Chicago Studios – Drypigment.net

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 1158 – The Scenic Studio Shuffle

By the end of 1923, Thomas G. Moses wrote: “On December 26th, Megan and I met Sosman and Landis Company at Richard’s office and paid our first installment for the name and good will of Sosman and Landis Company, which we now own and will operate, but for a while we will have to use our names of Moses and Megan, until the old company can liquidate. We will then get a new charter.” In the end, it cost Moses $20,000 for that “name and goodwill.”

When the Sosman & Landis Co. was liquidated, the name was purchased by Moses & Megan; the studio’s contents were purchased by the Hoyland-Lemle Co.; and Chicago Studios leased the space. In one fell swoop, Sosman & Landis was split into three parts – name, contents and address, each going to a different firm. Each of the players has a unique story. I am starting with the Hoyland-Lemle Co.

*The main studio of Sosman & Landis, located at 417-419 S. Clinton Street, Chicago.*

By 1923, the Hoyland-Lemle offices were listed at 6751 Sheridan Rd, but they rented various studio spaces to paint advertising curtains (ad drops). Interestingly, 6751 Sheridan Rd was the same address listed by Moses & Megan when they sent out letters to prospective clients in 1923 while Moses was still working for Sosman & Landis. Keep in mind that Chicago Studios was using the official Sosman & Landis address by late summer 1923, citing 417 S. Clinton Street – this was immediately after preliminary discussions about the closure of Sosman & Landis. At this same time, Hoyland-Lemle were actually renting the Sosman & Landis main studio at 417 S. Clinton St. To briefly recap, Chicago Studios sent out letters during the summer of 1923 to prospective Sosman & Landis clients, explaining that they were the successors to Sosman & Landis – citing the same address, 417 S. Clinton St.

Moses and Megan immediately disputed the fact that Chicago Studios was the successor to Sosman & Landis, sending out their own letters on Sosman & Landis stationary. They explained that Sosman & Landis was only moving to a better location – 6751 Sheridan Rd. in Chicago, the Hoyland-Lemle offices. This, combined with Moses’ delay in securing the new business charter, was disastrous. Moses and Megan were put in a difficult position with any future iteration of Sosman & Landis looking weak.

It was an interesting time in the theatre industry. By the 1920s scenic studios were often short-lived, opening and closing like clover plants every day. This was not especially new, but there were now many more players in Chicago. Names were changed, with scenic artists hopping from one firm to another. There were still major players, with long histories and impeccable reputations; Sosman & Landis was one of those companies, and that was something that Moses was relying upon for his own future success.

The Hoyland-Lemle Co. has an interesting, albeit short-lived, history. The company’s namesakes were Charles L. Hoyland and William Lemle. Hoyland-Lemle officially entered the scenic studio game in 1922, but really was the result of a name change, not a start-up company. Previously, the Hoyland-Lemle Co. was known as the Allardt Advertising Co., run by the Allardt Bros. who established the Allardt Circuit in the Midwest.

On May 29, 1922, the “Tulsa Daily Legal News” announced “Allardt Adv. Co, changing name to Hoyland-Lemle Co., Chicago, Ill. C. L. Hoyland, Wm Lemle, Maybelle Shearer & C. M. Hoyland, Chicago, Ill. Capital $50,000” (page 1). State business filings in 1922 listed the Hoylund-Lemle address as 417 S. Clinton Street, the same as Sosman & Landis where they were renting paint space. Hoyland-Lemle also rented frames at the newly founded Service Studios, in the renovated spaces of the old Jewel Tea Co. barns. The company provided many different addresses for various government records, such as 32 West Monroe Street, listed in the “Second Annual Report of the Tax Commission of the State of Illinois” in 1921 (page 304).

The key figure in the formation of Hoyland-Lemle was Hoyland. It was the result of Hoyland’s relationship with the Allardt Bros. He was working for them by 1910. In Jan. 9, 1911, “The South Bend Tribune reported that Hoyland was initiated into the Theatrical Mechanical Association, South Bend Lodge, No. 120. At the time, he was treasurer of the Lyric Theatre in Danville, Illinois. He was the guest of Messrs. C. J. and Louis F. Allardt of the Orpheum. The article went on to state that Danville’s Lyric Theatre was part of the Allardt Circuit (page 4). Hoyland continued to work at other Allardt venues, including the New Orpheum Theatre in Racine, Wisconsin by 1913. In 1914 Hoyland’s primary focus became the Allardt Advertising Co. Much of the Allardts’ energies were focusing on marketing. They invested in theatrical agencies, venues and advertising curtains. On Feb. 1, 1914, the “Inter Ocean” listed Charles L. Hoyland as the head of the Allardt Advertising Company, and treasurer of Allardt Bros.

Between 1914 and 1921, Hoyland remained with the Allardt company until he and William Lemle purchased the firm and changed the name. The company lasted less than five years, and by 1927, Hoyland was running the new Charles L. Hoyland Co. Much of the Hoyland-Lemle Company’s demise was due to lack of payment. Like Sosman & Landis, clients’ were not always prompt with final payments. The firm was involved in several court cases to collect money owed from clients throughout the mid-1920s.

On Sept. 8, 1926, the “Paducah Sun-Democrat” reported, “The Hoyland-Lemle company, an Illinois corporation, is the plaintiff in five suits filed against Paducahans in McCracken county circuit court yesterday afternoon. The company alleges in each suit that the defendant owes a balance on a contract price for advertising displayed on the Orpheum theater circuit curtain. The suits were brought on behalf of Hoyland-Lemle by Attorney W. A. Berry” (Paducah, Kentucky, page 2).

The advertising curtain business was extremely lucrative, but risky. Businesses would rent ad squares on a curtain, paying a monthly, or annual, fee for the space. These curtains were often placed independent of the scenery contract, front curtain or asbestos curtain. In many cases, they were painted and installed at no cost to the theatre owner. The fees collected from the businesses paid for the piece’s construction and then provided a substantial profit, as long at the curtain was used.

Advertising curtains functioned like commercials; they were contracted to be lowered at specific times during a show. Advertising companies even sent representatives to various theaters to ensure that the advertising curtains were being lowered at the appropriate times. This all worked well, unless the clients renting the ad space didn’t pay the contracted fee. This meant not only losing the anticipated income but finding a new business to rent the ad space and repainting the square. The best-case scenario was never having to repaint a square and just collecting the payments. The worst-case scenario was what happened at the Orpheum Theatre in Paducah, Kentucky. Five businesses not paying for an advertisement curtain was a significant loss. It is no wonder that 1926 was the last year of the Hoyland-Lemle Co.

When the Hoyland-Lemle Co. ended, two new studios sprung up: the Charles L. Hoyland Co. and William Lemle, Inc. In an odd twist of fate, the newly listed “spacious studio of William Lemle Inc.” was located at 417 S. Clinton St – the old Sosman & Landis main studio.

*William Lemle Inc. using the old Sosman & Landis Studio image, 1927.*

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 1151 – The Chicago Studios, 1923

Sosman & Landis’ main studio was located at 417 – 419 S. Clinton Street in Chicago. Constructed by the firm’s founders in 1880, it was an ideal space to design, build and paint scenery. Over the years, they supplemented this main studio with a variety of annex studios, but the firm’s address was always on S. Clinton Street. As with other large scenic studios, they rented space to not only other scenic artists, but also other scenic studios. After WWI and a general decline in demand for painted scenery, they continued this practice, renting to former employees and associates. In short, it helped reduce overhead. In 1922, Sosman & Landis rented space to Charles L. Hoyland and William Lemle of the Hoyland-Lemle Company. State business filings in 1922 listed the Hoyland-Lemle address as 417 S. Clinton Street, the same as Sosman & Landis.

Here is where it starts to get interesting, although a bit complicated. In 1923, Sosman & Landis closed its doors and liquidated their assets. Thomas G. Moses partnered with Fred R. Megan to purchase the Sosman & Landis name, planning to charter a second iteration of the company. Until Sosman & Landis was completely liquidated, however, Moses and Megan could not officially begin their new business venture. Therefore, they temporarily conducted business under the name Moses & Megan. All the while, Moses was still working at Sosman & Landis, finishing up contracts before the company closed.

While waiting to secure the Sosman & Landis name, Moses recorded that they leased the “old Fabric Studio,” adding that they plenty of work in sight, but intended to “hustle for more.” Initially, I believed that Moses and Megan rented Fabric Studios shop, located at 117 N. State Street in Chicago. The Fabric Studios of Chicago was a firm that appeared at this same time. My current research, however, suggests that that they actually rented the fabric studio in the Sosman & Landis shop at 417 S. Clinton street, simply biding their time until they officially opened the new Sosman & Landis Company. It would make sense, as it provided a separate space in the same building that Moses worked at every day, and a business address.

Enter, David Hunt and the Chicago Studios. Hunt had worked at Sosman & Landis since 1889 in various capacities. He helped establish the theatrical management firm of Sosman, Landis & Hunt in 1894, as well as found New York Studios, an affiliate of Sosman & Landis. Over the years, Hunt was identified as a Secretary, Treasurer and President of Sosman & Landis. It is Hunt’s establishment of New York Studios, partially funded by Sosman & Landis, that is of import as it shows a pattern.

Hunt’s second wife, Adelaide A. Hunt, was involved with New York Studios from the beginning, and became president of the company. Adelaide was also involved with establishing the Chicago Studios. This meant that David Hunt was intimately involved with three companies, Sosman & Landis, New York Studios and The Chicago Studios. Although it looked like three separate firms, they were not entirely independent of each other, and there was one man running the show behind the screen.

In 1922, the Chicago Studios was located at 15 W. 20th St. The officers of the firm on file with the State were Frank Cain of 139 N. Clark St., Chicago and A. A. Hunt of 328 N. 39th St., New York, NY. After Sosman & Landis was liquidated, Chicago Studios moved into the old Sosman & Landis space acquiring the well-known address 417-419 S. Clinton St. At this same time, the studio contents were purchased by Charles L. Hoyland and William Lemle of the Hoyland-Lemle Company. This made sense, as Hoyland-Lemle leased the space for over a year and likely had their own stock mixed with that of Sosman & Landis.

However, in 1923, Moses also mentioned trying to get Hoyland and Lemle “out.” This suggested that he was considering renting the main studio space for himself and Megan. At this time Moses also wrote “D.S. Hunt is also bobbing about for the lease of the studio.” Hunt was banking on the studio space too. In the end, Hunt did acquire the lease for the studio under the guise of the Chicago Studios. And this is what prompted a series of obstacles for Moses, as Hunt saw an opportunity took advantage of it.

Keep in mind that Hunt was part of the negotiations that requested Moses wait until the company was liquidated before he officially started working under the Sosman & Landis name. He also tried to get Moses on board with his own endeavor; asking him to stay in the studio.

Moses wrote, “Hunt wants me to remain in the studio, but I can’t see it.” In hindsight, this meant that Hunt wanted Moses to work for Chicago Studios and not pursue purchasing the Sosman & Landis name. If Moses and Megan opened a new “Sosman & Landis Company” they would directly compete with Chicago Studios.

In short, there were two firms going after Sosman & Landis clients – Moses and Hunt. Each were planning to use their institutional memory of the company to succeed in landing future projects.

This also meant that two scenic studios were going to market themselves as the successor of Sosman & Landis. Moses purchased the Sosman & Landis name. Chicago Studios purchased the Sosman & Landis address.

It was never a fair contest. By the fall of 1923, the Chicago Studios began advertising that they were continuing Sosman & Landis under a new name. They jumped the gun, and this move put Moses on the defensive; he never stood a chance to win. Hunt cheated and used Moses abiding by the criteria established in the negotiations to win. Chicago studios sent out letters and estimates to past Sosman & Landis clients, well in advance of the studio final liquidation. What this move did is make and new iteration of Sosman & Landis appear fraudulent and weak.

Moses & Megan immediately disputed the information circulated by Chicago Studios, sending out letters of their own. Their letters tried to explain that firm had not closed, just moved to a new location. That an unrelated studio was leasing the space and falsely marketing themselves. There was no way to make this look good, and they knew it. Keep in mind that the main studio on Clinton Street had remained the official Sosman & Landis address for over thirty years. This created a very awkward situation, as there is no way to state leaving the Sosman & Landis “home” to a better location. The studio was well known as one of the best in the country. It cast a negative light on all potential business dealings. In short, it looked like they were downsizing due to lack of work.

On November 13, 1923, Moses and Megan sent a letter to the Scottish Rite in Salina, Kansas. There was a stamp at the top in red ink: “MOVED Executive Offices. Now located at 6751 Sheridan Road.”

Moses and Megan wrote:

“Dear Sir:

It has recently some to our attention that a certain studio is advertising our old customers that they have bought the Sosman & Landis Company and are now operating same, combining it with their original company. We wish to assure you this is not a fact and that our original organization is intact, but our studio has been moved to better quarters.”

This was likely the beginning to every client, before taking on something personal. For the Salina Scottish Rite, the letter continued:

“Mr. Thomas G. Moses, our Art Director would like the opportunity of meeting with your scenery committee to submit our designs and specifications covering your requirements. You will perhaps recall that we were favored with your original scenery order, working through the M. C. Lilley Co, and therefore, it is not necessary for us to give you any reference to our ability and quality of our workmanship.”

*1923 Letter to the Salina Scottish Rite by Sosman & Landis.*

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 1053 – Returning to Sosman & Landis, April 1920

At the end of March 1920, Moses delivered Atlantic City Boardwalk scenery to the St. Louis Coliseum for a local charity event. At the time, he was working for Chicago Scenic Studios, having left both Sosman & Landis and New York Studios in Sept. 1918 and Sept, 1919 respectively.

By the spring of 1920, Moses wrote, “On the 20^th of April, I signed an agreement to return to Sosman and Landis Company to draw $6,500.00 for the first year and my stock returned to me, which means I will have a chance to get more if I can make the business pay.”

He was returning to a dying company, one that would close within three years. He wrote. “I have painted a large autumn canvas for the Sosman and Landis Company office, as the offices are going to be very nice.”

There were also a few events leading up to his return. Just before he recorded his decision of a return to Sosman & Landis, Moses wrote, “My head aches all the time – not severe, but a dull ache that is very annoying.” The headaches were likely from his 1918 head injury. That year, he wrote, “October 10^th, I was knocked down by a boy on a bicycle in Oak Park. It was dark and I did not see the wheel. It was thought by the doctor that I had fractured my skull. It was a couple of months before I recovered.” Moses didn’t take the time to let the injury properly heal and was on the road again too soon. The headaches continued to plague him for the next few years.

Moses was also having problems with his teeth, something that doctors also thought may be contributing to his headaches. Later in 1920 he wrote, “Had an X-ray taken of my teeth and found them awfully bad, so I had to get busy and have them all extracted, excepting six lower ones. It was some job. Not as much of a shock as I expected.” A few months later, Moses wrote, “My headache still continues and there seems to be no help for it. No one seems to know the cause, now that my teeth are all out, which everyone thought would be the remedy.”

But there was another dynamic at play before his return to Sosman & Landis.

That spring Moses wrote, “Mr. Hunt arrived from New York and remained for a few days, then left for California where he will remain several weeks. I interceded for Parker, formerly of Sosman and Landis with Mr. Hunt, and I think he will engage him to go to New York City.” Now this statement caught me by surprise. Moses had signed a one year contract with Chicago Studios during the fall of 1919, after having left the employ of David H. Hunt at New York Studios. Did he go back, and was New York Studios still considered the eastern affiliate of Sosman & Landis?

By early spring 1920, Moses wrote, “We are having a hard time to keep a man in the office. Nobody seems to please Mr. Hunt.” So, Moses was working with Hunt during the early spring of 1920, yet not associated with Sosman & Landis, but there was also no mention of Chicago Studios who he accepted a one-year agreement with from fall 1919 to fall 1920. After Moses’ returned to Sosman & Landis, Hunt is still in the picture. That summer, Moses wrote, ““Mr. Hunt sent Mr. Leo Staler on from New York to take my place and while he tried to be very nice about it, there was something about his attitude that didn’t ring true.” Mr. Hunt was also involved with Sosman & Landis finances, as Moses mentioned him in August 1920: “Mr. Hunt promised to send me a check for $700.00 on the 15^th of August. I had to go without it, and received it in Colorado Springs after I had made all the arrangements for money to go with. We left for the West August 19^th.”

The honeymoon phase of Moses’ return to Sosman & Landis had already worn off by summer. By the end of May Moses wrote, “The haggling and wrangling in the studio and office is certainly getting the best of me, and I will be glad when time comes for me to migrate to Clinton Street.”

Moses must have migrated to the main studio on Clinton Street after returning from his summer vacation, August 19-Sept. 28. Upon his return, he wrote, “ It took me a few days before I was in the harness again, and working just the same as I did before I left two years ago. Landis and I got out after business within a few days after my arrival and succeeded in landing a few good ones. I started to do some painting but it did not last long, as I had too much other business to do. I found the conditions altogether different from what I supposed them to be – too much overhead. It will be awfully hard to keep up the output to balance it all.”

Sosman & Landis had flailed about for two years during Moses’ absence. Although he had returned, it was too late to resuscitate the dying company. He was trying to make the best out of a bad situation. But he was also returning home. His scenic career really started in the Clinton Street studio in 1880. He was there were Sosman and Landis built the space. He would be there when the firm left the space in 1923 too. Good or bad, it was everything familiar to him. At the end of 1920, Moses wrote, “I am pretty well satisfied with the result of this year’s work and I feel that changing back to Clinton Street was the best thing for me to do, as I really belong there, as my money will always be there unless the business is sold.” I have to wonder if he had any idea that the business would be sold in under three short years. He was 64 years old at the time.

Sosman & Landis also manufactured stage hardware until the 1920s.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 1044 – Mrs. Howard Lind and the Bal Surprise, 1920

In 1920, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “A big ball at the North Side Armory, given by Mrs. Howard Linn gave us a hard job to put up, and we just did that and nothing else.”

Mrs. Howard Linn was in charge of the “Bal Surprise” in 1920. From the “Chicago Tribune,” 31 Jan. 1920, page 3.

This was another Chicago Studios project supervised by Moses before his return to Sosman & Landis in April 2020.

Mrs. Howard Linn was a well-known Chicago socialite, residing at 55 Cedar Street. Linn was involved with many public charity endeavors, social pageants, and social organizations. In 1920 Linn was the chairman of the committee in charge of the Junior League ball held on January 30, 1920, at the Second Field Artillery armory on Chicago avenue and the lake. The feature of the ball was a pageant, announced in the “Chicago tribune” on January 3, 1920 (page 15). This was the event that Moses was referring to in his memoirs.

From From the “Chicago Tribune,” 3 Jan. 1920, page 4.

On Jan. 25, 1920, the “Chicago Tribune” reported, “The ‘Bal Surprise’ to be given on Friday evening by the Junior League will be a sort of grand finale to the most brilliant social season Chicago has had in many a year. Mrs. Howard Linn is in charge of the arrangements for the ball, which gives promise of being one of the most interesting affairs ever given here. The feature of the evening will be ‘tableau vivants,’ in which a number of well-known matrons and maids will take part. Herman Rosee, Randal Davey, Allan Philbrick, and Mr. Norton of the Art Institute are assisting Mrs. Linn with the tableaux, the costumes, and the decorations of the First Artillery armory, where the ball is to be held. Mrs. J. Andrews King is co-chairman with Mrs. Linn, and the chairmen of the subcommittees are as follows: Ushers, Miss Edith Cummings; tickets, Miss Caryl Dunham; refreshments, Mrs. Frederick C. Letts; program, Mrs. Lowel Chapin; music, Miss Emily Bisell; decorations, Mrs. Barney Goodspeed; costumes, Mr. Thorne Donnelley, and boxes, Mrs. Frank Hibbard.”

On the day after the ball, the “Chicago Tribune” reported, “’Bal Surprise’ Nets $12,000 for Charity” (Jan. 31, 1920, page 3). The article continued, “If it had not been for the modern dress of the guests at the Junior League ‘Bal Surprise’ last night, one would have imagined one’s self at a ball in a medieval castle. The first artillery armory, the scene of last night’s revel, is of medieval architecture and the members of the league, who acted as hostess, were gowned in the picturesque modes of those days long ago. In long trained gowns with basques and tall pointed square headdresses, they looked as if they had stepped out of the frames of old paintings of the fourteenth and fifteenth century. They were divided into two groups, the ushers, whose duty it was to see that everyone present enjoyed the party to the utmost, and the cushion bearers, who between dances flung gaily colored cushions on the floor so that the guests might be seated during the ‘tableaux vivants,’ which were the ‘piece de resistance’ of the affair.

“The tableaux, seven in number, were shown in a larger gilt frame which was hung at the end of the ballroom behind curtains of star dotted midnight blue. Mrs. Howard Linn, chairman of the ball, was assisted in arranging the tableaux by Abram Poole and by several artists from the Art Institute, Randall Davey, Harman Rossé, Allan C. Philbrick and John W. Norton. The backgrounds, which were particularly attractive were painted by these artists and they also assisted Mrs. Thorne Donnelley in designing the costumes. In the first tableau Mrs. John Andrews King and Mrs. Morris L. Johnston, dressed in pastel shaded Grecian robes, posed as figures on a Grecian vase. They were followed by Mrs. Rufus J. Zogbaum, Jr., who, with her lovely auburn hair hanging loose, made a perfect Giorgione Madonna. Preceding the next tableau, in which Miss Polly Carpenter, who is as dainty as a bit of Dresden china, with a figure in an Arras tapestry. James L. Breeze, dressed as a bird vendor with a big hoop on which his wares were perched around his hips, danced a sort of clog dance. He was assisted by Miss Sylvia Shaw and Miss Elizabeth Farwell, dressed as court ladies.

“Mrs. and Mrs. John R. Winterbotham Jr., danced a gavotte as a prelude to the fourth tableaux, in which Mrs. David Adler, attended by an Ethiopian slave, posed as a Van Dyck portrait. Preceding the fifth tableaux, a Chinese screen, Mrs. Mitchell Hoyt sang a Chinese lullaby, accompanied by Miss Louise Thorne on the mandolin. Miss Lucretia Green and Miss Alice Bradely also were in this group. The figure son the screen, which was one of the most interesting of the tableaux, were Miss Mary Rend, Miss Mabel Linn and Mrs. Joseph T. Bowen Jr.

“Mrs. John Root as a figure in a Persian print was next, and last was a Wedgwood plaque in which Mrs. Charles Edward Brown, Mrs. Philip D. Armour III., Miss Gladys High, Miss Lois Kellogg, and Miss Adelaide Pierce posed. Dressed in White robes, with their faces, necks, and arms as white as plaster and their hair covered with white wigs, the group made a base relief against a background of that wonderful Wedgwood blue, one of the most effective and attractive of the pictures.

“The cardroom, or aviary, so-called because it resembles a monstrous bird cage, was decorated with tropical birds, vines and flowers, bright colored lights and awnings. Mrs. Charles Barney Goodspeed was chairman of the committee in charge of decorating the building.

“Miss Edith Cummings, Miss Elizabeth Martin, and Miss Betty Quick were dressed as heralds and carried horns, with which they summoned the guests to the ballroom of the tableaux…a buffet supper was served during the evening in the lounge.

“The proceeds amounted to about $12,000, and will be devoted to charities to which the league annually contributes, including St. Luke’s hospital, the Visiting Nurse association, the Juvenile Protection association, the Infant Welfare society, Practical Housekeeping centers, the Mary Bartlme club, the Mental Hygiene society, the Legal Aid Society, the United Charities, the Park Ridge Home for Girls, the Fort Sheridan beach fund, and the Fort Sheridan Christmas fund.”

The monetary equivalent of $12,000 in 1920 is $153,836.40 today.

The tableaux backings were produced under the supervision of artists from the Art Institute, including Poole, Davey, Rossé, Philbrick and Norton. Moses and many scenic artists were also members of the Art Institute. My research suggests that the tableaux were produced at Chicago scenic studios, as the scenic artists had paint frames large enough to produce scenery for the event, unlike most fine artists.

From the “Chicago Tribune,” 7 May 1920, page 101.

From the “Chicago Tribune,” 17 Feb. 1920, page 3.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 1043 – Herman Kramer Sr. and the Kramer Theatre of Detroit, 1920

I return to the life and times of Thomas G. Moses after a two-week break. The research, writing, and painting didn’t stop during the past fourteen days, just all of my online activities. This was my first significant pause since my blog in September 2016; I was overdue.

In 1920, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “The Kramer Theatre of Detroit gave us quite a good-sized order which came in very handy.” The Kramer Theatre was a sizeable venue, boasting 1,732 seats.

Entrance to the Kramer Theatre in Detroit, Michigan.

At the time, Moses was working for Chicago Studios and work was only trickling into the shop. Although WWI had ended, a recession had also started at the beginning of 1920. This slowed many theater projects but did not stop them all; the Kramer included.

The Kramer Theatre was located at 5741 Michigan Avenue in Detroit, Michigan, and named after a very successful Detroit businessman – Herman Kramer, Sr.

In 1922, Herman Kramer was included in “The City of Detroit, Michigan, 1701-1922.” Compiled by Clarence Monroe Burton, Kramer was one of many individuals recognized for their contribution to the city (City of Detroit, 1922, page 386). Of Kramer, Burton wrote, “Herman Kramer is the president of the firm Herman Kramer & Sons, furniture dealers of Detroit, and owners of the Kramer Theatre, which has recently been completed and constitutes one of the most attractive and modern amusement houses of the city.”

H. Kramer & Sons advertisement in the “Detroit Free Press,” 9 Dec 1923, page 66.

Kramer was born on February 11, 1868, to parents Edward and Frederica (Heinman) Kramer. The couple arrived in America during the 1880s and settled in Detroit. Edward was in the lumber business. Herman began in the wallpaper hanging trade. He continued in that line and established his own business by 1893. Burton described, “His patronage steadily grew, and success attended his efforts. This constituted the initial step towards his present line, for after a time he added to his establishment a stock of furniture and has developed his business into one of the most successful furniture houses in the city. He has at times been most progressive and enterprising in his methods, the attractive line of furniture which he carried enabled him to meet every demand of the trade and he has outfitted many of the attractive homes of Detroit. He has also completed a fine structure known as the Kramer building, containing tea stores and offices with apartments above. The building is one of the valuable pieces of business property in that part of the city an occupies an entire block front on the southwest corner of Michigan avenue and Greusel street, and contains the Kramer Theatre, the second largest playhouse in Detroit. The theater, which is conducted as a vaudeville house for high-class theatrical performances and the better clean motion pictures, is thoroughly modern in all its appointments, seating over two-thousand people.”

Kramer passed away the same year as Thomas G. Moses, in 1934. Kramer’s obituary reported, “Herman Kramer, founder of the Kramer Furniture Co., and widely known in business and Masonic circles here for almost half a century, died Friday at his home, 5711 Michigan Ave. Born in Magdeburg, Germany, 68 years ago he came to Detroit when he was 16 years old. Forty-two years ago, he founded the furniture company bearing his name, located at the same building with his home. Later another store at 7665 Gratoit Ave. was opened. The Michigan Ave. store was discontinued about a year ago. He was also the owner of the Kramer Theater, 5731 Michigan Ave., and the entire block in which his home and theater are located. Mr. Kramer was a member of Union Lodge, No. 3, F.&A.M.; Peninsular Chapter, R.A.M.; the Michigan Sovereign Consistory, and Moslem Temple of the Shrine. He is survived by his wife Elenore and two sons, Walter and Herman, Jr.” Detroit Free Press, 27 April 1934, page 20).

Kramer was remembered as “one of the pioneer businessmen in the Junction-Michigan Aves. Section and was in the furniture business there for more than 30 years” (Detroit Free Press, 27 Nov. 1935, page 24). Herman Kramer & Sons had a store on the east side at 1697 Gratoit Ave. and on the west side at 1609 Michigan Ave. (“Detroit Free Press,” 21 Nov. 1920, page 15).

The Kramer Theatre in Detroit, Michigan. From www.cinematreasures.org Here is the link: http://cinematreasures.org/theaters/4121

From www.cinematreasures.org Here is the link: http://cinematreasures.org/theaters/4121

From cinematreasures.org: “Renovations occurred in 1938 when Michigan Avenue was widened, making it necessary to alter some of the Kramer Theatre building that included a portion of the auditorium. It was at this time that the exterior was also dramatically changed to reflect a more modern and streamlined appearance. The reopening of the Kramer Theatre was on February 11, 1939.” Here is the link: http://cinematreasures.org/theaters/4121

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 1030 – The Empress Theater and the Chicago Studio of Sosman & Landis, 1919

Chicago’s Empress Theater opened in 1913. The venue was located in the Englewood neighborhood of Chicago. Six years later the building was renovated and purchased new scenery. The Chicago Studio of Sosman & Landis was contracted to supply the new sets. This is not to be confused with Chicago Studios, the company that Thomas G. Moses worked for in 1919 after leaving New York Studios.

In 1919, Moses wrote, “A new contract was entered into between the Chicago Studios and myself for one year. I hope it will prove to be a paying one in which I participate in the profits and a raise in salary, which means my old salary of $100.00 and a bonus.” Chicago Studios was a competitor of Sosman & Landis. It was also the same name as midwestern branch of Sosman & Landis Scene painting Studios, making the history a bit complicated. On Nov. 1, 1919, Chicago Studios placed a want ad in the “Chicago Tribune”:

“MEN-YOUNG, BETWEEN THE AGES OF 16 and 21 to learn to paint theatrical scenery; must start in as paint boy and work up; salary to start $15 per week; an excellent opportunity for one who wishes to learn the trade. Apply Chicago Studios 15 W. 20^th-st” (page 25).

This is from the same time when Moses was working at Chicago Studios; he needed to expand the staff.

Of the Sosman & Landis’ Chicago Studio, the “Herald and Review” credited the firm with the new Empress Theater sets in 1919 (Decatur, Illinois, 10 Aug 1919, page 18). The article reported, “Empress Theater Opens Next Week. Interior has been redecorated and new stage lighting system installed. After being closed for a period of six weeks for redecorating, the Empress will open for its fall and winter seasons next Sunday afternoon. Extensive improvements have been made during the closed period, the interior being entirely newly decorated, new seat covers for the orchestra chairs and the scenery department supplied with new sets from the Chicago studio of Sosman & Landis. A new lighting system has been installed, exactly like the one being used on the stage of the Great State-Lake theater, Chicago. Twelve sets of lights, each containing a 500-watt nitrogen lamp, set in a specially constructed reflector, will throw 6,000 watts of light on the performers, making it one of the brightest stages in this art of the country.”

From the “Englewood Economist,” Chicago, 10 June 1920 page 4.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 1029 – DeKoven Opera Co., Robin Hood, 1919

Thomas G. Moses resigned at Sosman & Landis on September 1, 1918 and began working for New York Studios that fall. In 1919, he left the employ of David H. Hunt at New York Studios and signed a new contract with the Chicago Studios. Even though Moses was no longer affiliated with Sosman & Landis the company trudged on under the management of Perry “Lester” Landis, son of the co-founder Perry Landis. Much of the scenery credited to the studio in 1919, however, had been completed under the direct supervision of Moses before his departure.

Advertisement for the DeKoven Opera Company’s production of “Robin Hood,” from the “Alton Evening Telegraph,” 15 April 1919, page 7.

In 1919, Sosman & Landis studio was credited with the scenery for the DeKoven Opera Company’s production of “Robin Hood.” Ironically, the scenic art was still credited to the firm’s two founders Sosman and Landis. On May 19, 1919, the “Post Crescent” reported,

“APPLETON THEATRE. ‘Robin Hood.’

Did you really ever see a first class performance of the best COMIC OPERA any American Composer has written? ROBIIN HOOD is worth seeing and hearing, for both is joy. The time you remember as the 13^th century and the locale is the Medieval City of Nottingham in England where the ubiquitous ‘Sheriff’ is the ‘Pooh Bah’ of the town. Here is where Ed Andres the veteran comedian shines. Later his activities extend to Sherwood Forest, and his complicated drolleries seem never ending. The scenic artists Sosman & Landis have achieved a remarkable piece of work in both of these settings for the DeKoven Opera Company, the Central square of Nottingham being a magnificent panorama of the middle ages and the forest scene with its rustic beauties a vista of rare beauty. The choral effects, the clever dances, the kaleidoscopic lighting, and the delightful ensembles which Mr. DeKoven wove into his most successful opera form a cycle of entertainment which those who witness at the Appleton Theatre next Monday May 17 will long remember” (Appleton, Wisconsin, page 7).

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 1027 – The New Studio 1919

In 1919, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “Found the new studio in good shape and we will be able to get a lot of work, as it is so far ahead of the Peltz and Carson Studio.” This was written in July. Since September Moses had been looking for a new studio on behalf of New York Studios. On September 1, 1918, he resigned as president at Sosman & Landis and began working for the firm, but he only lasted a year. This is not surprising as New York Studios was run by former Sosman & Landis employee David H. Hunt. Hunt established New York Studios as an eastern affiliate of Sosman & Landis in 1910. It wasn’t really a regional branch; as Sosman & Landis had previously established regional branches, such as Kansas City Scenic Co. run by Lem Graham.

New York Studios was different; a separate entity that really seemed to take advantage of the Sosman & Landis name, labor and resources, giving little in return. This always irked Moses, so I have to wonder what caused Moses to quit and work for a man who he really didn’t like at all. However, Hunt had lured Moses away from Sosman & Landis before, but a long time before – 1894. This was when there was a lull in business after the Columbian exposition; Sosman & Landis scenic artists scrambled for any outside work after weekly wages were ridiculously reduced from a drop in demand. Of his 1894 departure, Moses wrote, “Sosman and Landis didn’t like my being with Hunt as they felt I was slipping away again, which I did.”

From the fall of 1918 to the summer of 1919 Moses spent much of his time looking for an acceptable studio, finally renting the Peltz and Carsen space in Chicago on behalf of New York Studios. Unfortunately, Moses only benefited from the new studio for little over a month. By September 1919, Moses wrote, “A new contract was entered into between the Chicago Studios and myself for one year.” So, what happened?

That summer Moses wrote “Our work kept up very good at the studio.” New York Studio projects include settings for the Pittsburgh Shrine, Denver Shrine, Pittsburgh’s Albin Theatre Albin Theatre. It all seemed to be going well until just after he went on a sketching trip with Alex DeBeers.

It has taken me a while to recognize something, a pattern in Moses’ career. Change for Moses always occurred after spending an extended period of time with a close friend, a fellow scenic artist, or his after painting a series of fine art piece. It seems as though there was some type of conversation (whether inner dialogue or chat with a colleague) that suggested work would be better elsewhere. Moses left the employ of Sosman & Landis four times between 1880-1904. When he finally returned in 1904, he lasted until 1918, but this was when he became vice-president and then later president of the company. Right before each decision to leave the company, Moses was working away from the main studio, possibly thinking that there were greener pastures elsewhere, so I began to contemplate his departures from Sosman & Landis in 1882, 1887, 1894, 1900 and 1918.

In 1882, Moses left Sosman & Landis to partner with Lemuel L. Graham after spending a pleasant time with Will Davis on a project in Richmond, Indiana. That year Moses wrote, “1882 found me just as restless to do something big, and I drifted along with the regular work, until about May, when Graham’s season as the theatre closed. We got together and I quit the firm after refusing a big salary – that is, for me.” He had been accepting outside work and helping Graham with several projects before he tendered his resignation.

In 1887, Moses also left; this was after he returned to his hometown to refurbish an old project. He had completed eight years earlier. At the time, Moses wrote, “My discontent with studio work got the upper hand and I quit on February 11^th, and joined Burridge, Moses and Louderback.”

In 1894, Moses struck out on his own for two years. This occurred after a lull in work and spending time on his own art. It was a constant stream of projects in the Sosman & Landis studio that often prohibited Moses from doing any fine art; that was his true goal. In 1885 Moses wrote, “I was ambitious to do something besides [being] a scene painter, to leave something besides a name, which is about all a scene painter leaves as his scenic work is soon painted out.” I think it was really this desire that prompted Moses to leave Sosman & Landis every time, hoping he would be able to carve out a little time for his own painting. Any art that he produced for Sosman & Landis was ephemeral and attributed to the studio, under names that were not his.

Ironically, his work would become so intertwined with Sosman & Landis, that he would eventually purchase the name after the company liquidated in 1923. It has to have been hard, knowing that his legacy would always be associated with a scenic firm that did not include his own last name. Moses & Graham (1882-1883), Burridge Moses & Louderback (1887-1888), Moses (1894-1896) and Moses & Hamilton (1901-1904) were all very short lived, Sosman & Landis lasted for decades. The scenery associated with his own firms disappeared long before Moses passed away. In fact, much of what remains of Moses scenic art are installations delivered by Sosman & Landis. Moses had no way of knowing that work painted for Masonic theaters would far outlast his other commercial endeavors; forming historical time capsules that are only now disappearing.

So, in 1919 Moses went on a sketching trip with Alex DeBeers. He wrote, “The last of August, Alex DeBeers and I started for Utica, Illinois, from where we struck into the Starved Rock country for a few days of sketching. We found it very good. This trip is also included in my travelogues.” After his return to the new studio, Moses worked on only one more protect then left New York Studios, writing, ““A new contract was entered into between the Chicago Studios and myself for one year.” What was discussed on that sketching trip?

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 1014 – From New York Studios to The Chicago Studios, 1919

In 1904 Moses left a successful New York partnership in 1904; this was the business endeavor with William F. Hamilton, Moses & Hamilton. Sosman placed a series of incentives to draw Moses back to Chicago that included $5,000 in stock and a position as vice-president. Additionally, he also assumed all control over design, construction, painting, and installation at the firm. When Sosman passed away in 1915, Moses was elected president. Unfortunately, that was right in the midst of a challenging period, WWI, a measles outbreak, the Spanish Flu and a recession. It seemed that everything was falling apart and the demand for painted scenes was beginning to diminish nationwide.

By the summer of 1918, working at Sosman & Landis became untenable. On September 1, 1918, Thomas G Moses resigned as the president of Sosman & Landis, and started working for New York Studios, the eastern affiliate of Sosman & Landis. New York Studios was run by David H. Hunt. By the end of 1918, Moses wrote, “I am afraid that I will not be satisfied with my new deal.” Part of the problem was securing a studio space. Add in the fact that Moses never liked Hunt to begin with and his new employment was doomed from the start. Hunt consistently promised big and delivered small; Moses really should have known better by this point in his career.

During the fall of 1918 Moses hoped to line up a few projects along the west coast. Of possible California living, he wrote, “Mama and I would like to go out there. The hardest part of that will be the giving up of the old home and moving away from all the friends and children, but I don’t think it would take all that much coaxing to have the children move after us, which would all be fine. If I could only get a financial settlement with Sosman and Landis Company, we would go to California this winter.”

Needless to say, he remained in Chicago for the winter. His New York Studios projects ended up being built and painted in the Peltz & Carson shops. Of the experience, Moses wrote, “…rather hard to do in the Peltz and Carson Studio on account of the low ceilings, being obliged to paint one part on the upper floor and the balance on the lower floor. The studio was always warm and dry; in fact, too warm at times, which was almost as bad as not being warm enough.”

Of the search for a better studio space during the spring of 1919, Moses commented, “We looked at several buildings for a studio, but none seemed right to fill the bill. The only way to get one and have it right is to build one.” Early on, Sosman & Landis built a deluxe studio that was often toted as the largest one in the United States. When their main studio could not accommodate all projects, Sosman & Landis rented a series of spaces that they referred to as “annex studios.” Although New York Studios had long been marketed as the eastern affiliate of Sosman & Landis, there were never the funds to build a permanent structure for scenic work. In the end Moses severed his relationship with New York Studios in 1919.

By summertime, Moses wrote, “A new contract was entered into between the Chicago Studios and myself for one year. I hope it will prove to be a paying one in which I participate in the profits and a raise in salary, which means my old salary of $100.00 and a bonus.” This means that when he left Sosman & Landis to work with New York Studios, he took a pay cut. His base salary returned to normal when he began working for Chicago Studios.

About this time, The Chicago Studios placed a want ad in the “Chicago Tribune” on Sept. 13, 1919: “MEN – YOUNG. TO LEARN THEATRICAL scene painting; excellent opportunity for those inclined. The Chicago Studios, 15 W. 20th-st” (page 21).

From the “Chicago Tribune,” 13 Sept. 1919, page 21.

By Nov. 1, 1919, the want ad in the “Chicago Tribune” was a little more descriptive:

“MEN-YOUN, BETWEEN THE AGES OF 16 and 21 to learn to paint theatrical scenery; must start in as paint boy and work up; salary to start $15 per week; an excellent opportunity for one who wishes to learn the trade. Apply Chicago Studios 15 W. 20^th-st” (page 25).

From the “Chicago Tribune,” 1 Nov . 1919, page 25.

It is difficult to track down information for The Chicago Studios; much has to do with the name. Similar to New York Studios, the firm’s name is also used to denote location of other businesses. For example, in 1919, newspapers credited scenery to the Chicago Studio of Sosman & Landis. Essanay Motion Picture company also referred to their Chicago Studio. And on top of everything else, there was also another Chicago company named “Chicago Studio,” one that specialized in music.

Letterhead for The Chicago Studios after they moved to a new location in the 1920s – the old shop of Sosman & Landis.

To be continued…