Scenic Studio – Page 26 – Drypigment.net

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 324 – “The Storming of Vicksburg” Spectacle in the Jackson Park Amphitheater

Part 324: “Pain’s Storming of Vicksburg” Pyro-Spectacle and the Jackson Park Amphitheater

In 1895 Thomas G. Moses wrote, “The year opened good. So much so that I was obliged to get more room so I rented the old “Waverly” and put new frames back where the old ones were. They had all been torn out when Sosman & Landis gave up the lease, as it was only month to month, and that was the best I could get, as the building was owned by a Cincinnati man, and it was in the courts and had been for several years.” Moses was already using the paint frames at the Schiller theatre, so this was his second painting space. The Waverly space was the same one that Sosman & Landis rented for Moses and his crew in 1892 for all of their subcontracted work. It measured 93 feet wide by 210 feet long and 40 feet high with four paint frames and plenty of floor space (for more information about the Waverly, see installment #244).

Moses’ recorded that the first project in the Waverly studio was scenery for an outdoor show called the “Siege of Vicksburg.” He wrote, “it proved to be an artistic success only.” I believe that the show Moses referred to was actually Pain’s “Storming of Vicksburg” that was performed in the amphitheater at Jackson Park.

Advertisement for Pain’s Storming of Vicksburg in Jackson Park, from the Chicago Tribune (23 June 1895, page 36). Thomas G. Moses created scenery for this production.

The Inter Ocean reported that the “Grand Historical Spectacle Arranged by Pain,” was selected to mark the Pain’s return to Chicago (Inter Ocean 23 June 1895, page 9). His company was the Pain Pyro-Spectacle Company of London and New York.

A photograph of another production created by the Pain Pyro-Spectacle Company – Last Days of Pompeii. Published in the Street Railway Journal (May 1896, page 317).

A photograph of another production created by the Pain Pyro-Spectacle Company – Carnival of Venice. Published in the Street Railway Journal (May 1896, page 317).

The Jackson Park amphitheater was massive and sat 12,000 people; reserved chairs were seventy-five cents and box seats a dollar for the “Storming of Vicksburg.” 100 arc lights illuminated the space every evening for the show that started at 8PM. Advertisements promised “Gigantic, thrilling, and beautifully pyro-spectacular military production.” The show was listed in the Chicago Tribune as a “Grand Revival of the Glorious World’s Fair Midsummer Night Fete” and included “600 people on the monster stage” with “12 acres of massive scenery” (23 June 1895, page 36). Other newspapers reported that 800 people were involved in the production.

Advertisement from the Chicago Tribune (23 June 1895, page 36). Thomas G. Moses recorded that he painted the scenery for this production.

The spectacle depicted the siege and final surrender of the Southern stronghold on the Mississippi. It opened with “a presentation of Southern life in slavery days” that included the performance of songs and dances by a “colored chorus of 100 jubilee singers” (Inter Ocean, 23 June 1895, page 9). After this musical opening, the battle began along the banks of a constructed river, measuring 350 feet long and 100 feet wide. A gun was fired, followed by the capture and execution of a Union spy. Then there is the arrival of war vessel, that include Farragut’s gunboats, Porter’s fleet of mortars, and the rebel ram “Arkansas.” Grant’s land forces enter the scene and the batteries open up for fire. After twenty minutes of intense battle, Vicksburg bursts into flames and Pemberton surrenders.

At the close of every performance, there was a display of fireworks. This was common a common finale by every spectacle created by Pain Pyro-Spectacle Company. Newspapers reported that $1,000 was spent on the fireworks display nightly.

On July 4, 1895, an Inter Ocean article provided a little more information about the fireworks display, commenting that the day marked the thirty-second anniversary of the fall of Vicksburg (page 6).

Below is a section of the article that described the fireworks display in great detail. I was astounded at the numerous descriptions and names.

“The pyrotechnical programme arranged for this performance will rival many of the grand displays seen by Chicagoans at the World’s Fair, some of the features of which are as follows: Salute of maroon or aerial cannons, fired from iron mortars and exploding at a great altitude with a tremendous report. Magical prismatic illumination with lights of intense brilliancy, which change color repeatedly and finally blend with pleasing effect. Flight of monster balloons, carrying the most powerful magnesium lights and tri-colored fires, discharging, when at a great height, batteries of Roman candles, showers of golden rain, and superb jewel showers. Sunflower wheel, thirty feet in circumference. Flight of rayonet tourbillions, revolving oriental wheels. Flight of large shells, forming jeweled clouds, studded with gems of every hue. Celestial stars – rayonet fires marooned. The aerial acre of variegated gems. Nests of writhing silver snakes. Flight of twenty-three-ball concrete rockets, exhibiting the rarest tints, peacock plumes, silver streamers, triple parachutes, etc., etc. Twin fiery dragons, flying to and fro and performing most amusing evolutions. Salvos of gigantic bombs, forming a golden cloud, studded with jewels. Great silver fire wheels, with intersecting centers, forming a chromothrope. Display of mammoth shells, twenty-four inches in circumference, displaying at an immense altitude showers of rubies, sapphires, laburnum blossoms. Flight of rockets with peacock plumes. Aladdin’s jeweled tree, with blossoms of every hue, terminating in a fairy fountain. Swarms of wild snakes. Fireworks portrait of George Washington. Flight of infant parachutes. The monkey gymnast, an amusing piece of pyrotechnic mechanism. Aerial bouquet, produced by the flight of asteroid rockets. Salvo of aerial saucissions, filling a space in the air with wonderfully brilliant fires of grotesque form. The Kalediescope, with intersecting centers, cutting a silver spray with colored fires, the whole concluding with a revolving sun, 150 feet in circumference. Discharge of monster aerial wagglers. Parisian novelties – rockets with silver threads. Salvo of thirty-inch bombs – prismatic torrent and silver clouds. Groves of jeweled palms. Finale, grand flight of 1,000 larger colored rockets fired simultaneously, producing a grand and magnificent aerial bouquet.”

For the July 4, 1895, performance, the Jackson Park amphitheater was packed with 12,000 people. An additional 5,000 people were turned away from the packed venue. Wow! I could not get over the fireworks descriptions and marveled at the complexity of the pyrotechnics program. Who could afford to fund this endeavor?

“The Storming of Vicksburg” was produced by the Coliseum Gardens Amusement Company, in conjunction with the Pain Pyro-Spectacle Company, or London and New York. The local company was composed of the principal stockholders in the Chicago Exhibition Company, which built the big coliseum on the old Buffalo Bill “Wild West” lot on Sixty-Third Street. Past productions by Pain included “Last Days of Pompeii,” “A Night in Pekin,” “The Siege of Sebastopol,” “Capture of Vera Cruz,” “Carnival of Venice,” “Paris from Empire to Republic,” and “Japan and China.”

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 310: Thomas G. Moses and Frank Cox

In 1894, Thomas G. Moses recorded getting the contract for the New Lyceum Theatre in Memphis, Tennessee. Located at the corner of Third and Union Streets, the old Lyceum Theatre had burned to the ground during November 1893. The theater was on the lower floor of an athletic society building and the total loss was $360,000. Only three years old at the time of the fire, construction immediately began to build another theater on the same site.

*The original Lyceum Theatre in Memphis, Tennessee, 1890. The building burned to the ground in 1893.*

Opened by H.L. Brinkley, the New Lyceum Theatre cost $235,000 and had a seating capacity of 2,010. It included an oblong proscenium that was illuminated with exposed light bulbs, similar to the electric scenic theater on top of the Masonic Temple Roof Garden that same year. This was a feature was called a luxauleator, or “a curtain of light” invented by Steel MacKaye for the Spectatorium in Chicago (see past installment #265). The New Lyceum was credited as being the first theatre in Memphis to have electric lighting.

The auditorium included open metalwork railings for each of the three balconies and boxes. Ironically, it was this decorative aspect that would ultimately postpone the opening as there was a delay in the arrival of the iron work (Montgomery Advisor 7 Oct 1894, page 9). The final dedication occurred on Monday, December 3, 1894, with Otis Skinner opening the venue. His productions were “His Grace de Grammont” and “The King’s Jester.”

*The New Lyceum theatre designed by Frank Cox with scenery by Thomas G. Moses, 1894.*

Moses wrote, “The firm wanted this badly, but the architect insisted on my work.” “The firm” was Sosman & Landis and the architect was fellow scenic artist Frank Cox. Tignal Franklin “Frank” Cox (1854–1940) was also the theatrical architect who was designing several other opera houses that same year.

*Tignal Franklin “Frank” Cox (1854–1940), scenic artist, decorator and theatre architect.*

His projects in Texas alone included remodeling the opera house in Sherman, a new ground-floor theater in Galveston, the Stanger Theater in Waco, the Peterson Theater in Paris, and the opera house in Gainesville (The Times-Picayune, 8 April 1894, page 27).

Newspaper articles would note Cox as the “well-known scenic artist and architect of theatres.” Cox worked as a scenic artist, architect, decorator, builder, and developer throughout the course of his career. During the time that he the theater in Memphis, he was still running Cox Bros. and working with his brothers and Clark (1861-1936) and Eugene (1869-1943). Their ages at the time were 40 (Frank), 33 (Clark) and 25 (Clark). The three men had five other siblings with a father who had started work as a Boston painter in 1871. Eugene Cox had a son named after him, Eugene Jr. (1889-1967), who was also a scenic artist, so it gets a bit confusing.

*Eugene Cox (1869-1943), scenic artist and decorator, was part of the New Orlean scenic studio, Cox. Bros.*

*Clark Cox (1861-1936), scenic artist and decorator who worked for Cox Bros. scenic studio at the New Orleans Opera House.*

Here is a little background to place Frank Cox in context of nineteenth-century scenic art. Harry Miner’s American Drama Directory (1882-3) credited Frank Cox with the scenery for the Opera House in Batavia, New York and Smith’s Opera House in Tarrytown, New York. By 1890, Cox was working as a scenic artist, decorator and architect in the New Orleans area. He continued to work as a scenic artist throughout the decade, being credited with scenery for Temple Theatre in Alton, Illinois (1899) and Klein’s Opera House in Seguin, Texas (1903-1904). Like Moses, Cox also worked in oil and exhibited his fine art. In 1894, he participated in an art exhibition with his brother Clark. Both were members of the Artists’ Association in New Orleans (The Times-Picayune, 13 Dec. 1894, page 3). This was one of many art shows where the Cox brothers exhibited their work.

This brings us to another interesting aspect of the Cox family – the family feud. Frank, Eugene, and Clark operated a scenic and fresco business known as Cox Bros. in New Orleans. However, it was referred to as “Frank Cox’s Studio at New Orleans,” him being the eldest and most experienced. They had quite a large staff by 1891 that included the scenic artist Emile Nippert and stage machinist James A. Kee (Fort Worth Daily Gazette 11 August 1891, page 2). The Cox Bros. studio was located in the Grand Opera House of New Orleans. Frank withdrew from the partnership in 1896, but the partnership continued to operate under the same name of Cox Bros., despite Frank’s public declamation that the firm was dissolved. Eugene and Clark published a rebuttal, wanting to make it “thoroughly understood” that they would continue to operate the scenic and fresco business under the name Cox Bros. By the way, there appears to be no immediate familial ties to the Jesse Cox Scenic Studio of Estherville.

There is something interesting to ponder when thinking about the Cox family. Frank understood painted illusion for both the stage and auditorium. He would have been the perfect theater architect as he understood the aesthetic and mechanical demands of the venue. A variety of historical sources explain that architects would often hand over the stage design to a scenic studio. The studio would identify the layout and materials for the space, thus securing work from the architectural firm. I wonder if after guiding architects, Cox decided to work directly with the client and avoid working with a middle man -the architectural firm. Cox’s position as the architect would also secure work for his company Cox Bros., in the form of both scenic and decorative art. His position could have provided an endless stream of projects, as apparent in 1894. Maybe he was expecting too much of his younger brothers and swamping them with work, too much for them to handle without his help in the studio. Maybe that was why Cox reached out and specified other artists for his multiple projects – like Moses.

The big picture is that there was history and friendship between Cox and Moses, plus they were only two years apart in age. He was a friend of Moses and greatly respected his art. When you look at the front curtain for the Lyceum Theater, it is understandable why Cox wanted Moses in charge of the scenery for the New Lyceum . Moses and his crew painted a beautiful exterior landscape with his signature “babbling brook.” Decades later in 1931, Cox would again request that Moses paint some Fiesta floats in California, although Moses would decline.

*Interior if the New Lyceum Theatre (Memphis, TN) with drop curtain painted by Thomas G. Moses in 1894.*

*Detail of Thomas G. Moses’ drop curtain for the New Lyceum Theatre in Memphis, Tennessee, 1894.*

Regardless of the reason, Cox’s selection of Moses over Sosman & Landis in 1894 had to have been quite a blow to the scenic studio as the project would not be supervised by their company as planned. That was their ultimate goal after opening the annex studio -controlling all of Moses’ subcontracted work and keeping him on a leash. By doing this they maintained a position of control and ultimately determined which contracts they would pass down to Moses, yet benefited by his name. The New Lyceum Theatre was one in a series of projects where architects and clients specified that the work solely go to Moses. This was the beginning of his second departure from the studio of Sosman & Landis.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 303: The Scenic Art Process of Fred McGreer

Next to photo in article: “The illustrations accompanying this show Mr. McGreer and his assistants at work on the paint bridge as well as several other phases of the work incidental to making the scenic productions for the famous play.” Cincinnati Enquirer 15 April 1900, page 12.

In 1900, Fred McGreer described his artistic process to the Cincinnati Enquirer (15 April 1900, page 12). Here is the second half of the article:

“I am able to outline the scenes after they have been coated with glue priming, for which a particular glue is used that will not crack. After the priming had dried I sketch the outlines with charcoal, and meanwhile the assistants are mixing their paints in buckets, and when I have concluded they set to work painting the scenery. In this process, first the broad colors are laid in and then comes the ornamentation, such as the figures on the walls of interiors, or colors for the moldings to get the lights and shadows. This is ended with the detail work of what we call bringing the scene together. It is like the finishing touches you see the rapid-fire artists put on their pictures in the vaudeville theaters when a form emerges out of what is apparently a chaos of conflicting colors. At this period I may discover too much red at the base of a scene, or not enough red beneath the cornice of an exterior, and these must be toned down.

With the scene painted it is again hustled off the paint frame to make room for another act. The painted set goes back to the carpenter to be cut out and attached to the lines running to the rigging loft, there being three lines to each drop. The columns and solid sections which will be noticeable in “Quo Vadis” are made of what we call profile board. It is a wooden veneer and is pre-hinged to a stand shipping. These columns also stand by themselves as though apparently part of the setting.

Cincinnati Enquirer article on Fred McGreer (15 April 1900, page 12).

In the first scene for “Quo Vadis” the case is different. The entire scene was originally painted on one big drop and then after it was completed I ‘red lined’ the whole scene. This is to outline the columns and vases with a delicate red line, which the carpenter follows in sawing out these separate sections. They are then all placed in position on the stage and the stuff that has been cut out is fastened together with a delicate netting which is invisible to the audience. The perspective created the impression that they are standing alone though really the entire set is one big drop. Some idea of the work required can be gained from the explanation that a single drop of this description generally requires the efforts of the carpenter and four assistants an entire evening to fix up. On the drop for this garden scene we used 1080 feet of cloth and about 75 pounds of paint. In order to attach them to the rigging loft about 300 feet of rope is also used. Now another heavy scene is in the arena setting for the last act, in which over 700 feet of platform space is required, built up to a height running from two feet and reaching the topmost platform 15 feet above the stage. These platforms are all hinged and made so they will fold for shipment as the piece goes on the road after it is used here.

In ‘Quo Vadis’ every scene is numbered and arranged so that it can be put together hurriedly and when brought into a theater is very much like the animal puzzles that are so popular with the Children at Christmas. Only the stagehands will just know where every piece goes without being puzzled.

Mr. McGreer in conclusion estimates that he has painted over 30,000 feet of canvas for the big production this week and used about 2,000 pounds of paint in doing it, in addition to five barrels of whiting alone was used, while the paint was distributed among 20 or more colors. For ‘Quo Vadis’ everything had to be made new as nothing like it had been produced at the Pike.

Mr. McGreer during his two seasons at the local theater has mapped out and painted over 220 stage settings, and of these the ratio ran about three interiors to one exterior. The mere mechanical work of making the scenes is antedated by studies of the costumes as the ladies dresses and the scene colors must harmonize, and historical research as historical accuracy is demanded in these times. In all his stay, nothing has been used over much, excepting the solid doors that figure in Pike productions. These doors have been doing service for three seasons. They have been slammed by the impetuous Nigel or gently brought to by the careful Todman, but in all that time the same old doors groaned under the weight of added paint until now they are so heavy it takes a firm grasp and a long pull to draw them open.

But this is digressing from Mr. McGreer. Next week this popular artist will bid adieu for the summer, at least to his den back of the big white lady. He goes to New York, having been engaged by Gates and Morange, the scenic artist there. If long and varied experience will count for aught, Mr. McGreer is sure to make his mark there for few visiting attractions as the first class houses have exhibited scenery which compares to that which has been in evidence so frequently at the Pike.”

During the summer of 1900, McGreer left for New York to work for Gates & Morange. This was the same year that both Thomas G. Moses and Grace N. Wishaar were painting scenery in New York City too. It was the place to be that later led to many other projects across the country for inspiring young artists. By 1901 McGreer was listed as creating the scenery for Morosco’s Grand Opera House in San Francisco. It doesn’t appear that Fred McGreer ever returned to Cincinnati.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 286 – Grace Wishaar and Lee Lash

Image of Grace N. Wishaar published with an article in 1903 that appeared in numerous papers throughout the country.

The rise of Grace Wishaar as a scenic artist has many fascinating twists and turns that brings her from coast to coast and back again. However, her career as an artist began at the San José Art School. Interestingly, her first drawing instructor there would later rise to fame as a scenic artist in New York – Lee Lash (1864-1935). The Lee Lash Studio was founded in 1891 and continued operations until approximately the mid-1940s.

Lee Lash Studio Advertisement in Julius Cahn’s Official Theatrical Guid in 1902-1903.

Thomas G. Moses working at the Lee Lash Studio (holding lining stick). Clipping from his scrapbook at the Harry Ransom Center, UT Austin.

When the Wishaar family left California for Washington, she continued with her artistic studies. In 1894 she completed her first scene painting project. The Washington Standard heralded her success, reporting, “Seattle has a young lady scenic painter, in Miss Grace Wishaar. A new drop curtain, at Cordray’s which is universally admired, is from her brush” (30 Nov. 1894, page 2). Wishaar was eighteen years old when she painted the Cordray drop curtain.

Five years later, she ventured east to continue her artistic training at the William M. Chase School of Art and continue her scenic art career in New York. One of the first individuals that she sought out was her first instructor – Lee Lash. However, Lash he was not supportive of his former pupil entering the field of scenic art. A 1903 interview with Wishaar reported that he “coolly turned her down” and said that “scene painting was no work for a woman; that her sex would make her unwelcome among the workmen, and that women were too ‘finicky’ for work that demands broad effects” (San Francisco Call, October 13, 1904, page 6).

Painting with signature by Lee Lash, nd.

It was after the rejection of Lash and many other scenic artists that Frank D. Dodge gave her a chance.

I cannot imagine what Wishaar was subjected to as she went from shop to shop, looking for work. I read her story and start to feel slightly nauseous as I wonder when the glass ceiling will break and at what point women will achieve equality. Here we are 118 years later and many of us are still encountering horrific prejudice because of our gender. A 1903 newspaper article written by Marilla Weaver provides a small glimpse into the extreme hardships encountered by Wishaar while searching for work in New York. Weaver reported, “There was success for her, but not till after a struggle so hard and bitter that it ought to make American men bow their heads and a dull red flush of shame dye their cheeks when they remember the mothers that gave them life. It was the old struggle against sex prejudice. Here was this slender, gifted, graceful girl, a skillful scenic artist, a stranger, away from her parents, seeking honorable employment at work she could do as well as the best. Men who should have welcomed her turned from her with ominous muttering and black scowls. Sex jealousy!”

Scenic artists active in New York at the turn of the century included Ernest Albert (1857-1946), Charles Basing (1865-1933), Wilfred Buckland (1866-1946), Joseph Clare, Homer F. Emens (1862-1930), Frank E. Gates, George Gros (1859-1930), J.M. and T.M. Hewlett, Lee Lash, H. Robert Law (1880-1925), St. John Lewis, W.H. Lippincott, John Mazzonovich, P. J. MacDonold. L. A. Morange (1865-1955), Thomas G. Moses (1856-1934), Joseph Physioc (1866-1951), Hugh Logan Reid, Edward G. Unitt, Charles G. Witham, Joseph Wickes, and John H. Young (1858-1944). Fortunately, Wishaar’s drive and talent caused her to excel in a world primarily dominated by men. Wishaar became so successful that she soon went into business for herself. I do wonder if she left the studio because of her male co-workers. It could have been that it was far easier to work alone than suffer the animosity and daily heckles of your male colleagues.

What I find the most fascinating is Wishaar’s versatility, painting both miniatures and scenery. She spanned the entire artistic spectrum!

An article in 1904 reported “Miss Wishaar’s talent sweeps over a wide range. Not only is she adept with a broad brush and tricky “distemper” of the scene painter, but she is even more skillful with the tiny “camel’s hair” and oil of the miniature artist.” In the article, Wishaar was quoted saying, “I love my work. It is progressive, there is room for originality, and results are quick. I do wish you would say something about the medium I use. People generally think that scenery is painted with a whitewash brush and that some kind of wash is used. But the distemper with which I work is an opaque watercolor. It is delightfully effective, but plays some tricks sometimes on those unfamiliar with its vagaries. The first trick it played on me was with a garden drop. I fairly reveled in the delicious greens that paled and deepened under my brush, but when it dried! I wish you could have seen it.” Wishaar was noted as laughing heartily when she remembered the “dull picture” into which her work had faded.

In an earlier article, she commented, “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.” This article appeared throughout the country: the Topeka State Journal (May 25, 1903, page 8), the Racine Journal-Times (Wisconsin, 27 July 1903, page 7), the Wilkes-Barre Record (Pennsylvania, 7 May 1903, page 2), the Wichita Daily Eagle (Kansas, 3 May 1903, page 22), the Richmond Item (Indiana, 2 May 1903, page 10), the Marion Star (Ohio, 2 May 1903, page 10), the Decatur Herald (Illinois, 14 June 1903, page 19), the Lincoln Star (Nebraska, 5 May 1903, page 9), and many others publications that are not digitally available to date.

Wishaar was able to overcome many gender barriers and still rise to the top of her profession in a relatively short period of time during the early twentieth century. But wait, there’s more!

Image of Grace N. Wishaar painting scenery in 1904.

To be continued…

UPDATE: Harley Merry – Studio Advertisements in Julius Cahn’s Theatrical Guide, 1902-1903

The attached advertisement was brought to my attention by a descendent of Harley Merry, Victoria Brittain. She has graciously shared many images as she continues her genealogical research.

Victoria recently discovered an advertisement for the Harley Merry Studio in Julius Cahn’s Theatrical Guide from 1902-1903. Theatrical Guides for touring shows are an amazing source of information about North American theaters and theatrical suppliers.

In the big picture, Merry was instrumental in the training of Ernest Albert, Walter Burridge and many other nineteenth-century scenic artists. For additional information about the significance of Harley Merry and his contribution to scenic art, see my past posts from “Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar: Acquiring the Fort Scott Scenery Collection for the Minnesota Masonic Heritage Center” (installments #138-146). There are many other mentions about Harley Merry in this blog too, just do a search on his name!

www.drypigment.net is intended as a resource for those interested in theatre history, specifically the artisans who created painted illusion and visual spectacle.

From Julius Cahn’s Theatrical Guide, 1902-1903, page 36.

Here is the link to the ad: https://books.google.com/books?id=xrNEAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=%22harley+merry%22&source=bl&ots=SDymahEcHq&sig=NefMkdJNmH3K5V-tXDwmH-FvqKw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQuLOWrZHYAhXCeCYKHf-hAp04ChDoAQhEMAg#v=onepage&q=%22harley%20merry%22&f=false

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 277 – The American Panorama Company and the Scene Painters’ Show of 1885

While looking for images of F. W. Heine, I came across the July 22, 1886, issue of “Bad Lands Cow Boy.” The article described the “Battle of Atlanta” cyclorama that was on exhibit in Minneapolis, Minnesota. I was fascinated with the history of my hometown, so I took a little time to read the entire article. Near the end of it, the author highlighted William Wehner and the American Panorama Company artists. It described how Wehner visited all of the panoramas of importance in Europe and then selected “a staff of the most competent war painters to be found in that country.” The leaders of his exceptional painting team were foreign professors F. W. Heine and August Lohr, “whose previous accomplishments entitled them to be entrusted with the great task which had been laid out.” Heine and Lohr’s artistic staff included “eighteen of the best war painters of Europe, largely from Munich, Dresden and Vienna.” There were artists specializing in landscapes, portraits, figures, and horses. They left their homes to come work in Milwaukee. Most never returned. The fact that the paint staff of the American Panorama Company was mainly composed of foreign artists could not have gone unnoticed, especially by scenic artists in Chicago.

I think scenic artists from all over the country watched, waited, and then acted out against their new competitors. Wehner’s artists arrived in Milwaukee on May 13, 1885. Five months later there was a Scene Painter’s Show in Chicago highlighting American scenic artists. On October 12, 1885, there was the first exhibition of Water Colors by American scenic artists from all over the country. It stands to reasons think that they were defending their turf against this perceived onslaught of immigrant labor. There would never be another Scene Painter’s Show of that generation’s work.

An advertisement for the Scene Painter’s Show in the Chicago Tribune, November 15, 1885, page 16. Thomas G. Moses, Walter W. Burridge and many other scenic artists form across the country exhibited the fine art.

John Moran supported their cause when he submitted an article about the Scene Painter’s Show for the “Art Union, a Monthly Magazine of Art” (Vol. 2, No. 4, 1885, p. 85). The American Art Union was “a society of American Artists, including representations of all the different schools of art” that was “organized ‘for the general advancement of the Fine Arts, and for promoting and facilitating a greater knowledge and love thereof on the part of the public.” The 1884-1885 Board of Directors included D. Hentington (Pres), T. W. Wood (Vice President), E. Wood Perry, Jr. (Secy.), Frederick Dielman (Treasurer), W. H. Beard, Albert Bierstadt, Harry Chase, Harry Farrer, Eastman Johnson, Jervis McEntee, Thomas Moran, and Walter Shirlaw.

The art magazine that highlighted the Scene Painter’s Show in Chicago during 1885.

In a previous post about the Scene Painter’s Show I included Moran’s entire article. I am going to include it again as it can be read now with a much different perspective:

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

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

On June 29, 2017, (installment #131) I wrote, “This wasn’t just a group of artists linked by a common style or profession – this was statement made by a closely-knit community of passionate individuals. They shared their work, their lives and their passion for painting.” Now I understand that this could have been more than a mere statement; it was creating a united front to battle a potential threat to their future livelihood. Not until this moment had I considered that the Scene Painter’s Show of 1885 was a calculated response to the arrival on twenty foreign scenic artists who worked for the American Panorama Company, having only arrived a mere five months earlier. I honestly don’t know if any other scenic studio in the United States could rival the size of the American Panorama Company’s staff in 1885; certainly not the Sosman & Landis studio.

To provide a little more context for this event, it was also the same year that Moses left the Sosman & Landis Studio to form a partnership called “Burridge, Moses & Louderback.” J. D. Louderback was the Chicago art dealer who hosted the Scene Painter’s Show. Walter Burridge had extensive experience painting panoramas that included work with Phil Goatcher on “Siege of Paris” (1876 Philadelphia Centennial World Fair) and a “Battle of Gettysburg” panorama. He understood cycloramas and would soon design and paint the “Volcano of Kilauea,” a monumental success at the 1893 Columbian Exposition.

Advertisement for Thomas G. Moses’ business with Walter Burridge and J. D. Louderback.

Two groups of artists: one crossing the Atlantic to paint scenery, the other showing what America already had to offer.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 272 – Walter Burridge and The Volcano House

Theater history isn’t always recorded by those directly involved in the production. There are written accounts by individuals who were in the audience or reviewing the performance. The writings of Thomas G. Moses are unique as we see the world of theatre through the eyes of a scenic artist and designer. When perusing through all of the documents sent to me by Gene Meier, fellow historian who is tracing 19^th century panorama painting, something stuck out. It was the writings of Lorrin A. Thurston (1858-1931) connected to Meier’s findings pertaining to the Kilauea Volcano cyclorama. Thurston was a lawyer, politician and businessman raised in Hawaii. He was the grandson of one of the first missionaries sent to the Sandwich Islands. Thurston also played a prominent role in overthrowing the Kingdom of Hawai’i under the rule of Queen Lili’uokalani during 1893.

Thurston invested in the renovation and enlargement of the Volcano House during 1891 – the same year as Walter Burridge’s visit to create sketches for the cyclorama. The original Volcano House (a grass hut) was built on the northeastern side of the crater by Benjamin Pitman Sr., a Hilo businessman, in 1846. A second grass-thatched Volcano House was constructed in 1866, boasting four bedrooms, a parlor and a dining room. Mark Twain visited this particular structure. The 1866 house was torn down in 1877 and rebuilt with wood. By 1885, Wilder’s Steamship Company of Honolulu purchased the Volcano House and operated it until 1890. That same year, Thurston’s writings record his seeking out the owner of the site – Samuel G. Wilder and creating the Volcano House Company. At the same time, the company purchased the Punaluu Hotel from Peter Lee, who was then placed as the manager of both hotels. The Volcano House property was remodeled and enlarged to a two-story frame building with fourteen rooms and an observation deck for visitors to see the lava activity and the crater several hundred yards away.

The Volcano House in 1891 with Walter Burridge holding is palette in the top left window.

The Volcano House in 1891 with Walter Burridge holding is palette in the left window.

On November 10, 1891, the Hawaiian Gazette published “Latest From the Volcano,” reporting a number of visitors including Mrs. Senator Stewart, Mr. and Mrs. Hyman, Miss Hirschberg. Messrs. Morrell and Blue of Pensacola, High, Scott, Walter Burridge, and C. A. Webster, “returned Tuesday afternoon on the Hall, having enjoyed an exceptionally quiet passage down.” The article continued, “All are enthusiastic over accommodations afforded by the Volcano House and general improvements in transportation arrangements. The volcano is reported to be in a fairly active condition, and is gradually rising to its old level of last March. It is estimated that the lake is now within four or five hundred feet of the top, and is perhaps a quarter of a mile in diameter at its widest point. Liquid lava and cakes of half-frozen crust are thrown, in the centre of the lake, to a height of twenty or thirty feet. If the lake continues to rise at its present rate, there will be an overflow in about seven or eight months.”

Photograph of Kilauea’s Lake of Fire in 1893.

Thurston was also interested in bringing Hawaii into the American public’s eye and began an exciting marketing plan for the island. A railroad advertising agent was being hired to visit Hawaii, take pictures and print marketing brochures. Thurston and a few other investors were creating “Vistas of Hawaii, The Paradise of the Pacific and Inferno of the World.” In August 1891, approximately 10,000 large pamphlets and 50,000 smaller pamphlets were printed for distribution. But this was a small part of a much larger picture.

Thurston then traveled to Chicago and secured a concession for a cyclorama of Kilauea to be included in the Midway Plaisance for the 1893 Columbian Exposition. He had help from Michael H. De Young, owner of the San Francisco Chronicle and California commissioner for the World Fair. Thurston returned to Honolulu, organized “The Kilauea Cyclorama Co.” and became the company’s president. W. T. Sense was the company’s first manager. They arranged for Burridge to visit Hawaii from October 13 to November 11, 1891. Burridge would sketch Kilauea in action and reproduce a spectacle for the fairgrounds. He was representing the scenic studio of Albert, Grover & Burridge.

On September 9, 1891 (page 7) the Chicago Daily Tribune reported that there were at least thirty firms in Europe who wanted to include a panorama at the Columbian Exposition and that the Ways and Means Committee was not prepared to consider panoramas at the present time. The committee did state that if panoramas were included, it would ask for twenty-five percent of gross receipts. That was half less than the fifty percent asked of Buffalo Bill for his Wild West show! It might have also helped that Burridge’s business partner was also a chair for one of the Fair committees.

By 1898 Hawai’i became a U. S. Territory. Thurston also opened a newspaper that same year – “Pacific Commercial Advertiser.”

On December 3, 1891, the “Honolulu Adviser” reported “Walter Burridge, the scenic artist, had his sketches stopped by the Custom House authorities at San Francisco for duty. Some friends at that place saw the Collector and arranged the matter without cost to Mr. Burridge.” Good to have friends around in your time of need.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 271 – From the Land Where Palm Trees Sway

The Volcano of Kilaueau cyclorama for the 1893 Columbian Exposition was designed and painted by Walter Wilcox Burridge, the previous business partner of Thomas G. Moses. Burridge was part of another scenic studio when he journeyed to Hawaii during October 1891. Earlier that year, “Albert, Grover & Burridge” established their studio at 3127 State Street in Chicago. Their establishment was a marked departure from previous scenic studios as they implemented advancements in the methods of mounting and presenting stage plays to their clients. Albert was the scenic artist for the Chicago Auditorium, Burridge was the scenic artist for the Grand Opera House and McVicker’s, and Oliver Grover was a well-known instructor at the Chicago Institute of Art.

On October 20, 1891, the “Hawaiian Gazette” reported, “Walter Burridge, the scenic artist who is engaged to paint the Volcano for the World’s Exposition, leaves for that point to-morrow to make his sketches. He will be accompanied by Mr. Webster, the Chicago journalist, who will send a number of letters to the Chicago Inter-Ocean” (page 7). Webster would submit his story as “Special Correspondences” by “Conflagration Jones.” His series began in November and included a comical character named “Burridge.”

One of the “Inter Ocean” articles about Conflagration Jones’ adventures in Hawaii with Burridge.

In addition to Webster, the photographer J. J. Williams also joined the group to document the landscape of Kiluaea. Williams would take a number of photographs to assist Walter Burridge in the final painting for this Midway Plaisance attraction.

On October 27, 1891, the “Hawaiian Gazette” published an article about the upcoming Columbian Exposition (page 2). The article reported, “It now looks as though our modest little country might furnish one of the chief attractions of the Columbian Exposition, viz., a panorama and the volcano.” Both Burridge and Webster were described in the article: “[Webster] is on staff of the Chicago Inter-Ocean, a daily with a circulation of about 80,000 and has been engaged by the Volcano House Co. to write for the Inter-Ocean a series of twelve articles on Hawaii” and Burridge was “a leading landscape artist of Chicago.” The formation of a panorama joint stock company, initially be called “The Kilauea Cyclorama Co.,” would carry the enterprise through to completion. The article continued, “The cost of the panorama will probably be $20,000 – though the amount cannot be ascertained at present with accuracy. The hope is that a suitable building can be obtained so that the company will not be put to the cost of erecting an edifice.”

In order to market this endeavor, however, the public needed to support the project and the large price tag. Hawaiians needed to see the value in participating in the 1893 World Fair. The “Hawaiian Gazette” promoted the endeavor, publishing, “The Columbian Exposition offers an opportunity to advertise this country and make its advantages known, which is simply unparalleled. It is safe to assume that no opportunity will offer itself on a similar scale within perhaps a generation to come. The Hawaiian Government and private individuals should strain every nerve to utilize the opportunity to the utmost. Hawaii must be properly represented. We have a full and fine exhibit – one which will illustrate with completeness the character, conditions and prospects of the country, which will give an adequate conception of its generous climate and unrivaled fertility of its soil. The Hawaiian Band should be sent there. In connection with the panorama, vast quantities of literature with reference to the Islands can be circulated in the shape of books, pamphlets and circulars.”

Excitement for the project continued to build throughout the remainder of fall as Burridge rapidly completed his sketches at the Volcano House. Both Hawaiian and Chicago newspapers began marketing the project and promoting this tropical location as an ideal destination for tourists.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 270 – A Volcanic Explosion of Information – Kilauea

My past few installments looked at Thomas G. Moses’ contribution to the Columbian Exposition Midway Plaisance in 1893. His good friend and colleague, Walter Wilcox Burridge (1857-1913), also created a spectacular exhibit for the Midway Plasiance – a cyclorama of Kilueau, complete with scenic effects. Moses initially left Sosman & Landis in the 1880s to start a business with Burridge called “Burridge Moses and Louderback.” Burridge and Moses were the artists and Louderback was the businessman who specialized in art. Although their company was short lived, the two artists remained friends for the rest of their lives until Burridge passed away in 1916.

Advertisement for the scenic studio of Ernest Albert, Oliver Grover, and Walter Burridge. Burridge’s previous partnership was with Thomas G. Moses.

The new studio constructed by Ernest Albert, Oliver Grover, and Walter Burridge.

Burridge left his business with Moses after experiencing a series of struggles with Louderback. He went back to his old scenic art position at the Chicago Opera, but soon formed another partnership – “Albert, Grover and Burridge.” This company with Ernest Albert and Oliver Grover built a new type of scenic studio, complete with a full-scale display area (see installments #134-137). Burridge was still working at “Albert, Grover, and Burridge” when he designed and created the cyclorama for the Columbian Exposition.

The cyclorama of Kilauea painted by Walter Burridge for the 1893 Columbian Exposition Midway Plaisance.

To provide a little context for Moses’ theatrical productions and scenic art at the Columbian Exposition, it seems an appropriate time to include the work of Burridge.

Some of the my information and images for the next few posts have been provided by Eugene “Gene” B. Meier, Jr., M.S. Ed. Our paths crossed during the summer of 2017 as I researched Walter Burridge and the projects that he worked on with Moses (see installments # 131-135). Meier’s name first popped up in a Google search that linked me to his writing for Askart.com. Just as I wrote the biographical information for Thomas G. Moses at Askart, Meier did the same for Walter W. Burridge. The next time I saw a Meier’s post was in a Chicagoloy comment. On January 18, 2016, Meier posted that here were six rotunda panoramas represented at World Columbian Exposition.

A 1912 photograph from Chicagology depicting the cyclorama buildings. Here is the link: https://chicagology.com/goldenage/goldenage049/ It was this post where I encountered Gene Meier’s comments.

I repeatedly stumbled across a series of public postings, all with Meier’s name attached to the information. He was studying the scenic artists and companies who painted nineteenth century panoramas and cycloramas. Meier was doing the exact same thing that I was doing – except I was focusing on Masonic Theaters as the end product. Meier was creating a spreadsheet from the American point of view about 19^th century panorama painting.

2004 advertisement about a lecture on the panorama painters by Gene Meier.

In one of his posts, he mentioned Walter Burridge and also commented about his examination of the scenic art diaries by F. W. Heine at the Milwaukee Historical Society. I had also looked at those same diaries during a United States Institute of Theatre Technology Conference when the convention was in Milwaukee! It was at this point that I decided to contact Meier. There were too many instances where our research was covering the same ground.

Now contacting another historian can be like crossing a tightrope over Niagara Falls; one misstep could end the whole stunt. It is understandable that they might not want to share too much, especially if they are preparing to publish their findings. However, scholars really needs to share some of their information because it typically leads to new discoveries and facts that may otherwise remain hidden. I decided to take a chance and put all of my cards on the table and waited for Meier to respond.

It is possible that I was the first person to really show a shared interest in his topic, or that he is a completely trusting soul and sees the importance of bringing this information to light. Like me, his actions suggested that it was more important to share his research instead of being recognized for his particular contribution. We immediately recognized each other as kindred spirits and fellow historians who were working toward a bigger picture. But there was something else propelling his search – family. Meier has a personal connection to the art form as his great aunt was a student of panorama artists Richard Lorenz and Otto v. Ernst. For me, THAT could be a story in itself – except that I am swimming in tales already.

I received a flood of emails with attachments during July 2017 as he sent a lot of his primary research. This is a perfect example of “be careful of what you wish for” as you might have every request fulfilled. I am still in the process of slowly filtering through Meier’s files. I have been waiting for an appropriate opportunity to introduce and promote both Meier and his project. With my recent trip to Hawaii to see Thomas G. Moses’ great-grandson and my current examination of Moses’ contribution to the 1893 Columbian Exposition, now seems the ideal time. Tomorrow we look at the Burridge’s design and painting for his spectacular attraction – the Cyclorama of Kilauea.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 244 – Thomas G. Moses and the Old Waverly Theatre

In 1892, the Sosman and Landis Company opened another studio space on the West Side of Chicago. They rented the “old Waverly theatre” and referred to this second space as “the Annex.” According to Thomas G. Moses, the studio measured 93 feet wide by 210 feet long and 40 feet high. It had four paint frames with plenty of floor space for all kinds of work. This space was specifically secured for Moses and his crew. By August 1892, Moses found the new Studio all finished and they moved in immediately. His arrangement with Sosman & Landis was to receive all of their sub-contracted work. This statement has always intrigued me as the majority of Masonic installations were subcontracted to Sosman & Landis by M.C. Lilley. When did the subcontracting begin, and if not Masonic, who else was subcontracting work to scenic studios – architectural firms?

Furthermore, he wrote that Sosman & Landis would supply all of the paint supplies for the Annex Studio at no charge. Moses records that his studio crew included A. J. Rupert, Frank Peyrand and Harry Vincent besides a number of assistants and paint boys. He wrote, “It was awfully hard to keep the building warm. It was so big we had to use stoves.” Even with his own studio, however, Moses was still constantly sent on the road to complete on site work for the company. During these extended absences, Ed Loitz took charge of the Annex studio.

A program from the Waverly Theatre before it became the Annex Studio for Sosman & Landis in 1892.

Very little is known of the first Waverly Theatre space in Chicago. It was advertised as “Chicago’s Parlor Theatre” in Chicago Tribune during 1888. “Jno. B. Jeffery’s Guide and Directory to the Opera Houses, Theatres, Public Halls, Bill Posters, Etc.” (1889) noted that the Waverly was “formerly Grenier’s Garden & Theatre” on West Madison, Throop and Ada Streets. The 1892 “World Almanac and Bureau of Information” published that the physical address of the old Waverly theater was 454 W. Madison St. This is not to be confused with a later Waverly Theatre constructed in 1913. The stage old Waverly’s stage measured 40’ x 60’ with a seating capacity of 1400. This would have made a sizable studio and been a particular challenge to heat in the winter, especially when trying to keep the size water for painting in a liquid state.

Chicago theaters listed in the 1892 “World Almanac and Bureau of Information.” The Waverly became a second scenic studio for Sosman & Landis by August 1892.

In 1888, the Waverly’s manager was Burr Robbins with Andy Mackay as the assistant manager. By 1889, W. H. Powell was listed as the new manager. On June 30, 1889, the Chicago Tribune announced, “The Waverly Theatre has lately changed hands and is now being run as a first-class family theatre. The audiences for the last two weeks have been largely made up of the leading people of the West side and the performances were worthy of patronage. The Gaiety Opera Company under the management of A. Mackay has been playing to large houses in “Fra Diavolo.” Next week there will be a revival of “H.M.S. Pinafore,” with Messrs. Alonzo Hatch and Mack Charles and Miss Golde in the leading roles. The theatre is admirably adapted and well located for a family theatre and under the new management ought to prosper” (page 15).”

Four years later in 1892, the theatre was transformed into the second studio for Sosman & Landis. Obviouosly the management fof the Waverly theatre had not been successful. I was intrigued with the reason for the reconfiguration of the space and started digging through newspapers. I wanted to see if there was any mention about the Waverly’s close or transformation into a scenic studio space. Just about the time I had exhausted all possibilities, I came across a phenomenal article that included the line, “Chicago is universally acknowledged as the World’s Greatest scenic center.” This caught my attention. As I read the article, another paragraph stood out:

“Chicago is today the largest scenic supply center in the country. Of the eighteen theatres in this city the major portion have their own scenic artists. Three mammoth studios here send their art product as far east as Maine and all over the west to the shores of the Pacific. The oldest firm here in this line of work claims to have supplied nearly 1,300 opera houses, theatres, and halls with scenery during the last ten years, and of late business has increased enormously.”

Image of “a Chicago Scenic Studio” published in the Chicago Sunday Tribune during 1892.

“Three mammoth studios” with one being noted as “the oldest firm.” The names of the studios were not provided, so I started thinking about who was in operation at this point in Chicago. By 1891, Walter Burridge had partnered with Ernest Albert and Oliver Grover to create Albert, Grover & Burridge. That had to be one of the three studios. The oldest firm also had to be Sosman & Landis. Who owned the third “mammoth studio” in Chicago that I had never stumbled across? What it an individual’s company that used an actual theater space?

The article was fascinating and read as a “Who’s Who” in scenic art by 1892. It is certainly worth posting in it’s entirety for historical record. Therefore, I have turned it into a word document. It will be the topic of my next few posts due to its length.

Another treasure! This article is a proverbial “holy grail” for the scenic art world.

To be continued…