theatre goers cannot help being enthusiastic and intensely interested in its excellent presentment. The story is laid in Arizona, the company is more than capable, and the scenic equipment is the work of Harry Buhler, the artist, and Herman Peltz, the well-known builder of theatrical scenery. As a special feature two well-known vaudeville acts are introduced” (Abilene, Texas, 9 Jan 1908, page 6).

“The Cow Puncher” used scenery by Harry J. Buhler (scenic artists) and Herman Peltz (stage machinist). From “The Joliet Evening Herald News,” 13 Sept 1907 page 10.

“The Cow Puncher” used scenery by Harry J. Buhler (scenic artists) and Herman Peltz (stage machinist). From “The Joliet Evening Herald News,” 30 Aug 1908, page 13.

On February 16, 1908, Buhler and Peltz were also mentioned in the “Washington Post” concerning their scenic work for “Shadowed by Three” (page 3). The article reported, “To-morrow night at the Academy a new play by Lem B. Parker, called ‘Shadowed by Three,’ begins a week’s engagement. It is under the direction of W. F. Mann. According to press reports few plays seen in the popular priced houses have the dramatic value that this romantic drama contains. The plot was cleverly conceived, and the characters taken from real men and women. The cast contains a personnel of players well-known to theatregoers, and their names guarantee a first-class performance. The scenery was specially designed and built by the well-known artists, Harry Buhler and Herman Peltz, from an original drawing made by Mr. Buhler. The light effects are the perfection of stagecraft, and patrons can feel certain that they will see something worth seeing in the performance of ‘Shadowed by Three.” Of the scenic effects, the “Joliet Evening Herald News” reported, “Henella, the Mystifier, who turns a marble statue into life and exercises seemingly superhuman powers, the LaSalle singing four, one of the most splendid quartets on the opera statue, the onrush of a 60-horse power automobile and its crash through a plate glass window, the sensational recues of a supposed horse thief and the work of great detectives, Tom, Dick and Harry, the ‘Three’ are but a few of the features to be seen in ‘Shadow by Three,’ one of the greatest melodramas of modern times…Two carloads of scenery, horses, sleighs, stage coaches and a 60-horse power automobile are carries with ‘Shadowed by Three’” (25 Aug 1908, page 3).

Buhler (scenic artists) and Herman Peltz (stage machinist). “The Joliet Evening Herald News,” 9 Sept 1907 page 6.

“Shadowed by Three” used scenery by Harry J. Buhler (scenic artists) and Herman Peltz (stage machinist). “The Joliet Evening Herald News”, 25 Aug 1908 page 9.

In 1908, Buhler and Peltz also produced scenery for “The Toymaker.” The “San Bernardino County Sun” reported, the scenic equipment is the work of Harry Buhler, the artist, and Herman Peltz, the well-known builder of theatrical scenery.” (7 Feb. 1908, page 4). More on Buhler & Peltz tomorrow.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 936 – Rowland & Howard’s “Daughter of the Sun” 1916

From the “Indianapolis Star,” 7 Oct 1917, page 40.

In 1917, Moses wrote, “Another show for Howard, $1,500.00. “Daughter of the Sun.” It was very good in every way. Our scenery is making a big hit.”

Rowland & Howard’s production “Daughter of the Sun” is not to be confused with another 1917 production starring Anna Kellerman, “Daughter of the Gods,”

“Daughter of the Sun” was a play of Hawaiian life, written by Lorin J. Howard and Ralph T. Ketterling. By 1916, Sosman & Landis had already provided scenery for two other Rowland & Howard productions, “Which One Shall I Marry” and “The Smart Show.”

“Daughter of the Sun” blotter card for sale on eBay.

“Daughter of the Sun” was billed as a play combining “romance, international political intrigue and tropical setting in a drama that is replete with stirring incident” (“Indianapolis Star, 7 Oct 1917, page 46). The show was also advertised as a “massive scenic production,” telling the story of a “Hawaiian Butterfly” (“Suburbanite Economist,” 31 Aug, 1917, page 3).

From the ‘Pittsburgh Daily Post,” 23 Dec 1917, page 40.

From “The Fairmont West Virginian,” 23 Oct 1917, page 5.

On Dec. 23, 1917, “The Pittsburgh Daily Post” reported, “The story turns on the love of Dr. Grant, and American, for a Hawaiian girl, Loa, known as ‘The Daughter of the Sun.’ She is the sweetheart of Kama, a descendent of Kalakaua. The plot is fostered by a Japanese, posing as a scientist, who plans to aid a rebellion and then take the islands in the name of Japan. Meantime, X-17 of the United States secret service has been sent to get evidence. The Jap persuades Kama to give the young American doctor a germ of leprosy in his tea, but Kama loses his nerve. Nevertheless he retains the bottle in his possession, and when the villain demands it Kama yields and Dr. Grant is inoculated. He is sent to Molokai, but escapes. The physician comes back to face the villain and then it is that X-17, who is a young woman posing as a Broadway actress, reveals her identity and frustrates the Jap. A volcano begins to erupt and all flee for their lives except Grant, who remains to hunt Loa. There are three acts and seven scenes. In the cast are Freda Tymers, Jean Clarendon, James A. Bliss, Blosser Jennings. Virginia Stuart and Leah H. Hatch” (page 40).

From the “Sun News Journal,” (Lancaster, PA) 11 Dec. 1917, page 7.

“The Morning Call” added, “Rowland and Howard, the producers, have given the play an Hawaiian atmosphere by a wonderful scenic equipment and also a band of native Hawaiian singers….‘A Daughter of the Sun’ is a massive scenic production carrying a carload of their own special scenery” (Allentown, Pennsylvania, 19 Nov 1917, page 10). The article also added, “In all the plays of last season, the Hawaiian play seemed to have the greatest appeal, for throughout the entire season, the play, ‘The Bird of Paradise’ was greeted by wonderful audiences. The present season will no doubt see a number of plays founded on the Paradise of the Pacific.” Hawaii was, and remained, a popular stage subject.

Of the painted settings for “Daughter of the Sun,” newspapers reported, “Exceptional scenery is presented, especially the scene where the high priest calls down a curse upon the Hawaiian girl and man for disloyalty to their race. The curse seems to be answered by the eruption of a volcano and the wrecking of the village” (“Baltimore Sun,” 6 Nov. 1917, page 6).

Before the volcano erupts and the buildings crumble. The volcano scene produced by Sosman & Landis for the Scottish Rite theater in Winona, Minnesota, 1909.

After the volcano erupts and the buildings crumble. The volcano scene produced by Sosman & Landis for the Scottish Rite theater in Winona, Minnesota, 1909.

Moses’ previous business partner, Walter Burridge, made sketches of Kilauea while staying at the Volcano House. Burridge’s source material was used for a huge panorama at the 1893 world fair attraction. Volcanic eruptions drew crowds at not only world fair attractions, but also many other theatre spectacles. It was even incorporated in into degree production for Scottish Rite stage ceremonials. In fact, examples of volcano scene for the stage are still found at many fraternal theaters; they are a wonderful resource for theatre students and popular entertainment buffs alike. The erupting volcano effect is magical, still captivating the most seasoned stagehands when produced. Even under a century’s deposit of dust of dust, this particular stage illusion is fascinating. It may be an old school trick, with panels helping translucent areas simulating plumes of smoke and streams of flowing lava, but it still can make the audience spectator gasp with delight.

The “Allentown Leader” included the article “DAUGHTER OF THE SUN A LYRIC ATTRACTION” (Allentown, Pennsylvania, 13 Nov. 1917, page 2). Here is the article as it took a unique look at the show:

“On the island of Maui in the Hawaiian group, the second island in point of size is the extinct crater of Haleakala. The largest volcano crater in the world. While the crater is that of an extinct volcano; still the possibility of its again becoming active is an ever-present possibility. The crater of Haleakala has an area of 10 square miles or 6400 acres’ its circumference is 20 miles; is 7 ½ miles ling and has a depth of 10,032 feet. These figures are quoted to give some idea of what an enormous affair Haleakala really is. The word Haleakala means “The House of the Sun.” From this translation the idea for the play, “A Daughter of the Sun,” the story of the Hawaiian butterfly, was derived. The Kanaka, as the native Hawaiian is called, before the coming of the missionary in 1819, like all the world tribes, worshipped the Sun as the source of life and nothing was more natural than that this vast crater was the abode of the Sun, and hence it was held in great reverence. The play ‘The Daughter of the Sun,’ was written by Lorin J. Howard and Ralph T. Ketterling and is to be the attraction at the Lyric for the first three days of next week.”

Watching the sun rise from Mount Haleakala.

I was fortunate to see the sun both rise and set from the top summit at Haleakala National Park high above the crater. Gazing across the clouds at the big island of Hawaii it feels like you are sitting at the top of the world. This was on the 2017 trip to Maui when I acquired several Thomas G. Moses paintings from a great grandson. If all comes full circle.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 934 – Rowland & Howard’s “Which One Shall I Marry” 1916

In 1916, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “Closed a contract for $1,200.00 with Howard for ‘Which One Shall I Marry.’ Rather enjoyed the show.” Moses was referring to Lorin J. Howard, of Rowland & Howard, the theatrical producers. His partner was Edward W. Rowland. Howard functioned as the artistic director for the firm, filling the role of both stage director and lighting designer for this production.

Advertising flyer of the production, from the Waszut-Barrett Theatre Collection. Note that the flyer states, “Not a moving picture show.”

“Which One Shall I Marry” was billed as a “new idea” in drama, a stage allegory in four episodes. The production company included Marguerite Henry, Marie Kinzie, Dollie Day, Ainsworth Arnold, E. H. Horner, Edgar Murray, Tommy Shearer, and Charles Richards.

Advertising flyer of the production, from the Waszut-Barrett Theatre Collection.

The “Pittsburgh Post-Gazette” reported, “It’s author, Ralph T. Ketterling, has done that which most playwrights have sought to perform – created new and original idea. The story of the play begins in allegorical form. The young girl about whom the story revolves is discovered at the crossroads of life, where the mysterious character, “Good Advice,” comes to her point a successful future. She is sought in marriage by a rich man and a poor man. The former offers her everything that money can buy, while the other can only offer love. It is then that she propounds the question, ‘Which One Shall I Marry?’”27 Aug. 1916, page 34).

From the “York Dispatch,” 9 Feb 1916, page 8.

Starting at “Crossroads of Life,” the girl journeys to “The Grey Forest of Doubt,” “The Land of Shams” and “The Land of Reality.” The “Reading Times” described the action in detail on Feb. 4, 1916 (page 5):

“It begins with a prologue, in which a lovely girl in a tennis costume and the first flush of womanhood appears before the curtain and tells of two offers of matrimony. She is followed by an elderly man of the millionaire type, loudly proclaiming his wealth and the advantages he can give the girl if she becomes his bride. The third character in the prologue is a young man in love with the girl, a stalwart youth who has no wealth, but morals and integrity, good habits and affection to bestow on his bride. It is ‘Hope vs. Riches,’ as the bride-elect recites.

In the second episode, in a cleverly arranged double-stage effect, the girl as the bride of the millionaire is shown in her luxurious home neglected by her husband, He is too busy with his plans to crush by the aid of the corrupt senate and a corrupt law the already oppressed workmen in a huge steel plant, to pay much attention to her. He has time to buy her royal gifts, but no time to make a home for her. The scene closes with the unhappy wife’s suicide.

The third episode gives a brighter picture of life in a happy workman’s home, with husband and wife of the same age, without wealth but full of contentment and prospects of a rosy future. The final scene sums up the story of the other three and brings round after round of curtain calls for the whole capably-acting company.”

The “Pittsburgh Daily Post” reported, “’Which One Shall I Marry?’ is described as full of heart throbs, with much humor and a moral. Those interested in its production say that it brings out an idea which is altogether new in play writing. This is not only in the construction, but in the scenery used to introduce the girl whose fate is the subject of the struggle of opposing interest. In parts of the story, the dreams of the girl are pictured on stage. This is done by a means of a triple scene, which fades away and dissolves, and then returns at the proper time by lighting effects” (27 August 1916, page 30). The “Fort Wayne Weekly Sentinel” added “There are eleven changes of scene and many wonderful lighting effects which have been arranged by Mr. Lorin J. Howard, who is the artistic director of the firm and is known as the Belasco of the west” (21 August 1916, page 6).

When the production toured Wisconsin, the “Kenosha News” reported, “a stage full of scenery that is unique, colorful and massive” (323 Dec. 1916, page 5).

From the “Pittsburgh Press,” 27 aug 1916, page 43.

Sosman & Landis produced scenery for a second production near the end of 1916. Later that year he wrote, “Another production of ‘Which One Shall I Marry.’” The show remained a popular production, appearing in theaters across the country until 1918.

From the “Pittsburgh Daily,” 24 aug 1916, page 4.

From the “Pittsburgh Daily” 27 aug 1916, page 30.

To be continued…