Category: Studio Employee

Copyright © 2021 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

I am back from a two-month break after spraining both wrists on May 1, 2021.  I panicked a bit, wondering if it were a career ending injury, so I took taking my sweet time recovering.  Although I would like to think that I truly relaxed and enjoyed the break from constant research and writing, I really went a bit stir crazy. Yes, I still worked on projects, painted small things, traveled and carefully gardened, but my wrists just couldn’t handle the daily strained of typing and maneuvering a mouse. I am doing much better, but I am a returning to blog postings at a much slower pace.

I return to Sosman & Landis Scene Painting Studio staff biographies with employee No. 29 – John P. Toner.

Toner worked as a scenic artist at Sosman & Landis around 1910. The Census that year listed Toner as a Chicago scenic artist. This places him in the right place at the right time. Last month, I even purchased a photograph of the studio building from 1910.  That year, Toner was thirty-two years old and lodging at 2832 Indiana Avenue, just south of the Sosman & Landis studio.  Other information in the 1910 census identified Toner’s birthplace as “Ire-England” in 1878. He emigrated to the US in 1889.

By 1928, Toner was mentioned fellow scenic artist Wat Williams, another former Sosman & Landis employee.  Williams worked at Sosman & Landis between 1909-1916. In 1909, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “Wat Williams came into the studio and worked as my assistant. Pretty good, but very careless.” There is no indication as to when Toner was hired, or how long he worked alongside Williams in the studio. However, their employment at Sosman & Landis was mentioned many years later. Toner, like Williams, moved to New York in the 19-teens, where he continued to work as a scenic artist and became involved in the United Scenic Artists Association.

On March 1, 1928, “The Scenic Artist” published an article entitled “Wat Williams Speaking” (Vol. 1, No. 11, page 1).  The newsletter was described as the “Official organ of the United Scenic Artists Association,” with the publication’s headquarters at 161 West 44th Street, New York City.

Below is Williams mention of Toner when he discussed an upcoming national conference in 1928. Here is the excerpt:

“My Dear Editor:

You are going on to the first coast to coast conference with Bro. Toner: John Toner and I used to work for the well-known Sosman & Landis of the City of Chicago where you will meet.”

Williams’ letter to the Editor continued, “You were telling me the other day of your experience in Chicago (in the day of the wooden sidewalk) and your experience as an impresario for real bottled beer. Beside the Chicago boys you will probably, I hope, have Truman Curtis, the president of the Los Angeles Local, as one of the delegates. Truman was my first art patron, having bought a couple of my studies when we were studying at ‘Smith’s Art Academy.’ Truman got me my first job in a scene painting place (don’t hold it against him) with Walter Burridge, then in Chicago. This goes back about a quarter of a century. At that time the urge to form some organization of the scene painter was dreamed of but that it should extend from coast to coast was not thought of. I should like you to bring attention to the fact preached to us by Walter Burridge that it is not simply a job of scenery; but that the main purpose of the artist in the theatre is a service problem; that of making the stage ensemble a work of art as truly as any picture of designs. The second thought would be to bring to the attention of the conference the desirability of establishing Examining Committees to stop the entry of people who will finally be a drag to the organization and themselves. These two problems are just as alive now as a quarter of a century ago.

Can I tack on a little about due collection? Nels Astner and myself are planning a drive to have our members see the desirability of paying their dues three months or more in advance instead of quarterly in arrears. It will not only lighten the burden of housekeeping but stop the damage that suspension brings to our members. On each month a third of our members are notified that they will be suspended if payment is not made at the end of the month. I believe that they will really see that the advance payment plan is desirable for all concerned.

I would like to make a personal appeal to our members to make their payments direct to the Financial Secretary of mail it, addressed to him. The habit of giving it to anyone else, especially without forwarding book at the same time, may cause everyone connected with it loss of money as well as extra work for those, already busy up to their neck.

We are making no new laws – simply enforcing those now on the books. Laws are not flexible or open to interpretation to suit individual cases – by officers less than anyone. Individual cases needing special construction will be laid before the Executive Board and a member’s chance for serious and just consideration of his appeal will not be depending on his nearness to the local. If you don’t advise us, we do not know your troubles.”

A follow-up article was published in the “The Scenic Artist” that April (No. 12, page 1), and was entitled “The Chicago Conference.” It reported, “The report of the Chicago and New York delegates to the Scenic Artists Conference in Chicago held at Chicago on the last three days of last month has been read to their several members and approved by them.” Toner was a New York delegate at the time.

The article continued, “They recommendations are clear, concise and easy to understand.

It may be hoped that every scenic artist regardless of what special line he follows, will see the advantage of a uniform basis upon which we as a craft may sell our services.

By a commonly accepted definition of the term stock, production and presentation, we shall without causing the slightest flurry, neither in our own of the producer’s ranks, have arrived at a definite way of knowing how to classify what a member is doing. Not what he must do – or must not do; but simply made it possible to really know whether work – of any sort – is being done according to Union rules or not.

Productions must of course be done under rules laid down for a Studio – let the Studio be permanent or temporary – old established or primitive; no one presumes to dictate as to the shape or nature of the building. The rules concerning Studios are as before as regards to charge-man, artist and helpers. Scenery traveling from place to place is of course a production: – or else what is?

Members running Studios shall not contract for Stock in such places as our rules clearly state that an artist shall be employed on contract.

Stock, as far as our craft is concerned, is scenery built and painted for a theatre to which a member is under contract.

The salary of the artist is stipulated with that specific clause being clearly understood.

As before, an artist under stock contract shall – by organization – be required to limit his work to the theatre he is employed in, and shall not engage in outside contracting or production work during the time of such employment.

Presentations may be done by one artist if necessary, provided it is only for one house.

A member may design and contract for as many presentation houses as he can handle provided his work is carried on according to the rules of the association. A rising scale of pay based on equity and economy was agreed on and a field very apt to run wild, and for that matter pretty difficult to control properly, has been defined.

Every angle of the craft was given close attention and where necessary thoroughly discussed. The object of the conference was not to inject a lot of new kinks, but for the explicit purpose of arriving at a uniform wording and interpretation of all rules, by-laws, contracts etc. thereby making the first great step toward a unification of the entire craft. The ambition of single members to rise and soar is fine; but it should have a proper take-off. Too often the member who throws his lot with the side to whom he has to look for monetary returns makes a fatal mistake. Agreed that he has the right to conduct business, even to destroy himself; but he has no right to jeopardize the livelihood of fellow members. It would be better all-around if he should lend all his strength to his organization and help to convince purchasers of our work that the best way is the cheapest after all.

There is no call for individual members of our craft to make frantic efforts to cheapen either our standards or our product. The cheapening of scenic art may be safely left to those who are not members of our craft.

The rules are there. The rules are simple; it only remains with the members to take advantage of them.” 

In 1928, Toner was listed as one of the New York delegates with other noted individuals including: Chas. E. Lessing, NY; Orville Lyman; Chicago, Peter Donegan, Chicago; Herman Bartels, Chicago; and G. VC. Fisher, New York.

Tracking down any information pertaining to Toner has been quite a challenge, despite mt break. The problem is that there are too many John Toner’s who worked as painters, whether they were in the housing or automotive industries. There are just too many likely candidates for me to narrow my focus down to one individual. If I am ever able to refine my search, I will update this post.

It’s good to be back.

Copyright © 2021 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

Watkins “Wat” Williams was a scenic artist who worked at Sosman & Landis from 1909-1916. Later in life he credited Truman Curtis for helping him secure his first scenic art job with Walter W. Burridge in Chicago. He credited Curtis as his first art patron, having bought a couple of his  studies when attending John Francis Smith’s Art Academy and the Art Institute of Chicago.

In 1909, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “Watt Williams came into the studio and worked as my assistant. Pretty good, but very careless.” There is no indication as to how long Williams worked at Sosman & Landis. However, by 1916, he had moved to New York where he continued scene painting and then opened an art gallery in Greenwich Village.

Wat Williams was an incredibly difficult individual to track down, but after piecing together a variety of random historic sources, his story was quite interesting. Wats was another scenic artist who worked in both Chicago and New York during the early twentieth century.

Watkins “Wat” Williams was born on August 9, 1882, in Detroit, Michigan. He was one of two children of Judson M. Williams (1856-1929) and Elizabeth “Lizzie” A. Arthur (1860-1925). Judson  was a printer in Detroit who worked for the Free Press during the 1880s. In 1896, the Williams family moved to Chicago in 1896, where Judson continued to work in the printing industry. At the time of the move, Wat was only fourteen years old, and his sister Lucy (1885-1942) was eleven years old.

By the 1910 Federal Census, Watkins Williams was listed was as an artist in the scenery industry, still living at home with his parents. This would have been the year after Moses hired him at Sosman & Landis. Wat continued to live and work in Chicago throughout 1915.  Like Moses and many other Sosman & Landis scenic artists, he became a member of the Palette & Chisel Club. Williams executed Gus Baumann’s designs for the Club’s private production of “The Shredded Vest” on May 18, 1912. He was also involved in another production in 1915. On May 4, 1915, the “Edwardsville Intelligencer” reported, “The Limit in Chicago. Chicago May 4 – Shades of Maj. Funkhouser and Anthony Comstock! With little on them but the spotlight, three young girls, who, those who saw declare, could have given Miss V. De Milo a tussle in a beauty show contest, last night performed before the Chicago Society of Artists in the rooms of the Palette and Chisel Club. ‘Sea Nymph,’ ‘Dawn,’ ‘The Vestals’ and ‘Luxury’ were some of the living pictures shown. The young women were posed by Glen C. Sheffer and Watt Williams, artists. They announced it is time ‘people began to lose their prudery’ and that they are negotiating with one of Chicago’s largest theatres to put the living pictures before the public. Some of the men and women who saw last night’s affair said something larger than the biggest theatre would have to be selected.” (Edwardsville, Illinois, page 8).

Williams also exhibited stage designs for a Palette & Chisel Club exhibition in April 1916 at the Art Institute of Chicago. The “Chicago Tribune” reported, ““New Exhibit at Institute. A unique event in the life of the Palette and Chisel Club in Chicago will take place on Tuesday evening, April 25, at the Art Institute. For twenty years the club has been holding its annual exhibitions at its own clubrooms. Tuesday night all precedent and tradition will be violated and its large and interesting collection of the last year’s activities along art lines will be shown at the Art Institute of Chicago. It is to be an extremely comprehensive exhibit, including in its scope not only paintings and sculpture, but the work of some master craftsman as well, men who apply their artistic talents to the usable things of life, incurring thereby the lasting gratitude of the practical masses.” The article noted that Wat Williams was a scenic artist at Sosman & Landis who “designed and painted the scenery for the immortal Sarah Bernhardt on her last American tour.” 

In 1915, Watt married Elwyn Jennings. Their wedding announcement was published on Dec. 14 1915 in the Alexandria Times-Tribune (Alexandria, Indiana, page 3): “Announce Engagement. Word has been received here of the approaching marriage of Miss Elwyn Jennings of Chicago, Ill., to Watkins Williams, and artist, also of Chicago. Miss Jennings is the niece of Mrs. Thomas Downs, of this city.” The couple was married in Wilmette, Illinois, on Dec. 15 of that year. Wilmette is due north of Chicago on the shores of Lake Michigan, near Evanston. Illinois.

Jennings was the daughter of John H. and Ida Jennings of Wilmette, born on Dec. 20. 1894. Her father was a clerk at the First National Bank of Chicago, and the family lived at 426 10^th St. There is no indication as to how Jennings and Williams met, but it was likely in the theatre as Elwyn was a costume designer. Much of the couple’s early marriage can be tracked on their passport applications and port arrivals.

By 1916, Wat was working in New York City as scene painter. That year he applied for a passport to visit France on behalf of the Y.M.C.A. He was described at 36 years old, 5’-8” with broad forehead, grey eyes (and glasses), prominent nose, drooping mouth, square chin, brown hair, dark complexion and oval face. Picture included with passport. Also included was a letter from the War department stating that they had no objection to “Williams, Wat of 150 West 4^th St., N.Y.C. being sent for duty with the A. E. F. in connection with Y. M. C. A., signed by J. S. Moore, Capt. U.S. Army. After returning from overseas, the Williams settled in Greenwich Village where they were associated with The Paint Box Gallery. Williams also began working on various projects at Fort Dix, including painting murals in several recreation buildings. On July 18, 1918, the “Trenton Evening Times” reported, “A number of New York mural artists have offered their services in decorating the building, among them being David Robinson, portrait and magazine painter and his wife, Adella Klaer, also a noted painter; Howard Heath and wife, and Watt Williams of the famous Watt Williams Art Gallery. These will assist in the planning of the decorations and in the work itself and Elmer Adler, secretary in charge of the hut, has received offers from a few friends of part of the funds to pay for the work.” It was a close-knit community of artists and the works of Klaer (monotypes and paintings) were exhibited at The Paint Gallery in 1919. Williams’ 1918 draft registration listed that he was self-employed as a painter and working at 43 Washington Square, the address of The Paint Box.

On September 14, 1918, “American Art News,” reported, “The Old Paint Box Gallery of Greenwich Village is no more. The stable with its white-washed stalls has passed because Wat Williams is going ‘over there’ with the Y. M. C. A. His wife will remain here however, and she will have a greater Paint Box at No. 43 Washington Squ., where she can show paintings and play chess between times” (Vol. 16, No. 37). Well, his wife Elwyn also applied for a passport and began her own travels as a costume designer by the fall of 1919.

In 1918, Williams also worked on an outdoor event that simulated an Italian County fair. On June 28, 1918, New York’s “The Sun” reported, “Fifth Ave. Festa For Italy’s Blind. Real Old Country Fair Held in Front of Public Library. Italy moved to Fifth Avenue yesterday – not war-stricken Italy today but rural Italy of a happier time when the people in the quaint and beautiful old towns could make merry in their county fairs and there were no lovers and husbands at the front door to be anxious about – no enemy hammering at the door. A bright colored, singings, dancing Italy it was the liens guarding the Public Library looked down upon.

Bobby Edwards, whose normal occupation around Greenwich village is playing his ukulele made out of a cigar box, designed the whole fete from drawings by De Falle and other Italian artists. Watt Williams helped him, and flocks of pretty girls, and the Metropolitan opera chorus, and Giordani, the donkey, and his picturesque green and red garbed driver, and vegetable men, who nobly contributed their almost priceless wares. And movie actresses, and Raymond Hitchcock assisted in carrying out the ideas of Wat and Bobby” (page 6).

Wat was mentioned by the “New York Tribune” on Dec. 15, 1918, in the article “Poets Who Toil” by Lionel C. Moise. The subheading for the article noted, “In Greenwich, war left a golden trail of prosperity behind.”  Wat was included as “another prominent villager who got a job at the plant and held it was Watt Williams, who runs art of perpetual exhibition, entitled “The Paint Box” – admission 10 cents. He doubled the previous rate of production for the job to which he was assigned within a week after he entered.”

Wat also became a contributing editor to Greenwich Village’s “The Quill.” Between 1918 and 1919 there were multiple announcements and advertisements for “The Paint Box Gallery.” Keep in mind that New York’s’ Greenwich Village was considered America’s Bohemian capital in the 1910s and 1920s.  Photographer Jessie Tarbox Beals (1870-1942)  captured images of many shops at the time and exhibited her work at The Paint Box Gallery in 1919 (“Evening World,” 6 Sept 1919, page 7).

In April 1919, “The Quill” reported, “Old Wat Williams is showing some new art at the Paint Box Gallery; conservative and extreme art by the master of Duplex art, Howard Heath; art that the public can understand as well as art that the artist can understand. Art to art to art re–.” Also included in “Round Our Square,” was: ”Wat Williams says, anent the Provincetown Players, ‘The too-muchness of nothingness is a feeling of life gone out.’” The Paint Box also featured the psychochrome theories of Leon Engers Kennedy. On February 16, 1919, the “New York Tribune” announced, ““Mr. Leon Engers Kennedy is exhibiting a group of Psychochromes at the Paint Box Galleries, Washington Square South. Mr. Kennedy explains that “Psychochromes” translated means “soul color,” and “the eye of the soul directs the hand of the craftsman.” Earlier in January, 1919,  “The Quill” reported, ““Wat Williams [owner of The Paint Box and contributing editor of The Quill] tells us that he is to have an exhibition for the coming month of the psychochromes of Leon Kennedy. Rallying the remnants of our education, which did included Greek, we should infer that the gentleman indicates with color what he thinks of your soul. We do not hazard a guess as to the meaning of an excessively blue portrait of Alestair [sic] Crowley, but we remember that dark red indicates a lust for murder, and would hesitate to have ourselves committed to canvas. When one stands in front of the portrait of la belle Madame X in the Metropolitan, one understands that she may have suspected Mr. Sargent of treating her a bit roughly, but with Mr. Kennedy, if you only have the color key, ‘it makes no doubts,’ as a charming French friend’s English has it. You know just what he thinks of you.”

On July 8, 1919, “The Evening World” included an article entitled “Hugh Ferris Shows His Work at the Paint Box” (NY page 10). He included a sketch of the gallery as part of his exhibit that was mentioned in the review: “His drawing of the old Paint Box, adapted from the converted stable, is very delicately executed.”

This was the same year that Elwyn Williams applied for her first passport. Her application noted that she was a Costume Designer, sailing to France for work. The Paint Box Gallery address on Washington was listed for the address of her employer, with her home residence at 213 W 147^th St. Elwyn was planning to travel for six months.  In 1920, she returned, and was listed on the incoming passenger list from London, arriving in Montreal November 1920. She was listed as a Costume Designer “c/o the American Consul, London.”  Elwyn continued to travel, an in 1921 venture to Yokohama, Japan, also for work. Information pertaining to Incoming passengers notes that she was currently residing at 426 10^th St, Wilmette, Illinois; this was her parents’ home at the time.

Despite Elwyn’s travels, the 1920 Census did not list her living with Wat. Although he was listed as married, Wat was now living with James A. Giel, a 37 yrs. old newspaper reporter from New Jersey. The couple eventually divorced, but I have yet to locate any records to verify their legal separation.  I have also been unable to discover any other information about Elwyn Jennings Williams.

In regard to Wat, he continued to work as a scenic artist and was repeatedly mentioned in the “Scenic Artist” section of “The Billboard.” On September 24, 1921, “The Billboard” reported Williams has been engaged to paint the sets of the Irving Place Theater. ‘Lilliom’ is to be the first production. This is the same production that is playing on Broadway, and the Jewish production received a very flattering comment on the beautiful scenic work” (page 21).

On March 1, 1928, “The Scenic Artist” included an article entitle “Wat Williams Speaking” (Vo. 1, No. 11, page 1).

“My Dear Editor:

You are going on to the first coast to coast conference with Bro. Toner: John Toner and I used to work for the well-known Sosman & Landis of the City of Chicago where you will meet.

You were telling me the other day of your experience in Chicago (in the day of the wooden sidewalk) and your experience as an impresario for real bottled beer. Beside the Chicago boys you will probably, I hope, have Truman Curtis, the president of the Los Angeles Local, as one of the delegates. Truman was my first art patron, having bought a couple of my studies when we were studying at ‘Smith’s Art Academy.’ Truman got me my first job in a scene painting place (don’t hold it against him” with Walter Burridge, then in Chicago. This goes back about a quarter of a century. At that time the urge to form some organization of the scene painter was dreamed of but that it should extend from coast to coast was not thought of. I should like you to bring attention to the fact preached to us by Walter Burridge that it is not simply a job of scenery; but that the main purpose of the artist in the theatre is a service problem; that of making the stage ensemble a work of art as truly as any picture of designs. The second thought would be to bring to the attention of the conference the desirability of establishing Examining Committees to stop the entry of people who will finally be a drag to the organization and themselves. These two problems are just as alive now as a quarter of a century ago.

Can I tack on a little about due collection? Nels Astner and myself are planning a drive to have our members see the desirability of paying their dues three months or more in advance instead of quarterly in arrears. It will not only lighten the burden of housekeeping but stop the damage that suspension brings to our members. On each month a third of our members are notified that they will be suspended if payment is not made at the end of the month. I believe that they will really see that the advance payment plan is desirable for all concerned.

I would like to make a personal appeal to our members to make their payments direct to the Financial Secretary of mail it, addressed to him. The habit of giving it to anyone else, especially without forwarding book at the same time, may cause everyone connected with it loss of money as well as extra work for those, already busy up to their neck.

We are making no new laws – simply enforcing those now on the books. Laws are not flexible or open to interpretation to suit individual cases – by officers less than anyone. Individual cases needing special construction will be laid before the Executive Board and a member’s chance for serious and just consideration of his appeal will not be depending on his nearness to the local. If you don’t advise us, we do not know your troubles.”

The report was published the next month in “The Scenic Artist” – Official organ of the United Scenic Artists Association at 161 West 44^th Street, New York City (Vol. 1, April 1928, No. 12, page 1), entitled “The Chicago Conference.” It started  “The report of the Chicago and New York delegates to the Scenic Artists Conference in Chicago held at Chicago on the last three days of last month has been read to their several members and approved by them. The recommendations are clear, concise and easy to understand.

It may be hoped that every scenic artist regardless of what special line he follows, will see the advantage of a uniform basis upon which we as a craft may sell our services.

By a commonly accepted definition of the term stock, production and presentation, we shall without causing the slightest flurry, neither in our own of the producer’s ranks, have arrived at a definite way of knowing how to classify what a member is doing. Not what he must do – or must not do; but simply made it possible to really know whether work – of any sort – is being done according to Union rules or not.

Productions must of course be done under rules laid down for a Studio – let the Studio be permanent or temporary – old established or primitive; no one presumes to dictate as to the shape or nature of the building. The rules concerning Studios are as before as regards to charge-man, artist and helpers. Scenery traveling from place to place is of course a production: – or else what is?

Members running Studios shall not contract for Stock in such places as our rules clearly state that an artist shall be employed on contract.

Stock, as far as our craft is concerned, is scenery built and painted for a theatre to which a member is under contract.

The salary of the artist is stipulated with that specific clause being clearly understood.

As before, an artist under stock contract shall – by organization – be required to limit his work to the theatre he is employed in, and shall not engage in outside contracting or production work during the time of such employment.

Presentations may be done by one artist if necessary, provided it is only for one house.

A member may design and contract for as many presentation houses as he can handle provided his work is carried on according to the rules of the association. A rising scale of pay based on equity and economy was agreed on and a field very apt to run wild, and for that matter pretty difficult to control properly, has been defined.

Every angle of the craft was given close attention and where necessary thoroughly discussed. The object of the conference was not to inject a lot of new kinks, but for the explicit purpose of arriving at a uniform wording and interpretation of all rules, by-laws, contracts etc. thereby making the first great step toward a unification of the entire craft. The ambition of single members to rise and soar is fine; but it should have a proper take-off. Too often the member who throws his lot with the side to whom he has to look for monetary returns makes a fatal mistake. Agreed that he has the right to conduct business, even to destroy himself; but he has no right to jeopardize the livelihood of fellow members. It would be better all around if he should lend all his strength to his organization and help to convince purchasers of our work that the best way is the cheapest after all.

There is no call for individual members of our craft to make frantic efforts to cheapen either our standards or our product. The cheapening of scenic art may be safely left to those who are not members of our craft.

The rules are there. The rules are simple; it only remains with the members to take advantage of them.

The Chicago conference consisted of Chas. E. Lessing, chairman; NY; Orville Lyman, Chicago; Peter Donegan, Chicago; Herman Bartels, Chicago, and John Toner and G. VC. Fisher, New York.”

Williams continued to live and work in Manhattan throughout the 1930s. Although still listed as married, he was living by himself at 74 West 37^th Street .

By the 1940s, Williams returned to Chicago. His 1942 draft registration card listed Williams residing at 1447 N. Wells St. In the box that noted the person who would always know his address, Williams wrote: “United Scenic Artist – Woods Bldg.”

Williams died in Chicago on Oct. 19, 1945. He was buried on Oct. 23 1945 in Mount Hope Cemetery in Worth, Illinois.

Copyright © 2021 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

A unique last name can guide research, helping track down an individual in historic records and newspaper articles. However, a really unique last name causes difficulties due to continued misspellings throughout the decades. Similarly, common names in a region are also a nightmare, varying from one state to another.  For example, in Minnesota, Scandinavian immigration caused an abundance of Johnsons, Olsons, Nelsons, and Petersons in city directories. Any of these last-name issues are compounded when individuals traveled for work, such as scenic artists and stage mechanics. Of all the scenic artists working at Sosman & Landis, Fred Scott may be the most difficult one to track down due to the commonalty of his last name

Fred Scott was a scenic artist at Sosman & Landis, c. 1904-1911, although this period of time could realistically span from 1889-1923. Part of the problem in tracking down information about this particular scenic artist is that there are multiple listings for artists named Fred or Frederick Scott across the country. Even narrowing the search to Chicago from 1890-1910 is problematic due his common last name.

Long after Scott’s employment at Sosman & Landis, he was remembered by Thomas G. Moses, Art Oberbeck and John Hanny. Scott’s earliest association with the firm was recorded by Moses in 1904. That year, Moses left his position at Moses & Hamilton in New York and returned to Chicago to work at Sosman & Landis. It was at this point that Moses became vice-president of the firm, a company shareholder, and was given complete aesthetic control over all projects. This meant that he still painted as a scenic artist for the firm, but now supervised all of the design, construction, painting and installation.  Moses’ return did not sit well with all of the studio artists. In 1904, he 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. 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.”

Scott was also remembered by Oberbeck and Hanny, who started as paint boys during the first decade of the twentieth-century. Both men were interviewed later in life by Randi Givercer Frank for her Master’s Thesis, “The Sosman and Landis A Study of Scene Painting in Chicago, 1900-1925” (University of Texas, Austin, 1979).” In her paper, Givercer includes brief mention of several staff members at the studio. Both Oberbeck and Hanny remembered Scott, but in varying ways. She wrote, “Fred Scott was an excellent colorist. Oberbeck thought that Rider and Scott were the only two scene painters who used Scott’s color theory that every color must have an undertone. According to this theory, every color used in painting must have the same color in it to hold it together. Oberbeck painted ten or twelve Masonic Crucifixion scenes with Scott. To start, they would lay in the entire drop in ultramarine blue. Every color from the extreme light tones to the most dark, would have a little of that blue in it. Similarly, in Masonic treasure Room scenes, layered-in in burn umber, every color used would have some umber in it.”

That being said, Givercer later wrote, “Scott was a very bitter and eccentric man, The boys in the studio were afraid of him; he didn’t get along with many people. If something went wrong when he was painting, he’d take a six-inch brush, dip it in all the colors along the palette, stand back, throw it in the middle of the drop, and walk off. Or he would tear the drop off the frame in a fit of rage. Scott refused to let his son even talk about becoming a scene painter, but he did help the young boys at Sosman & Landis. He gladly taught Oberbeck anything he could, until Oberbeck was earning more money that he was. John Hanny once received a surprising letter from Scott, in which he gave him encouragement and constructive criticism. At another time his advice to Hanny was: If you’re unfortunate enough to want to be an artist, if you insist on being an artist – for heaven’s sake, be a good one.”

Moses mentioned Fred Scott again in 1911. At the time, the Sosman & Landis studios were extremely busy, with projects keeping both the main studio and annex studio on 20^th Street. Moses left Nicholas J. Pausback in charge of the studio during his absences. That year Moses wrote, “Pausback had his hands full; Scott acted bad.” This does not paint a picture of a kind and considerate individual. Yet it suggests that Scott may have been skilled enough for an employer to overlook his basic personality flaws.

To date, I have only located one Cincinnati newspaper article that mentions a scenic artist named Frederick Scott in the twentieth-century.  In 1898 Sosman & Landis has branched into theatrical management and sent several scenic artists to Cincinnati to work on several projects. On Nov. 6, 1898, the “Cincinnati Commercial Tribune” credited scenic artist Frederick Scott with the scenery for Brady Stock Company’s ‘Cyrano De Bergerac’ at the Star Theatre. The article reported, “The scenery for the new play is being made up by Scenic Artist Frederick Scott. Five elaborate sets will soon be completed.”  This newspaper article places Scott in Cincinnati at the end of the nineteenth-century, possibility already working for Sosman & Landis. The Cinicnnati city directory listed an artist named Fred Scott for the years 1899 and 1900. Although no workplace is noted, Scott was living at 1312 Sycamore.

I have narrowed my Fred Scott search down to one likely candidate in the Chicago City Directory, an Englishman who worked as an artist in Chicago, beginning in the mid 1880s.

The only bread crumb is the mention of Scott refusing to let his son even talk about becoming a scene painter. Unlike single men who move from one city to another, a family is a bit easier to track in census reports; or so I thought until this particular quest. However, marriage and obituary notices for children often provide a glimpse into the lives of their parents.

My research suggests that Scott relocated his family from London to Chicago in 1891. Like some immigrant families, a father or older son journeyed to American prior to moving his family. This meant that they were able to secure work, gain income, and have adequate funding to cover the move of their family. This is how my grandmother traveled from Poland to the United States. Her older brother came first, and he gradually raised enough money to send for each sibling; one at a time.

My research indicates that Scott began working in Chicago in the mid-1880s. He is first listed in the Chicago City Directory in 1885, Frederick Scott, living at 274 Avon pl. He is again listed in the 1888 and 1889 Chicago Directory, working at 512, 70 State, and boarding on Clark Street.  This is not meant to say that he did not return to visit, marry, and plan the relocation of his family. So, here is the history that I have located to date.

Frederick Scott was born on Aug. 6, 1854 in London, England, the son of Alice and Samuel Scott. He married Ethel Julia Grant Ketchum in 1890, and moved both wife and infant daughter to Chicago in 1891. The Scotts were counter in the 1891 London Census before emigrating to America. This meant that he missed being included in the 1890 Federal Census. However, by 1900 Scott was working as an artist and living at 5019 Turner Street in Chicago. At the time, the Scott family included his wife Ethel  and children Marjory (b. May 1890, England), Granville (b. April, Illinois), Edwin (b. Feb. 1899, Illinois) and Bobs Victor (b. May 1900, Illinois). The Chicago birth record for Granville lists his parents as Frederick Charles Scott and Ethel J. G. Ketchum.

Within the first decade of the twentieth century, Scott’s marriage ended, and his wife remarried another artist. Ethel married Edwin S. Mitchell on Sept. 19, 1908. Her wedding records note that he was the daughter of James Ketchum and Matilda Grant, born on October 31, 1865, in Poona, India. He mother was Scottish and her father English.

The 1910 Census listed Ethel and Edwin living in Chicago with their five children from previous marriages:  Ethel Marjory Scott (19 yrs.) and Granville Scott (14 yrs.) were listed as Edwin’s step-children, while Edwin K Mitchell (11 yrs.), Victor A. (9 yrs.) and Dorothy V. (4 yrs.) were listed as his biological children. Georgia was later born (1911). The two would celebrate the birth of Georgia in 1911. I am skeptical about Edwin and Victor, as those were also the names of Ethels and Fred’s youngest children.

The 1920 census provides a little more information about this blended family. Ethel M. and Granville are now adult children, still living at home. Ethel M. was working as a cashier for a Music Co. and Granville working as an electrician. In regard to their father, Fred Scott appears to have vanished from print.

I have yet to track down any obituary for Fred Scott, a second marriage record or any other historical record that suggest what happed to Scott after his wife remarried. Other than Moses’ mention of Scott in 1911, there is no further record of his work as a scenic artist.

To be continued…

Copyright © 2021 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

Hans Putuff was a scenic artist at Sosman & Landis, c. 1906-1909. He worked with Victor Higgins and the two gifted a painting to the firm’s foreman, Charles E. Boyer, after a sketching trip in 1909. Years later, their gift made the papers in La Crosse, Wisconsin, when the origin of the interesting painting was remembered as a wedding gift to Boyer’s daughter, Ruth Boyer Anderson.

Hanson Duvall Puthuff (1875-1979) is remembered as an Impressionistic painter in the early California Plein-Air Movement, c. 1910-1940. Much has been written of his easel art, yet his backstory seems to be a series of “cut-and-paste” articles. Occasionally, there will be one line about his work as a sign painter or scenic art endeavors in 1906 for “Sosman Studio,”  but little else is cited. That being said, he is a difficult individual to track down, not only because of his early work as an itinerant artist, but also because of his name change and consistent misspellings over the years. Hanson took the last name of his adoptive mother sometime in the 1880s, at the very beginning of his artistic career.

He was an easel artist, frescoer, sign painter and scenic artist. There is no question that he was incredibly skilled and extremely versatile. His fine art paintings are often described in detail and commended for their coloration and play of light. However, it is his personal story that intrigues me the most.  Keep in in mind that by this point I have spent years tracking down Puthuff’s career in historic records and city directories. The majority of his life until 1910 was spent with his adoptive mother as they traveled west to Denver and then Los Angeles. His care and dedication for Elizabeth C. Stanley Puthuff is a story in itself. I am captivated by the loyalty and love that caused this young artist to take care of his adoptive mother until her dying day, as well as adopting her last name.

Hanson Duval (some records note Duvall) was born on August 21, 1875, in Waverly, Missouri. This date is even suspect, as other records suggest March, with little known of his birth parents. He was purportedly the son of Alonzo Augustus Duval and Mary Anne Lee. Other names filter in and out of historic records, but his parents were cited as coming from Kentucky. When he was only two years old, Hanson’s mother passed away and he was adopted by close family friend, Elizabeth Puthuff (1845-1910). Most historical records use the phrase “passed on,” with the idea that Hanson’s father left his son and moved on with his life. This may have been the driving force over the years that caused Hanson to always care for Elizabeth, as she was the one who took him in during his greatest time of need.

Elizabeth’s care and love for Hanson was also born of loss. Since 1865, Elizabeth had lived as a Civil War widow, managing to support herself as a seamstress. She was born in Tennessee, the daughter of Jacob and Rebecca Stanley and by 1850 the family was living in Jefferson, Indiana.

Elizabeth married James T. Puthuff at the age of 22 years old. Their union is only briefly mentioned in a wedding record, a mere scribble. The timing is too quick to suggest a lengthy courtship, but it was in the midst of the Civil War and the two were married at the height of James’ service. Here is the timeline that makes me wonder what else was at play: James first enlisted in the Union army in St. Louis, Missouri, on Nov. 1, 1863 and mustered out as a Private with the 12^th Cavalry that same day. He enlisted a second time on Jan. 29, 1864, and mustered out with Company K in the Missouri Veteran Volunteers on March 7, 1864. He and Elizabeth were married on March 31, 1864 and James was killed a little over two weeks later. A week after his passing, on April 23, 1865, Elizabeth filed for a Civil War Pension.

It was Sergeant Perry O. Singleton who reported that James was killed by gunshots from either rebels or a bushwhacker on, or about, April 15, 1865 near Montgomery, Alabama. Puthuff was originally buried 100 yards from Mr. Howard’s store 1 ½ miles south of Shorter’s Station near Cross Keys, Macon County, Alabama. His body was later exhumed and buried at Montgomery, Alabama cemetery and relocated again to Marietta National Cemetery. If I am interpreting records correctly, his gravestone does not match his history, and the cemetery is aware of it.

Elizabeth was a widow for twelve years before adopting Hanson. At the time, she was thirty years old and working as a seamstress. Over the years, she went by Mrs. Elizabeth C. Puthuff, Lizzie Puthuff, and Mrs. L. C. Puthuff. Regardless of directory listing, she was often noted as the widow of J. T., Jason T. and James T. Puthuff.  What is so interesting is that her Civil War Pension Application listed James S. Puthuff, but that may have been a clerical error. Or a simple misreading of a handwritten T.

Five years after adopting Hansen, the two were listed in the 1880 Federal Census. At the time, they were  living in Rio Norte, Colorado. Hanson Duval was listed as Lizzie’s adoptive son and she was working as a dressmaker. The two were still living in Rio Norte in 1888, when Lizzie posted a series of advertisements: “Mrs. L. C. Puthuff, Del Norte, Colo. Fashionable Modiste! Respectfully solicits a continuance of the patronage of old friends and a trial by new customers. Works done on short notice, Corner Columbia avenue and Sixth street.” They soon relocated to Denver,

Sometime between 1880 and 1890, Hanson changed his last name from Duval to Puthuff, with Duval becoming his middle name. I have yet to locate any legal records of has name change. By 1890, Hanson was studying with Ida De Steiguer at the Fine Arts Department of the University of Denver, ca. 1890 – 1893. In 1893, Hanson was listed in the Denver City Directory as a janitor for the Art School.

By 1894, Hanson took a position as a fresco painter in Peoria, Illinois, while his mother stayed behind for the year and continued her dressmaking. This was likely an apprenticeship in ornamental painting. In the 1894 Peoria City Directory listed Hanson’s employment address as the YMCA building, 109-111 N. Jefferson Ave.  By 1896 Hanson returned west and was again listed in the Denver City Directory, now as a fresco painter, but still living with his mother. In 1897, Hanson listed himself as an artist, but soon returned to Peoria for another year of work. Projects in the city included murals at City Hall and local churches.  While in Peoria, he was listed as a frescoer at Trapp & Hocking, located at 228-229 Adams, the corner of Fulton in the Woolner Bldg. His residence was 619 Sixth Ave. Although I have yet to locate a listing in 1899, his mother was still living in Denver.

The 1900 Federal Census provided a little more information about the two.  Listed as L. C., “Lizzie” listed her birthday as in March 1845 and that her father and mother were from Virginia and North Carolina, respectively. Hanson’s birth month was listed as August in 1875 with both of his parents originating from Kentucky.

By 1901 Hanson was working as a sign writer at the Curran Bill & Poster Distributing Co. This advertising firm was located at 1728 to 1734 Lawrence Ave. in Denver.  Hanson continued to work for the firm as a sign painter throughout 1903. He was also listed in the artists section of the Denver directory too. For context, James A. Curran owned the firm and was considered not only the father of outdoor advertising in Colorado, but also the “boss bill poster of the Rockies.” Curran’s first advertising business was established in Leadville, Colorado, in 1880. By 1881, he was working with the Denver & Rio Grande Railroad. He was also an early advertising agent for the Tabor Opera Houses in Leadville and Denver, tying directly into my research about the railroad’s gifting of picturesque advertising curtains to Colorado opera houses. By 1883, Curran relocated to Denver where he established the Curran Bill & Poster Distributing Co., a business that rapidly became the preferred painting and sign poster firm throughout the region. He employed scores of scenic artists and sign painters such as Pufhutt.  Curran was also an agent for traveling theatre shows that included the Nellie Boyd Dramatic Co., Sullivan and Company and Damrosch Concerts. Curran artists were was likely the connection between Pufhutt and Chicago (Sosman & Landis). By 1906, Curran was also the owner and president of the Curran Opera House in Boulder, Colorado.

Pufhutt’s work for Curran also became his connection to Los Angeles. In 1904, Hanson & Lizzie moved to Pasadena, California, likely at the recommendation of  A. Allison, of the Curran Bill & Poster Distributing Co. On Jan. 23, 1904, “Billboard” announced, “A. Allison, formerly of the Curran Co., Denver Colorado has been elected secretary and general manager of the California Billposting Co. of Los Angeles. Mr. Allison brings with him to the new form a fine knowledge of the business (page 15). For the next few years, Pufhutt worked for the California Billposting Co. as he made inroads into the Los Angeles fine art community.  Although he continued to be listed as an artist in the Los Angeles Directory, Pufhutt worked across the country, including in Chicago at Sosman & Landis studio, sporadically between 1906 and 1909.

In California, Hanson’s primary focus of artistic study was Eagle Rock, La Crescenta, Corona del Mar and La Canada. By 1905, Puthuff was featured in the “Los Angeles Times.” On Oct. 22, 1905, the newspaper reported:

“The true artist is dowered at birth by a fairy godmother, and her great gifts to him are sight and insight – the clear eyes that takes in the outward aspects of beauty, the swift intuition that seeks and finds its spirit and its meaning. The schools may supply him with tools, or he may fashion his own to suit his needs. It matters not, so long as he persistently holds fast to his two gifts, and so long as he does not begin to believe that the mere tools of his trade are the “whole thing.” For he was made an artist by the grace of God. Al other painters and artisans in the temple – clever, conscientious, painstaking, intelligent artisans, if you will, but still artisans, and their presence is often an intrusion which does not further the true worship of the goddess of art. They pose as high priests, when they really belong among the humblest of penitents. Hanson Putuff, the subject of this appreciation, is one of our painters who is an artist. Sight and insight, Putuff has already done much, but he will do a great deal more. Let the doubting Thomases, if there are any such, so to the exhibit of his sketches with the friends who believe in him have urged him to hold in the near future. Hanson Puthuff is of Kentucky parentage, and of French and English extraction – and these fortunate accidents of birth have given us an impressionist and a reactionist who knows moderation. He studied portraiture and figure painting with Henry Reed and Jean Mannheim, in Denver, and this laid the foundation for his accurate knowledge of construction and good drawing. But in his study of landscape he had no helpers, going straight to Nature in his search for beauty and truth, as every artist must. His home studio, which he planned himself, and which he decorated throughout, with his own hands, is a pleasant, unobtrusive, artistic, little redwood bungalow on Avenue 52, in Highland Park, Here his many sunny sketches may be seen, and here he conducts a life class two evenings a weeks. This class is attended by earnest young men, who are for the most part employed in various handicrafts during the day, and who can find no other time for learning to paint and draw, But all know this is to be their golden opportunity. And not one of them is a purposeless idler. Hanson Puthuff, it will be seen, is doing much for the cause of art in Los Angeles” (page 62).

By November 4, 1906, the “Los Angeles Times” published Puthuff’s portrait alongside an article entitled “Pictures by Three Painters” (page 82). Advertising the upcoming Blanchard Gallery exhibition, it gave a little history about Puthuff’s increasing popularity among those “who are sincerely concerned with the progress of art in Los Angeles.”  The article reported, “In the first place, it will give us an opportunity to judge, with some degree of correctness, the progress made by Hanson Puhuff in the last two years. It was then that he first became known to us, in the Ruskin exhibit, through three or four pictures of unusual strength and promise. He now has some twenty-five new canvases to show, portraits, figures, landscapes and marines – and they will convince us, I think, that he has not been standing still.”

Within the next three years, he became extremely well-known in the region. On October 1909 George Whart James wrote an article entitled “Hanson Puthuff and His Work: A Study and an Appreciation” for the “Arroyo Craftsman” (pages 31-37). That same year,  Puthuff and his adoptive mother were living at 401 W. Ave 52. Erroneously, the city directory listed him as Anton Puthuff, with Hanson still working as a scenic artist, but now employed by Charles F. Thompson Scenic Co. In addition to his easel art and scenic art, Hanson continued to care for his aging mother.

Just as Lizzie took care of Hans as a small child, Hanson continued to care for his mother until her dying day.  It was not until after his adoptive mother passed, that Hanson married and began a new life. On October 5, 1910, Puthuff married May P. Longest in Los Angeles. Their marriage announcement was published on October 4, 1910 in the “Los Angeles Herald” (page 14): “PUTHUFF-LONGEST. H. D. Puthuff, age 35 and May P. Longest, age 18; natives of Missouri and Kentucky, residents of Los Angeles.” May was certainly not 18, as she had been listed in as a single artist in the city directories for five years. She was born in 1879 and 31 yrs. old.

May was first listed in the 1903 San Jose Directory, living with her mother Mrs. Anna W. Longest, at 532 n. 14th Street. That only lasted for a year, and soon May was on her own. She continued to be listed as an artist until her marriage to Hanson and began having children.  The couple celebrated the birth twin sons (Duvall J and Lee C., b. 1912), Robert H. (b. 1914), Paul M. (b. 1916), Matilda L. (b. 1918) and Addie W. (b. 1920). As one child after another was born to the couple, May’s artistic aspirations diminished and her husband’s soared.  

In order to support his growing family, Hanson continued to work as a scenic artist and sign painter at a variety of studios. In 1912, he was listed in the city directory an artist at T. H. B. Varney, still living at 401 W Ave 52. Charles M. Elliot was also working for the firm at this time too. T. H. B. Varney previously was a founder of the bill posting firm Owens, Varney & Green (L. D. Owens and J. C. Green). This was a period of transition of Puthuff, however, as his easel art continued to gain national and international recognition. His success and continued work at advertising studios funded the purchase of a new home at 161 College View.

On January 8, 1913, the “Los Angeles Times” included an article on Hanson Puhuff and his studio (page 26):

“If you labor under the contemptuous delusion – some fairly intelligent people do – that the painter of pictures is a lazy man, prone to loaf and invite his soul, go to the airy studio of Hanson Putuff in Eagle Rock and become enlightened.

“Here you will find a score of landscape sketches and studies painted in three weeks, an average  of one a day. And they aren’t thumbnail sketches either. Hanson Puthuff doesn’t cover postage stamps. Some of the studies are hardly less than three by four, and most of the others are almost as big in size. Puthuff, whose technique is admirably easy and free, wields a big brush attached to a strong and pliable wrist, and he requires space in which to express himself.

The new studio is situated on the charming climbing avenues among the hills of Eagle Rock – beautiful hills, now covered with the rich cloth-of-gold of Southern California’s early summer. It is on College View avenue, so called because it offers a glimpse of the new buildings on Occidental College, also among green hills, Diagobally opposite Puthuff’s studio is that of landscape artist Aron Kilpatrick, landscape painter. Arion Putnam, another landscape painter, is not far away, and on the outskirts of Glendale, still very near, Eugene Frank is domiciled, Val Costello and the Wendt’s own lots in the vicinity, and will probably erect studios some time. A veritable artists’ colony, you see a wonderful nest of landscapists. Mark my words, it’s a colony that will become famous some day, for some of the colonists are already bug men and the rest all intend to grow big.

All Hanson Puthuff’s recent studies were made in his immediate neighborhood. Indeed, he hardly found it necessary to stir from the shade of his own vine and fig tree. The views from his studio windows are very wonderful, a series of pictures of already ‘composed’ oaks and valleys, hills and mountains.

“I think it was Jean Francois Millet,” said he,” who declared that the artist who couldn’t find materials at home was hardly an artist at all. By the same token,” he added with a modest smile, “I’ll have to consider myself a real artist, for I find plenty of stuff right here. But see for yourself.”

So I “saw for myself,” studying with pleasure and interest the last vigorous sketches of this gifted young painter of California landscape. The “stuff” was indeed all good, the best that have so far come from a man that never paints poorly. In truth, Puthuff have every right to consider himself a real artist.

The painter of landscape deprecates a “subject” picture. Therefore, “I don’t suppose you’ll be much interested in this,” said Puthuff, about to turn to the wall of a study of the famous Eagle Rock, that tremendous boulder thrusting its gray flank through the side of a hill, and offering to a gaping world its strange shadowing picture of a flying eagle. But I was interested, for the canvas was a picture as well of a “subject,” a picture of finely modeled hills under a gray sky, varied in color, poetic in feeling. And the great eagle hovered against the rounded wall of rock, giving the theme a certain grandeur. This picture was an “order,” given by a real estate dealer, I believe. I congratulate the lucky owner of it, for he has much more than an advertisement, he has a picture of sterling worth without the hall mark of “business.”

A strong bit of painting is “Morning,” green and yellow hills as seen from Puthuff’s backyard. Oaks are climbing up the hillsides towards a sky as full of color as the heart of an opal. Equally vigorous in handling is “Verdugo Road,” showing eucalyptus trees on either side of the sunny road just before it dips into the valley. The cloudy sky if of an exquisite blue-gray, a color invented by Puthuff for Nature to imitate – if she can.

In “Verdugo Mountains” we see the mountains on a cloudy day just after a shower, when the air is washed clean and pure as a crystal. Sunlight and shadow play over a bewildering mosaic of colors. The foreground embankment is of a tawny hue, while below lie green orchards. “Silvery Light,” as its title indicates, is a study of delicate mists as they affect hills and valleys. The light throws its glamours over pale greens and purples, and turns the Verdugo hills into fragile blues. It is an unusually charming picture, a happy blending of fact and vision.

Sunshine and Flowers” gives us yellow blooms (species unknown to painter and deponent,) set on a sunny slope among eucalyptus trees and live oaks. There are blue mists beyond them. The picture is full of living brightness. “Lupin,” painted in Verdugo Park, shows the pal purple blooms massed in the foreground, which is a level valley tanned yellow by the sun of early summer. The hills beyond are floating in silver mists.

Though Hanson Puthuff is known as a landscape painter, now and again he essays the portrait, and with marked success. A recent counterfeit presentment is that of George Alexander, first president of the Jonathan Club. The subject is seated at a table, Hands and face are cleverly modeled, yet with the utmost simplicity. The color scheme of Bronx-browns and grays is pleasing and harmonious, decidedly individual, as Puthuff’s color is apt to be. Another attractive recent portrait is that of a child. W. W. Mines’ little 2-year-old daughter, in white against a cream-colored background, a difficult subject technically, but triumphantly carried out. I have shown, I think, that at least one artist in Los Angeles, has learned the value of hard work. I could point out a score of others.”

In 1914 he was awarded a bronze medal at the Paris Salon and by 1915 received two silver medals from the Panorama-California Exposition. Puthuff’s WWI draft registration card listed his physical appearance as tall, medium build, blue eyes, gray-brown hair. That year, he was working as an artist at another advertising firm – Foster & Kleiser, located at 231 San Pedro St. Los Angeles. The registration still listed Hanson’s home address as 161 N. College View, Eagle Rock, LA. Walter Foster and George William Kleiser founded Foster & Kleiser Outdoor Advertising in 1901. Their immediate prosperity led to regional branches in the Pacific Northwest to outdoor plants in Los Angeles, San Francisco and eastward toward the Atlantic seaboard. Interestingly, his son’s draft registration for WWII would also noted Robert H.’s employer as Foster and Kleiser. By 1920, the Puthuff family included Hanson, May, their six children and May’s mother, now 70 years old. In the 1920s, Hanson’s projects included habitat displays for the Los Angeles Museum of History, Science and Art. Later commissions included model displays for the Santa Fe Railroad and panoramas for the Theodore Roosevelt Memorial  in the American Museum of Natural History in New York.

May Longest Puthuff passed away on Dec. 12, 1939 at the age of 60. Puthuff remarried and continued to live for more than three decades, passing away at Corona del Mar. On May 12, 1972, the “Los Angeles Times”  Puthuff, Hanson D., age 96. Passed away Friday, May 12, Dean of California landscape painters. Survived by wife Louise, sons Paul and Lee Puthuff, daughter Matilda Scoville, step-daughter Sara Blatterman, 8 grandchildren and 10 great-grandchildren. No funeral services at his request.”

Puthuff made a name for himself in the fine art world and is associated with the Eucalyptus School of California landscape painters. He was a co-founder of the California Art Club and the Laguna Beach Art Association. Thomas G. Moses and many other Sosman & Landis artists were also members of the Laguna Beach Art Association. Puthuff’s artworks remain in many collections, including the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, Laguna Art Museum, Laguna Art Museum, and Bowers Museum, as well as being catalogued in the Smithsonian American Art inventory.

His legacy also lived on in his many students. On February 11, 1943, the “Granada Pioneer” in Colorada included an article entitled “Thumbnail Sketches.”  The artist remembered taking private lessons from Hans Puthuff, “one of the foremost nature artists on the west coast” (page 3).

To be continued…