Sosman & Landis – Page 23

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 831 – New York Studios, 1912-1913

In 1912, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “New York studios set in a new theatre in Philadelphia, the Globe.” He meant that Sosman & Landis painted scenery for a New York Studios’ project, one that was delivered to the Globe Theatre in Philadelphia. New York Studios was the eastern affiliate of Sosman & Landis, founded and run by a one-time employee David H. Hunt. Hunt was a theatrical manager, as well as scenic studio founder. In the 1890s he convinced Sosman and Landis to establish the theatrical management firm of Sosman, Landis & Hunt. Later in 1910, Hunt convinced Sosman to invest in New York Studios, run by Hunt and his second wife, Adelaide.

New York Studios stamp noting home and Chicago office.

Julius Cahn’s Official Theatrical Guide listed the Globe as a vaudeville theatre. With a seating capacity of 720, the venue was managed by Chas. Rappaport. To place the Globe within the context of the 1912 Philadelphia theatre scene, the city boasted 289 theaters at the time with a drawing population of 2,000,000. Located at 5901 Market Street, the Globe Theatre opened in 1910.

I was intrigued that Moses mentioned creating scenery for New York Studios that was ultimately delivered to the Globe Theatre in Philadelphia. This was certainly not the first or last time that Sosman & Landis provided scenery for a New York Studios project. Sosman & Landis worked in conjunction with New York Studios on many projects, but seldom were mentioned in a newspaper article at the same time.

Interestingly, both studios were mentioned in the same article in the “Star-Gazette” on March 4, 1913 (Elmira, New York). The newspaper article was about the W. P. Murphy’ new theater in Bath, New York:

“THURSDAY NIGHT

First production will be local talent minstrels, a testimonial to Bath man who promoted playhouse.

Bath, March 4 – (Special)- The Liberty Minstrels, a premiere aggregation of Bath talent, will hold the boards at the Murphy theater, Thursday evening; the production is under the direction of J. W. Lewis and is given as a testimonial benefit to the builder and owner of the theater, W. P. Murphy.

The benefit is designed as a means of expression on the part of the local public of its appreciation of Mr. Murphy’s efforts to supply the village a long needed modern playhouse as well as in a measure to reimburse him for the heavy expense he has incurred in building and equipping the house. Already every seat has been sold and the demand may be that the minstrels be repeated a second night.

The house is one of the finest to be found in any village of this size anywhere in the Southern Tier. It stands at the rear of the former site of the Nichols House, the once famous hostelry, facing Pulteney Square in the central part of the village. Entrance is gained from Steuben street through a long arcade or foyer, off from which are a box office, telephone booths and cloak room. At the rear of the house near the entrance is a smoking room. The auditorium is 50 feet in length by 40 feet width. The floor slopes, dropping about five feet from the rear to the orchestra circle. Surrounding three sides of the auditorium is a horseshoe gallery; the house is carpeted with rubber linoleum and supplied with opera chairs on both orchestra floor and galleries, the seating capacity being about 825 persons.

The stage has an opening of 45 feet width, 17 feet height and 30 feet depth. It has an ample scene loft and is supplied with elaborate scenery, which is supplied by Sosman & Landis of Chicago. Beneath the stage is a musician’s waiting room, a property room, four dressing rooms, supplied with baths; above the stage are four other reserve dressing rooms for use when attractions with large casts play the house. The building is equipped with gas and electricity; has seven exits, is a fireproof building and heated by steam. The drop curtain, depicting a scene from Venice is from the New York Studio Company.

Charles H. Thomas will be manager and booking agent for the house and already many leading attractions are promised. As Bath has been without a theatre otherwise than the motion pictures for some time, undoubtedly the new theater will prove very popular” (Star-Gazette, Elmira, New York, 4 March 1913, page 9).

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 828 – Thomas G. Moses, Vice-President of Sosman & Landis

In 1912, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “Ella and I started on our vacation November 9^th to Cincinnati and Asheville, N. Car., which is all written up in detail elsewhere. Arrived home from our vacation December 8^th. Four good weeks. Had a fine trip. Christmas day was a good one. We had Frank with us, which made a big family reunion. At the close of this year’s business, I have no kick to make. I only regret not being able to do more sketching, as I found it too cold in North Carolina. I am sorry that we did not go away down south to the Gulf. I think we would have found it at least warm, if nothing else.”

View of Chattanooga, photograph by Alan Cressler.

One stop on his trip was in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Of his visit to the city, the “Chattanooga News” reported, “Chattanooga Catches the Eye of the Artist. Vice-President Moses, of Sosman & Landis Scenic Studios, delighted.”(15 Nov. 1912, page 2).

The article headline included “LIKES THE LOCAL SCENERY. Chooses Chattanooga Vicinity as a ‘Promised Land’ for Artists to Revel In.” The article continued:

“Thomas G. Moses, vice-president of the Sosman & Landis scenic studios of Chicago, and one of America’s most distinguished artists, has spent several days in Chattanooga and the vicinity, with a view to establishing a post for the Palette and Chisel Art Club of Chicago. He has been sent out by the club in search of new fields, Sketch grounds all over Europe and America are discovered in this way. One or two men are sent out in advance, and they find ‘the promised land’ they herald the good tidings to the eager artists in waiting.

Mr. Moses is enthusiastic over the natural scenery of Chattanooga and its surroundings, and has made preliminary arrangements for the post.

In time of peace and plenty the greatest steps in art and science have been made. Midsummer Chattanooga, in all its glory, will be painted by American celebrities. The pictures will be done by the greatest artists, will be exhibited in the famous galleries, and will bring great prices.

So Palette and Chisel Club of Chicago will flock to Chattanooga and form a little colony. Artists are like gold-seekers; let one find a small pocket, and there will be a stampede.

The well-known Palette and Chisel club has furnished the art world many bright lights. They have secured the “Prix de Rom” plum, which carries with it three years in Rome and $3,000. The east winner was Mr. Savage, with E. Martin Hennings a close second.

Mr. Moses agrees that this is a ‘garden spot of America.’ He says:

‘We have painted much in the Rockies, but they are too large and the air is too clear. What we want is mist and a little smoke. They will be great factors in producing the poetical sketches we find here. The delicate opalescent coloring of the distant mountains is greatly enhanced by the drifting mists that float about your valleys.’

A magnificent view of Chattanooga 14×28, done by Moses, can be seen at the manufactures’ association headquarters on Market Street. It was taken from North tower on Missionary ridge, and has been presented to the association by Mr. Riffe.

Mr. Moses left Chattanooga Thursday morning on an early train for Asheville, where he may establish a second post. By his side is his charming and companionable wife, who is interested in all movements of art. In his baggage were many sketches of this location; in his mind were dreams of burnt sienna clay and opalescent coloring.

The sketches will be reproduced on large canvas and will be exhibited next spring to the Salmagundi Club, of New York City, of which Thomas Moses is a member. They consist largely of rustic scenes, rugged mountains, dense forests, falling waters and babbling brooks. These are the delightful avenues through which Mr. Moses walked to renown.

The exhibition of these scenes will be made with a view of inducing the members of the Salmagundi club to this ‘garden spot of America’ that is unlimited for the artist in scope and variety.

The Salmagundi Club is one of the most conservative in all Europe and America. No man enters uninvited; no man is invited under the age of fifty years. Some of the well-known artists are Charles Warren Eaton, R. M. Shurtleff, J. Francis Murphy, H. A. Vincent, George Innis, Jr., and Walter C. Hartson.

If this club, too, accepts the challenge next summer, Chattanooga, in all its glory, will indeed be painted.”

A lovely photo by Jake Wheeler of the scenery near Chattanooga.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 819 – Scenic Art Sundries, 1912 to Now

Scenic art case with brushes. From the Waszut-Barrett Theatre Collection.

In 1912, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “June 1^st, Sosman agreed to pay me what I wanted, $5,200.00 per year besides my dividends, which will make my income not less than $6,500.00 – not quite as good as the New York venture, but I will be satisfied.” $6500 in 1912 is equivalent in purchasing power to about $171,920.31 in 2019. Of that number, $137,526.25 was Moses’ salary without his dividends.

Now, consider his statement. “not quite as good as the New York Venture.” Moses was referring to his four-year partnership with Will F. Hamilton in New York City – Moses & Hamilton Studio. He left a successful business venture to return to Chicago in 1904. When Moses returned to Sosman & Landis he assumed the role of vice-president, shareholder, and controlled all design, construction, painting and installation. In a sense, Joseph S. Sosman handed all artistic control of the firm over to Moses. In 1904, Moses had been working as a scenic artist for three decades and was not only well-known, but also in high demand across the country. He brought credibility, as well as past clients, when he returned to Chicago.

By 1912, Moses was responsible for the successful delivery of at least two dozen Masonic scenery installations, hundreds of stock settings, all of Ringling Bros. grand circus spectacles, Frederick C. Thompson’s most successful amusement park attractions, and scenery for many premiere productions by Joe Jefferson, Edwin Booth, Helena Modjeska, Sarah Bernhardt, John McCoullough, Julia Marlowe, Katherine Clemmons, Buffalo Bill, and many others. He had closely worked with dozens of theatrical producers, such as Wm. A. Brady. John J. Murdock, Joseph Litt, Gus Hill, Kohl & Castle, H. H. Frazee, Thos. W. Prior, and the list goes on. Moses was a very valuable asset to Sosman & Landis, but his primary obstacle would remain Sosman & Landis stockholders. While Sosman was alive, he acted as a buffer for Moses, being one of the company’s founders. After Sosman’s passing in 1915, Moses faced continued challenges presented by not only stockholders, but also one-time company treasurer and secretary, David H. Hunt. Hunt ran the eastern affiliate of Sosman & Landis – New York Studios,

There are a few factors to consider about Moses’ salary in 1912. First of all, the theatre industry was booming and Sosman & Landis Studio was at the top of their game. They really reigned supreme in regard to painted settings for theatre, opera, music academies, social halls, fraternal stages, public pageants, grand circus spectacles, amusement park attractions, and more. Everywhere you turned, it seemed as if there was a need for scenic art, whether on the stage or at a world’s fair. My exploration of the period from 1890 to 1920 suggests that there was a greater demand than supply. Competition between scenic studios was almost jovial, as there was always another job just around the corner. This dynamic seems to shift during the 1920s when the number of suppliers dramatically increases and the demand for painted scenes begins to wane.

There are many factors that contribute to this decrease, too many to mention in one post. However, it is important to note that there is an increased demand for fabric curtains in lieu of painted stage settings. There is also the emergence of the lighting designer; atmospheric effects once created by paint are now created with light on three-dimensional objects. Whether you want to site realism and naturalism on stage or the Bauhaus movement in theater, the demand for painted illusion diminishes. Scenic art remains, but there is a shift from art to craft in many cases, There is also the increased popularity of film, transitioning the artistic medium as a snippet for vaudeville to a full-length silent film at a movie house. The rise of film shifts many live performance theaters to cinemas, also decreasing the need of stock scenery in some venues. In short, there are too many factors to identify any one thing that directly decreased the demand for scenic art, yet it starts.

Just as two schools of scenic art developed in American during the nineteenth century (English and European traditions), two new schools become associated with live theatre and film during the twentieth century. This is similar to the 19^th century shift when scenic art for the stage was painted in either the English tradition of glazing or the European tradition of opaque washes. By the 1920s, scenic art on stage adopts a much more colorful palette, although the two schools of scenic art continue. Shadows are saturated with ultramarine blue and spatter covers painted compositions for the stage, all to interact with light. At this same time, scenic artists who paint for film develop a tighter style as movie cameras improve, branching off in a very different direction of increased realism that transitions into the dimensional. Scenic art for Hollywood and scenic art for grand opera are two completely separate schools, necessitating different techniques.

There is also a shift in the perception of scenic art labor and subsequent wages, more specifically how scenic art is regarded by the various industries. For historical context, many 19^th century scenic artists did more than simply paint. They controlled scenic illusion on stage; designing both stage machinery and painted elements, also lighting their creations. Many scenic artists also belonged to the Theatrical Mechanics Association (est. 1866). Similarly, stage carpenters and stage mechanics were also accomplished scenic artists; the titles were not solely based on skill or any one trade. Even in a 1910 interview, Broadway scenic artist and designer John H. Young explained that he always needed to set the lights, being the sole individual who truly understood how his set should be lit, explaining that light can destroy a painted composition in an instant.

There is also the rise of both the modern scenic designer, reducing the role of many mid-twentieth century scenic artists to painters. This trend continues throughout the twentieth century, with more obstacles for scenic artists including the rise of digital technology. This is not meant to say that scenic art declined, the skills evaporated, or the trade died. The perception of scenic art simply began to change. If an industry’s perception of a trade shifts, so will the wages. What the United States experienced by the late twentieth century was a dip in scenic art wages, especially in non-union towns. This has trend has continued into the twenty-first century.

There is one other factor that must be included, and that is the shift of gender within the scenic art industry going from predominantly men to predominantly women. The rise of women in the field of scenic art parallels the decline of salaries in the field of scenic art. There is no disputing that many women, whether they are teaching at a university or in a professional industry, still make less than their male counterparts. The Equal Rights Amendment did not pass in the United States, therefore women are not legally entitled to equal pay; and, yes, this does matter in a lawsuit.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 818: Kilroy and Britton, 1912

In 1912, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “Kilroy and Britton have been stocked up with a lot of drops for two shows similar to ‘Cow-Boy Girl.’”

That year, Sosman & Landis delivered scenery for “The Candy Kid” and “The Millionaire,” each produced by Will Kilroy and Mae Britton. Kilroy and Britton were well known for their melodramatic musical plays, such as the “Cow-Boy Girl.”

Advertisement from the “Marion Headlight” (Marion, Kansas), 1 Nov 1906, page 5

In 1898 “The Daily Item” described Kilroy and Britton as “refined sketch artists with their catchy and entertaining illustrated songs” (Sunbury, Penn. 15 March 1899, page 4). The couple performed with the Forrister & Floyd Combination Co., marketing themselves as original illustrators of humorous songs, with early burlesque performances including “Getthemoneygraph.” Kilroy and Britton were also featured with the touring production “Heart of Chicago.” By 1903, the comedy duo transitioned from burlesque acts to a full-scale musical production. They starred in the successful comedy drama by Lem B. Parker, “An Aristocratic Tramp.” Their partnership with Parker became the key to their success as theatrical producers. At the time, Parker was the well-known author of “For Home and Honor,” “A Quaker Wedding,” and “The Sinking City.”

“An Aristocratic Tramp” was billed as a “marvelous comedy success,” with an “exciting automobile race and explosion” and “the most realistic rail-road scene ever produced” (The Republic, Columbus, Indiana, 24 Nov. 1903, page 6). The show was also noted as a distinct departure from many other plays at the time. (Belvidere Daily Republican, 14 Aug. 1903, page 6).

Advertisement for “The Aristocratic Tramp” at Crump’s Theatre in Columbus, Indiana, from “The Republic,” 23 Nov. 1903, page 5

Their second hit was “The Cow-Boy Girl,” advertised as a melodramatic musical play. In 1906, the “Marion Headlight” reported, “When Kilroy and Britton consulted Dr. Lem B. Parker, (the prominent playwright) to ascertain and diagnose the public’s needs in the way of theatricals, he immediately came to the conclusion that something new, original, worthy, and worth the price of admission, was the proper thing, so he prescribed ‘The Cowboy Girl,’ a play with music, comedy and a melodramatic atmosphere, that sent the audience home glad they went and feeling ‘The Cowboy Girl” is worth going miles to see again” (Marion Headlight, 1 Nov. 1906, page 5). A 1912 article in “The Gazette” explained, “‘The Cow-Boy Girl’” is not exactly a melo-drama; yet it embraces all the vigorous realism, absorbing interest and sentimental beauty of one. It is not a musical comedy, though it possesses the rollicking dash and swing of one.” (The Gazette, York, Pennsylvania, 20 Jan. 1912, page 5). Advertisements promised, “10 Big Song Hits – Breezy Music – A Bevy of Pretty Girls – 20 People – 20,” as well as bucking broncos on the stage (“Daily Times, Davenport, Iowa, 27 March 1912, page 17).

Article published in “The Republic,” (Columbus, Indiana) 23 Nov. 1903, page 5

Newspaper articles attributed Kilroy and Britton’s success to Parker’s understanding of theatergoers, commenting, “The theatre is first, last and nearly always a place of amusement. Nine-tenths of all theatergoers of today go to the theatre to be entertained and for no other purpose. A part of the tenth go to be instructed, but their number is so small it has no bearing” (The Gazette, York, Pennsylvania, 20 Jan. 1912, page 5). Theatergoers who sought amusement yielded the largest profits to theatre manufacturers, greatly benefitting those ranging from suppliers to booking agents. Kilroy and Britton had stumbled across a magical formula that resulted in their success over a decade, with many of their stage plays becoming popular films.

When Sosman & Landis delivered scenery for “The Candy Kid,” the “Daily Tribune” reported that the show was “a musical attraction of known merit” (Wisconsin Rapids, Wisconsin, 25 Sept. 1912, page 1). Premiering at the Yorkville Theatre in New York during the fall of 1907, “The Candy Kid” was still on tour in 1912, visiting Daly’s Theatre on Sept. 26. The show’s plot involved a feud between rival candy store owners. The touring production of the “The Candy Kid” starred Jack Rollens and was advertised as having “10 song hits that make you whistle” (The Times, Munster, Indiana, 27 Sept. 1912, page 2). Musical numbers included, “The Past, the Present and Future,” “Bye, Bye, Dreamy Eyes,” “Hark the Scream of Eagles,” and “Parodies.” The show successfully played to audiences across the country for five consecutive years, and this constant demand necessitated new scenery as older sets began to deteriorate.

Advertisement in “The Times,” (Munster, Indiana) 27 Sept, 1912, page 2

The second Kilroy and Britton show that used Sosman & Landis scenery in 1912 was “The Millionaire Kid,” featuring Ray Raymond. After a successful first run, the producers created a vaudeville version for tour. On January 20, 1912, “The Daily Times” announced “Kilroy and Britton have put a condensed version of ‘The Millionaire Kid’ into vaudeville” (Davenport, Iowa, 20 Jan 1912, page 11). Advertisements promised, “Pretty Girls – Catchy Songs – a Thousand Laughs – Carload of Special Scenery – Dazzling Electrical Effects” (Fort Wayne Daily News, 18 May 1912, page 4). Moses was responsible for designing the “special scenery” and “dazzling electrical effects.”

Advertisement in the “Fort Wayne Daily,” 18 May 1912, page 4

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 803 – Size Water, 1912

In 1912, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “January 15^th the big furnace at the studio fell over and started a fine fire – a loss of about $2,000.00, a week’s delay in repairs and getting started.” That is the equivalent of a $53,000 loss today, no small fire. However, with the fabric and other flammables stored in the studio, the damage could have been far worse.

Moses’ record of the studio fire is an opportune moment to contemplate some practical considerations of running a scene painting studio in Chicago during 1912, such as making the binder for paint. In 1912, stage scenery was painted with a combination of dry pigment (powdered color) and size water (diluted animal hide glue/gelatin). The dry pigment was transformed into a paste and then mixed with size on the scenic artists’ palettes before applying the paint. The type of paint used by Moses and his colleagues included only three ingredients: color, water and binder. All were kept separate until just prior to application, an ideal way to store paint with an indefinite shelf life. Today’s paint uses the same three ingredients, and then some – other additives for shelf life, flexibility, etc.

Handling any paint requires an understanding of both the product and usage. Manuals not only train artists, but also may sell a particular product. In 1916, scenic artist Frank Atkinson discussed the use of size in his publication, “Scene Painting and Bulletin Art” (1916, page 154). He wrote, “The medium for binding distemper is known as ‘size,’ or sizing. For making it, gelatin is preferred, although the best grade of White Cabinet Glue answers very well and is most commonly used. Drop four or five pounds into the cauldron, cover it with water, and fill the water vessel two-thirds full of water. Apply the heat, and when the glue is melted you will have extra strong size. One dipper full of strong size with four dippers of clear hot water will produce working size.” Atkinson worked for Sosman & Landis during the early twentieth century, so his description of the process is likely the same used at many paint studios at this time.

Depending on the strength of the size, there is a tendency for it to gel. Even the perfect ratio of water to strong size will gel if a paint studio gets cool, hence, keeping the studio warm with a big furnace. The other option was to keep the size warm, but this was a bit tricky since you don’t want the glue to scorch. Making and storing unused size is like a juggling act, where all of the balls need to keep moving in the air without one hitting the ground. The smell of rotting glue is when a juggling ball hits the ground. Now in the case of Sosman & Landis, averaging the production of 4 drops a day, the size barrel was never left full for long. The key to painting with size is rapid turnover, where size water is constantly being mixed and replenished for scenic artists’ palettes.

Over the years, I have done quite a few experiments with size water, studying the strength and storage; all the while understanding that size water should really be mixed daily. Just as dry pigment palettes are prepared in the morning, preparing size each day is quite easy and takes about the same amount of time.

The greatest complaint among older artists is the rancid smell of old size. It is an organic compound that will spoil, no surprise to anyone. But like old food, there is a point when you throw it out instead of still using it. There are many ways to prevent the size from rotting and smelling like a dead animal. I have successfully kept size for over a month without any noticeable odor, you just have to understanding this little science experiment that you are creating.

The container is the first issue. Plastic and metal are not good long-term storage containers. Glass or glazed pottery (porcelain) containers are the best options, as nothing will leach into the size. I learned this from a chemist who specializes in hide glue and technical gelatin.

The container should never be tightly sealed, as this starts a little science experiment. Loosely draping the top with size, or fabric, allows the size to “breathe” and prevents contaminants from building up in the storage container.

Finally, keeping size at a cool temperature will cause it to gel, but it also preserves it like many organic substances. Gelled size just needs to be warmed up again prior to use.

Discussing the dry pigment painting process and cooking of size is nothing new or unique to our industry. There were a variety of publications and articles describing the scene painting process. As the use of dry pigment was gradually replaced with pre-mixed products, paint manufacturers and distributers took it upon themselves to include directions in their product catalogues. Bob Foreman recently shared a section about paint in a 1964 Paramount Theatrical Supply catalogue (http://vintagetheatrecatalogs.blogspot.com/…/paramount-thea…).
In the section on “Scenic Paint,” there was an article written by Mr. Wayne Bowman, College of William and Mary, Norfolk 8, Virginia. Bowman’s article was placed immediately below a brief description of Paramount’s scenic paints, dyes and the necessary cast-aluminum glue pot for evenly heating size. The catalogue offered “regular colors” and “prepared colors,” adding that “regular colors are more economical.”

Wayne wrote:
“For general stage use, the most satisfactory painting is done with dry scenic colors mixed with size water. The scenic colors cannot normally be obtained locally, but through theatre supply houses, such as Paramount Theatrical Supplies.” I was reminded of a conversation that I had with Italian scenic artist, Umberto di Nino, this summer. He explained the clients who wanted the best quality scenery paid for it to be created with dry pigment, whereas those without the substantial budgets used pre-mixed paints. Dry pigment is a superior product. This says a lot, as there is a visible difference of dry pigment scenery under stage lights, especially LEDS. I was able to see the difference when attending a CITT session last month where various lighting instruments were compared on paint samples. There were both dry pigment and pre-mix paint samples. In every case, the dry pigment had a greater depth and vibrancy, regardless of the lighting instrument or lamp.

Wayne’s article in the 1964 article continued: “Size water is a mixture of water and glue. Ground glue is most commonly used. The glue must be melted by covering with water and heating in a double boiler. In most scene shops, a water bucket or lard can is used for the water, and the glue is placed in a somewhat smaller container. It is good practice to place a block of wood under the glue container, so that it will not scorch if the water should boil dry. As a general rule, size water consists of one part glue, by volume, to sixteen parts of water. Since glues vary in their properties, it is necessary to test size water in this manner: wet the thumb and forefinger in the size water, touch them and then separate them. They should feel slightly sticky. If not, add more glue.”

When theatrical supply companies stopped adding instructions about dry pigment, the use went down. When demand decreased, the product was removed from many theatrical supply catalogues. The same can be said for any specific painting product; if a client is unsure how to use it, the demand goes down and then the product is discontinued by the distributor. If the product is difficult to obtain and shipping prices are high, it is less likely that the client will risk purchasing the product.

I have to wonder if that is why the use of house paint for scene painting has continued to increase over the years. The false perception that it as more expense and dangerous, combined with either the difficulty in quickly obtaining the product and expense shipping rates. For smaller institutions, it is cheaper to use, and people are willing to sacrifice the latex or acrylic sheen for convenience.

Finally, many people have used paint from a hardware/lumber store; the same cannot be said for scene paint. Many people default to a product that they are most familiar with and is easily obtainable. When the majority of academic institutions switch to house paint, storing gallons of latex from the local lumber store instead of scenic paint, the theatrical paint manufacturers will have a problem. Those students carry their training out into the professional world. Unfortunately, this trend has already started; the use of inappropriate paints for stage scenery is gaining ground at many schools.

To be continued..

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 794 – Victor J. Hubal Sr. at Sosman & Landis Studio in 1912

On January 12, 1912, “The News-Democrat” mentioned Sosman & Landis employee Victor Hubal. Hubal was painting scenery for the Kentucky Theatre in Paducah, a venue that first opened its doors on September 24, 1901. The Kentucky Theatre advertised “refined plays at family prices – 10, 15 and 20 cents. At the prices you can bring your family at least twice a week, pass a pleasant evening with them at this beautiful resort, and while being highly entertained save more than the price of admission asked in gas and fuel.”

On January 15, 1912, the Kentucky Theatre began a short season of permanent stock, with Manager Finney engaging the Garside Stock Company for fifty weeks. They were scheduled to perform two plays a week. The “News-Democrat” article continued, “Each play will be a production from a scenic point of view, as Mr. Vic Hubal, of the Sosman & Landis studio, Chicago, has been engaged to paint all the scenery, and is now hard at work at the Kentucky on the first production of ‘The Devil’s Kitchen,’ which will be the bill for the first three days, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday.”

At the time, Hubel was 24 years old and living in Chicago, Illinois.

Victor Hubal (right) with fellow scenic artist George Wood in 1912.

Victor J. Hubal was born in Chicago on May 10, 1888. His father, Felix Hubal (b. Nov. 1861), was a Czech immigrant. His mother, Theresa Mary Koranda (b. 1864), was born and raised in Illinois. Hubal’s parents both worked, his father as a baker and his mother as a seamstress. Like Thomas G. Moses’ family, there is no indication of any connection to the performing arts, yet Hubal entered the theatre industry at the age of 17 in 1905. The 1910 United States census reports Hubal as still living with his mother and two siblings, Otto (20, born 1890) and Lucy (18, born 1892) at 3528 W. Cortland St. in Chicago. The census lists Hubal as an artist and his sister as a stenographer, with his brother being unemployed. Seven years later in 1917, the WWI draft registration card reported Hubal’s appearance as “medium” in height and “medium” in build with gray eyes and dark brown hair. His draft card also noted that Hubal claimed exemption status based on “kidney trouble.”

In 1917, Hubal met and married a Minnesota girl, Eloise L. Strenlund (1897 – 1984), moving his new bride to Chicago. The couple’s first address was 5030 Hutchinson St, yet familial ties would prompt the couple to relocate to the “Land of 10,000 Lakes,” raising their family in Minnesota.

Eloise’s father was a Swedish immigrant. Anton Strenlund arrived in the United States in 1887 at the age of sixteen. Traveling west, he worked as a carpenter and finally settled in Minnesota where he married Alise Oberg on August 21, 1897. At the time, she was pregnant, giving birth to Eloise on November 12, 1897. The couple’s second child Arthur arrived on 29 September 1900, with their third child, Ernest William, being born on April 1, 1903. When Eloise turned 17, she moved to St. Paul and began working as a clerk. Her new profession and new address at 1010 Euclid Ave. were listed in the 1915 St. Paul Directory for the next two years before moving to Chicago. Life married to a scenic artist in Chicago must have been a been a far cry from her simple upbringing in Minnesota.

Like Moses, Hubal’s scenic art career extended for more than sixty years and his work was featured across the country in both live theater and film productions. After moving to Minnesota, he became an integral part of the opera and theatre scene.

Victor Hubal pictured with fellow scenic artists in front of an ad drop. Date unknown.

Victor Hubal pictures in front of a painted interior with co-worker. Studio and date unknown.

Although Hubal’s scenic art career began in 1905, little is known of his early work or the studios that he was associated with for the first six years. By 1912, however, he was working for Sosman & Landis in Chicago, as well as continuing as an itinerant artist, picking up work across the country during slow times.

Hubal’s 1972 obituary in the “St. Paul Dispatch” reported, “His work graced some 50 productions of the St. Paul Civic Opera, as the organization was then known, from the initial one, ‘Samson And Delilah’ in 1933, to ‘The Merry Widow’ in 1963. He also did the decorations and designs for a number of the International Institute’s, “Festival of Nations” at the Auditorium and was responsible for the mounting of major productions at Andahazy Ballet Borealis. (Feb. 20, 1972).” Other Andahazy production settings painted by Hubal included “Slavonic Scenes,” “Les Sylphises,” “Swan Lake,” “Spectre de la Rose,” “Aurora’s Wedding,” “The Miraculous Stag” and “Scheherazade.” I discovered a 1954 article that provided some insight into the scenery produced by Hubal for the Andahazy Ballet Borealis company at Northrup Auditorium on the University of Minnesota Campus. The “Star Tribune” described the scenery for “Les Sylphides:”

“The setting, a woodland glade, by Victor Hubal, had a spacious, semi-transparent effect which enhanced the quality of the ballet” (Minneapolis, Minnesota, 0 July 1954, page 29). The article also noted that the ballet company was composed of 40 dancers and headed by Lorand Andahazy and Anna Adrianova.

In regard to Hubal’s “Swan Lake” scenery, an entertaining tale was published in the “St. Paul Dispatch.” During the execution of scenery for “Swan Lake,” Andahazy accidentally upset a pail of dye onto the canvas and apologized. “Hubal said, ‘Never mind” [and] with deft strokes he converted the dark blotch into a rocky formation and balanced the composition by converting some trees into more rocks on the other side.” The “Dispatch” article ended with a description of the artist’s character: “A man of artistic sensitivity and great skill and accumulated knowledge of his craft, Hubal labored largely in obscurity, for he was shy and retiring by nature and had no talent for self-promotion. But the contributions to the community to which he made in his self-effacing way for so many years were great, and they can be remembered with respect and gratitude

One more insightful story about Hubal appeared in conjunction with his scenery for the St. Paul Civic Opera’s production of “Rigoletto.” Hubal’s past with the film industry was also described in a newspaper article:

“When the curtain rises Wednesday it will be on the work of a man who might have been prominent in his field in motion pictures as Wallace Beery and Charlie Chaplin are in theirs, had it not been for the fact that he found black and white too monotonous. He is Vic Hubal, scene designer for the opera association. When the motion pictures were in their infancy, Hubal, already an accomplished scene designer for some of the largest production and road shows in the country, wandered into the old Essanay Film company’s lot in Hollywood. There he went to work on designing backgrounds against which Charlie Chaplin, Ben Turpin and Beery were to cavort. But the backgrounds were all black and white, because those were the only colors to film well. There were relieving incidents once in a while, as he when he would be called down from his scaffold to take the part of a cop, or when he was called into the dressing room to make up Turpin for his monkey roles, but on the whole, black and white was too confining for a true scenic artist. Hubal went on to train with Fred Scott, Ansel Cook and Fred Lewis…” Scott and Cook both worked at Sosman & Landis, therefore, the article is likely referencing his time at the studio around 1912.

I will continue to explore the life of Vic Hubal tomorrow, as there is too much to put in one post.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 789 – George F. Schultz at the Sosman & Landis Studio, 1911

Newspaper illustration of a painting exhibited by George. F. Schultz

In 1911, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “Got Geo. Schultz on the staff at 20^th Street.” This was Sosman & Landis’ annex studio, a separate shop from their main studio on Clinton Street.

George F. Schultz was well known for his landscapes and marine scenes in both fine art galleries and upon the stage.

A child of immigrants, his father came from Germany and his mother from Canada. Schultz was born in Chicago on April 17, 1869, and began his career as a decorative painter in Chicago. As a souvenir decorator, Schultz’s specialty was china decoration. This initial trade provided training as Schultz grew and began to take classes as a student at the Art Institute of Chicago.

The 1888 Chicago City Directory, listed Schultz’s occupation as an artist and his residence at 2163 Archer Ave. in Chicago. Schultz began exhibiting his work around this time and by 1892, he exhibited some of his work at O’Brien’s Gallery. This was a shop that he ran with fellow artist William Wilson Cowell in 1893 on Chicago’s Rush Street. Schultz was featured in a solo exhibition at Thurber’s Gallery in 1896, again exhibiting at there in 1898. In 1896, “the Chicago Tribune” reported , “Last summer he visited Monhegan Island, the favorite resort of Edwards. Triscott, and other Eastern artists, away up on the Maine Coast. Most of the pictures he now shows are Monhegan views and the result of his sojourn. Many are coat scenes. In nearly all rocks abound, and Mr. Schultz has been eminently successful in catching the effects of sun and shadow on sea and land and rocky shore. One of the pictures, “A Misty Morning,” the artist calls it, is a really powerful bit of color work such as is rarely attained with aquarelles. The sun breaking through the mist and the softened aspect of the rocks are presented with such strength as many a man would have difficulty showing in oils” (16 Feb 1896, page 28).

Geo. F. Shultz painting that is currently for sale online

Later, in 1898, the “Chicago Tribune” advertised his twenty-five paintings on exhibition at Thurber’s, including “Gray Day, “ “Along the River,” “Hoeing Cabbages, “A Lowery Day,” “Quietude,” and “Morning” (10 April, page 43). An illustration of “Hoeing Cabbages” even accompanied the article. Although primarily known for his watercolor studies, Schultz also worked in oils. An article in the “Inter Ocean” commented on Schultz’s “delicate, loose and pleasing” technical skill. His work “Reflections,” appeared in the March issue of “Brush and Pencil.” The 1904 City Directory still listed Schultz as an artist, an occupational title that would remain throughout the duration of his career. Regional sketching trips included Delavan, Wisconsin during the 1890s, with later travel bringing him to Indiana, the coast of Maine (Monhegan Island) and even Mexico.

Like many Sosman & Landis artists, Schultz’s work was continuously exhibited in fine art exhibitions. He was a member of the Art Institute of Chicago, exhibiting over one hundred works at the AIC annuals, between 1889 and 1925. Schultz also belonged to the Palette & Chisel Club, the Municipal Art League of Chicago, the Arche, the Cliff Dwellers, and the Union League Club during the early twentieth century. He was also the president of the Water Color Club. Schultz also exhibited Converse at the Carnegie International in 1914 and the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts in 1916. By 1918, he received the William H. Tuthill Prize of $100 at the Art Institute in Chicago.

In 1906 works Schultz were accepted as part of the Palette and Chisel Club’s permanent collection. This is likely where Moses first met Schultz prior to hiring him on staff at Sosman & Landis. Around this time he also began painting woodland scenes, a possible result of his working with and for Thomas G. Moses at Sosman & Landis Studios. Art historian, Dr. Wendy Greenhouse, purports Schultz use of “bright color, rapid brushwork, dappled sunlight, and garden settings beloved of American adherents of impression.” These same artistic characteristics are the hallmark of many early twentieth-century scenic artists, and considering he was working at Sosman & Landis studio during this period, one has to wonder if studio work invaded his fine art work. Much of the Chicago scenic art community not only worked together, but also studied and socialized together. Throughout the decades, scenic artists gathered in town and planned sketching trips to hone their artistic skills for a variety of artistic projects, including theatrical settings, grand circus spectacles, panoramas, industrial fairs, and fine art exhibitions.

Schultz’s exhibited several watercolor paintings in a solo exhibition at the Art Institute in 1907. That same year he became a charter member and secretary of the Chicago Water Color Society, being elected as the club’s president in 1912.

Six years later in 1918, Schultz was awarded the Tuthill Prize in the Art Institute’s annual exhibition of watercolor paintings. In 1919 the Marshall Field and Company department store exhibited his work; this became recognized as his last-known solo exhibition.

In regard to Schultz’s personal life, he raised a family in Chicago, after marrying Katharine Karr Hagenlotha on Sept. 20, 1883.The 1910 census lists his marriage to Katherine and their renting a house at 1158 Perry Street, Chicago, Ward 26, Cook, Illinois. This same census lists Schultz’s occupation as an “artist” who worked in the “picture paint” industry. Schultz was head of the household, with other members being Beatrice (b. 1895, age 15), Katherine R. (b. 1898, age 12), George F. Jr., (b. 1900, age 10) and Florence (b. 1908, age 2).

Schultz’s wife Katharine wife was also an Illinois native, with immigrant parents from Germany (father) and Switzerland (mother). By 1920, the couple was still married and living in another rental home at 4013 Green View Ave., still listing Schultz’s profession as “artist.” Their children were still living at home, with Beatrice working as a clerk in the Oil Concern industry, the younger Katherine working as a stenographer in the Building Waters industry, and George Jr. working as a tire-maker in the automobile Pates industry. The youngest child, Florence, was still listed as attending school.

Ten years later, everything changed for Schultz. The 1930 census listed George Schultz as a divorced male, although he was sill working as an artist “working on account.” He was now living in another rental unit at 1521 Warren Boulevard.

I have been unable to find any information about Schultz after 1930, including any obituary. This may indicate his being in poor circumstances or being estranged from his family at that time. Although art historians list his death in 1934, nothing is offered in terms of any public tribute.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 788 – Fred Scott at the Sosman & Landis, 1911

A scenic artists palette. Currently on display at the theatre museum in Mt. Pleasant, Iowa.

In 1911, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “Pausback had his hands full; Scott acted bad.” Moses was referring an extremely busy period at Sosman & Landis. Nicholas J. Pausback and Frederick J. Scott were both painting for Moses at the Sosman & Landis Annex Studio on 20^th Street that year.

Yesterday, I explored at the life of future studio founder Nicholas J. Pausback. Today, I look at the life of scenic artist Frederick J. Scott. “Fred” Scott was noted for his ability being able to paint any type of subject matter, a great asset to Sosman & Landis studio in 1911, considering the scope of their work. A naturalized citizen, Scott was born England on Aug. 16, August 1860. This made him four years Moses’ junior. In 1904, Moses was 48 years old, with Scott Being 42; both were journeymen artists. The personality of Scott, however, continually rubbed Moses the wrong way and their personalities clashed for years.

When Moses returned to Sosman & Landis in 1904, he had just closed a successful business in New York City known as Moses & Hamilton. Keep in mind that from 1900-1904, Moses worked with Will F. Hamilton on a variety of projects for many well-known stage personalities and producers. Regardless of Moses’ achievements and success in New York, however, Joseph S. Sosman desperately needed Moses to return to Chicago. Sosman had remained shorthanded after the retirement of Perry Landis. Ill heath had prompted Landis to leave the studio in 1902, and Sosman had taken over many of Landis’ sales and administrative duties. Sosman need someone to fill his own role as shop supervisor and realized that Moses was the only one who could do it. Moses had worked with Sosman since the beginning and knew the running of the studio just as well as its founders. Although Moses repeatedly left Sosman & Landis during the late nineteenth century to start various partnerships, he always returned when Sosman or Landis needed help.

Back to Fred Scott. Moses’ 1904 return did not sit well with all of the studio artists in Chicago, especially Scott. It was at this point that Moses became vice-president of the Sosman & Landis, a company shareholder and was given complete aesthetic control over all projects, supervising the design, construction, painting and installation of everything. In a sense, Moses was handed the world on a silver palette and many of the scenic artists resented Sosman’s preferential treatment of Moses. That year, Moses wrote, “When Mr. Sosman announced to the ‘gang’ that I was coming back and would take charge of all the work, there was much dissention among a few.” Moses continued, “Fred Scott tried to start a mutiny and quit, hoping the others would follow. But none did, and he came back. I put him on for he was a clever painter.” Unfortunately, Moses’ bringing Scott back on for his skill did not erase existing tensions between the two.

Little is known of Frederick J. Scott beyond a few newspaper articles and some public records. In 1891, Scott worked for Albert, Grover & Burridge. He was one of the decorators for the Beckwith Memorial Theatre in Dowagiac, Michigan, a landmark theater in terms of decoration and innovation. Scott secured employment with Albert, Grover & Burridge before bringing his family to America. Remember that Walter Wilcox Burridge had previously partnered with Moses to form Burridge, Moses & Louderback in 1887. All three studio owners were good friends with Moses, as scenic artists shifted from one shop to another.

Census records from 1900 list Scott living at 5019 Turner Street, Chicago Ward, Cook County, Illinois. His occupation is that of “artist.” Scott was the grandson of William and Sarah Scott, with his father being John Scott. Scott’s wife’s name was Ethel (b. Oct. 1868) and the two were married in England in1890, soon moving to the United States. The couple had four children living at home in 1900: Marjory (b. May 1890.), Granville (b. April 1895) Edwin (b. Feb. 1899) and Bobs Victor (b. May 1900).

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 787 – Nicholas J. Pausback at Sosman & Landis, 1911

In 1911, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “Pausback had his hands full; Scott acted bad. Got Geo. Schultz on the staff at 20^th Street. I was obliged to remain at the Clinton Street studio only going to 20^th Street every other day.” Moses mentioned many Sosman & Landis scenic artists during his life. He greatly respected Pausback and his contribution to the studio.

In 1907, Moses first mentioned Pausback, writing, “I depended a great deal on Pausback to look after the work while I was away.” Two years later, Moses mentioned him again when Pausabck took control of the 20^th Street Studio. M<oses recalled that Pausback provided plenty of help “to rush the work through.” There was no question that Moses had great faith in Pausback’s abilities. By 1917 Pausback was still working at the Sosman & Landis annex and would remain with the company until its liquidation in 1923.

Nicholas John Pausback Jr., was born on May 5, 1881, in St. Louis, Missouri. He was the son of St. Louis residents Nicholas J. Pausback, Sr. (1853-1900) and Caroline Pausback (1859-1943), each born and raised in the city. By the end of his life, Pausback’s obituary credited him as being a “scenic artist de luxe”(Chicago Tribune 14 May 1953, page 36). Other notices reported his staying in the theatrical scenery business for 45 years with his wife Ottilia, and not retiring until 1947.

Pausback became the founder of Pausback Studios by 1927, four years aftert the initial close of Sosman & Landis. He ran Pausback Studio for twenty years, retiring only six years before his passing in 1953. As with many competitors, Pausback Studio primarily focused on public school and college projects, outfitting school stages with rigging and draperies. This branch of the industry had greatly increased in the 1920s and continued to thrive until the 1960s. Tiffin Scenic Studios and Art Drapery Studios became major competitors of Pausback Studios by the 1950s (The Times, 11 Feb 1953, page 2). Eventually Pausback merged with Acme and Carsen in 1957 to form the Acme Carsen Pausback Studio (see past installment #566). The company placed advertisements in the 1959 “Educational Theatre Journal” (Vol. 11, No. 1, i-xxxviii).

Prior to working at Sosman & Landis in Chicago, Pausback began his scenic artist career in St. Louis, Missouri. In 1901, his occupation was listed in city directories as that of “artis.” Pausback’s residence was at 3113 Magnolia Ave. In 1904, Pausback married to Otillia Groebl (1883-1963) and the couple raised five children: Elvira Mary (m. Harold J. Howard), Mary C. (m. Mr. Welsh) and Mrs. Therese Curtis. Raymond J. Pausback (m. Yvonne Singer), and Very Rev. Gabriel N. Pausback (b. 1905) of the Carmelite order. Records show that the two eldest children of five were born in St. Louis during 1905 and 1906, with the remaining children being born in Chicago. In the early years, Pausback was crisscrossing the country like many artists, completing a variety of painting projects that included seventy-five scenes for the Grand Theatre in Owensboro, Kentucky (Messenger-Inquirer, 22 June 1905, page 8). Of this installation, twenty-five of the scenes were backdrops, with the greater part remaining framed pieces. In Kentucky, he waorked alongside stage carpenters J. A. McDanuel and his son.

N. J. Pausback pictured in 1928 (back row, second from the left).

In 1907, Pausback relocated to Chicago, immediately working with Moses at the Sosman & Landis in the 20^th Street Studio. By 1908, Pausback became the shop manager of the space, replacing Ansel Cook. By 1916, Pausback was frequently sent to in New York, installing shows with fellow Sosman & Landis employee, Harry Nailer, the well-known stage carpenter. He worked for New York Studios, the eastern affiliate of Sosman & Landis.

During the 1920s, Pausback founded Pausback Scenery Co. Living at 6606 Woodlawn Ave., in Chicago Illinois. His scenery company was located at 3727 Cottage Grove Ave., Chicago (Chicago Tribune 2 Dec. 1928, page 2). After founding the firm, Pausback also wrote a book on Stage Craft; a book that I am still tracking down (Dec. 17, 1928). By 1929, the Pausback Scenery Co was credited with a new innovation for gigantic Christmas trees – spangles in various shapes and sizes, some that measured 10 inches in diameter (Chicago Tribune 9 Dec. 1929, page 3).

Over the years, the Pauback studio pops up in several newspaper articles, but nothing really consistent. Briefly morphing from Pausback Studio to the Pausback Scenery Co.. the firm is briefly mentioned as providing properties for “Wings of a Century” at 1934 Century of Progress World fair in Chicago.

Toward the end of his career, Pausback partnered with another Sosman & Landis scenic artist, Art W. Oberbeck (Blue Island Sun Standard Archives, 15 June 1944, Page 6). Oberbeck and Pausback had started at Sosman & Landis around the same time; Oberbeck starting as a paint boy at the in 1904 and Pausback as a journeyman artist three years later.

In 1939 Pausback Studios advertised, “Scenery and Lighting Equipment Built and Rented” with offices located at 3727 Cottage Grove Avenue, Chicago and the phone nunbers being Drexel 7060 and 7061 (Labor Union Directory). The key to any scenic studio’s success at this time was diversification, manufacturing and installing both stage machinery and lighting systems.

Pausback was also an amateur magician. As a member of the International Brotherhood of Magicians and the American Society of Magicians, his stage name was “Nicodemus, the Magician” (Chicago Tribune 14 May 1953, page 36). This persona was even remembered “Do You Remember When,” a section published in an “Independent Magazine for Magicians” known as “The Sphinx” in 1949. “The magazine queried, “Do you remember when Nick Pausback, scenic artist de luxe, of Chicago was known as “Nicodemus, the Magician?” (Page 12).

Pausback passed away on March 13, 1953, buried in St. Mary Catholic Cemetery in Evergreen Park. His last residence was at 1000 S. Rhodes Ave., Chicago, Illinois.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 786 – The Main Studio at Sosman & Landis

Sosman and Landis built their main studio at 236 and 237 S. Clinton Street. The street numbers later changed to 417 and 419 S. Clinton Street, yet the studio did not change locations. The change was due to the renumbering of Chicago streets, also known as the Brennan System.

“The Encyclopedia of Chicago” explains this street name change at the turn of the twentieth century. The publication specifically describes the history prior to the 1901 Brennan System:

“The street names of Chicago offer a rich record of the city’s spatial and social development. In 1830, southern Illinois mapmaker James Thompson created Chicago’s first official map. Commissioned by the federal government to bring order to the city, Thompson platted the small downtown area bounded by Kinzie, Jefferson, Washington, and Dearborn streets. Departing from the tradition of naming streets for their destination, Thompson initiated the enduring practice of naming streets after figures of national and local significance.

“In the decades that followed, explosive urban growth, annexation, and the popular political favor of honorary street naming resulted in multiple streets of the same name and streets known by several different names. In 1901, building superintendent Edward P. Brennan confronted the confused state of affairs. He suggested that Chicago be ordered as a large grid with a uniform street numbering system, and proposed State and Madison Streets as the city’s primary north-south and east-west axes. In 1908, the “Brennan” system was officially adopted by the city council and became the basis of modern Chicago’s street naming system.

“Over the next decades, Brennan’s system incorporated not only the principle of having street address numbers register distance and direction, but also the ideas that all portions of the same street should go by a uniform name and that north-south streets should be named alphabetically as one moved west from the Chicago/Indiana border. Led by Brennan and Howard C. Brodman, superintendent of the city’s Department of Maps and Plats, the city council and business community continued through the 1930s to replace duplicated street names in order to simplify navigation and economize postal service and merchandise delivery. Of the more than a thousand streets within Chicago’s city limits today, the greatest number—more than 170—bear the names of real-estate developers. English towns and Chicago’s former mayors and aldermen have provided the next most popular sources of names.” The street numbering system revision was completed in 1909.

A business address really does matter when it becomes part of a firm’s identity. Sosman & Landis were at their main studio for over three decades, becoming a landmark on Clinton Street. When the company dissolved, three things happened: the liquidation of company assets, a new lease in the old studio space and the purchase of the “Sosman & Landis” name. For a while, the new address became home to Chicago Studios. This caused a problem for Thomas G. Moses and Fred Megan, especially after they purchased the Sosman & Landis name. You see, Chicago Studios began marketing itself as the new owners of Sosman & Landis. They used the space, but had not retained the Sosman & Landis staff or designs.

The problem became a significant one, forcing Moses to send out letters to many previous clients. In 2010 I discovered a letter during the evaluation of the Scottish Rite scenery collection in Salina, Kansas.

Sosman & Landis letter that I discovered during the Salina Scottish Rite scenery evaluation

A Nov. 13, 1923, letter from Sosman & Landis to the Salina Scottish Rite stated:

Dear Sir,

It has recently been brought to our attention that a certain studio is advertising out old customers that they have brought the Sosman & Landis Company and are now operating same, combining it with their original company. We wish to assure you that this is not a fact and that our original organization in intact, but our studio has been moved to new and better quarters. Mr. Thomas G. Moses, our Art Director would like the opportunity of meeting with your scene committee to submit our designs and specifications covering your requirement. 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 as to our ability and quality of workmanship.

Sosman & Landis relocated their offices to 6751 Sheridan Road in 1923. Moses’ role with the firm had shifted from being the company president to its artistic director. In 1923, Moses and Fred Megan bought the name “Sosman & Landis,” continuing to produce scenery as before, just in a new location; they retained the studio designs. At first, they rented space at other shops, such as the Fabric Studio.

To be continued…

Note included: