Thomas G. Moses – Page 28

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 793 – The Palace Theatre, 1912.

At the beginning of 1912, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “starting some new work for the Palace Theatre.” Moses was referring to the 1500-seat Palace Music Hall, advertised as “Chicago’s New Vaudeville Theatre” in 1912.

Detail of a Palace Music Hall program currently for sale online.

Built at N. Clark Street and W. Randolph, the Palace Music Hall opened on April 1, 1912. Designed by Holabird and Roche, the new Palace Music Hall was advertised across the country. An article in the “Daily Herald” noted that the Palace Music Hall was the newest theater “situated in the heart of Chicago’s theatre district and that “leading artists of the world” would be featured at this “high-class vaudeville” house (August 30, 1912, page 11). The article further reported, “The building department of Chicago has pronounced the Palace the most perfectly constructed and equipped theatre in the country.” Hmm. I have noticed that most new theaters during this period were advertised as the “best” that could be found in country, often including validation by some organization or well-known personality. Great marketing technique to get the public in the doors.

The Palace Music Hall, Chicago, Illinois.

Performances at the Palace were given twice daily, once at 3:15 PM and once at 8:15 PM. Individual seat prices were 15 cents, 25 cents, 50 cents and 75 cents. Like many theatres during this time, however, there was a shift in popular attractions and entertainment, often promting a change in owners. Abraham Lincoln Erlanger acquired the lease for Chicago’s Palace Theatre building during January 1926. He extensively remodeled the theater, renaming it the Erlanger Theatre. The Erlanger theatre remained open until March 10, 1962. The building was soon demolished, with the theater’s original location and remainder of the block being razed to build the Chicago Civic Center, now the Richard J. Daley Center. Neither this venue, nor the original Palace Theatre, are to be confused with Chicago’s New Palace Theatre, a venue designed by Rapp & Rapp and located on Randolph and La Salle Street in Chicago in 1926. The second “Palace Theater” opened Oct. 4, 1926 and is now known as the Cadillac Palace Theatre.

When the Palace Music Hall became the Erlanger Theatre in Chicago, Illinois.

In 1912, Martin Beck announced his intention to “invade” the east and Chicago with the new Palace theatres. The Palace Theatre in Chicago and the Palace Theatre in New York were intended to fight eastern interests. Beck’s Palace theaters were also mentioned in an interesting 1912 newspaper article published across the country. “Woman Back of a Theatre Trust” was the title and the article’s headline stated, “Mrs. Katherine Kohl Carries Out Late Husband’s Ideas for Territory Division. STOPS VAUDEVILLE WAR” (Rock Island Argus, 30 April 1912, page 9). Here is the article in its entirety, as I found it quite fascinating:

“Chicago, April 20, 1912.- The efforts of a Chicago woman, Mrs. Catherine Kohl, has averted a threatened vaudeville war which would have involved millions of dollars and has brought about a combination of theatrical interests aggregating $50,000,000.

Her months of endeavor have resulted in a union of men of the east and west representing practically the same theatre interests but operating in different territories. By the new arrangement the eastern magnates will keep in their own territory, the western magnates in theirs and Mrs. Kohl will be left the mistress of the situation in her Chicago theatres, founded by her husband and left to her on his death a year ago.

By the deal, completion of which was just announced in New York, B. F. Keith has purchased interests of Percy G. Williams, controlling eight theatres in New York, and a working agreement has been entered into by the different vaudeville powers by which there will be no friction in the future. A general agreement has been made as to the placing of different vaudeville acts and the ‘time’ to be allotted performers.

This new assignment of territory and interests stops a new vaudeville war started some time ago when Martin Beck opened the Palace theatre in New York and followed it by the Palace theatre in Chicago. These two houses were to be used in conjunction with others, to fight the eastern interests. By the new terms of the Chicago theatre, which is now playing vaudeville, will change its policy. It is said the first sign of the change will be when ‘A Modern Eve,’ now playing at the Garrick theatre, is transferred to the Palace theater.

Under the new combination thousands of performers are virtually interested. Mr. Keith with E. F. Albee, A. Paul Keith and John J. Murdock will control the vaudeville situation far west as Chicago. The situation in Chicago will be under the control of Mrs. C. E. Kohl, Max Anderson and the Monroe Amusement company. Meyerfeld and Beck of the Orpheum circuit will control the remainder of the country for the Orpheum circuit.

Mr. Keith will have control of the situation in the east, Mrs. Kohl in Chicago, and Martin Beck for the Orpheum circuit west of Chicago.

The new combination was caused by the announced intention of Beck to invade the east and Chicago, his new Palaces theatres being his first step in this regard. Theatrical managers saw ahead another theatrical war which probably would duplicate the efforts of Klaw & Erlanger to break the vaudeville trust some years ago and the fight of William Morris along the same lines. But before the war was fairly advanced the alignment of interests was accomplished.

‘The late Charles E. Kohl planned more than once to bring about this arrangement which would place the Majestic and other large theatres in association with the east,’ said Lyman Glover, general manager for the Kohl-Castle theatres, last night. ‘He wanted to leave the west as an empire for the Orpheum circuit. His widow has labored effectively in promoting the agreement now reached. The result will clear up the situation, prevent ruinous competition, provide better and more uniform vaudeville bills, and simplify the business in many ways.’

From New York at night a statement was issued by Meyerfield and Beck.

‘It always has been our fondest desire,’ the statement said, ‘to bind the east and west together in a more substantial way. The consummation of the deal just put though by Mr. Keith and ourselves is a happy solution of our difficulties and is most satisfactory to us.

‘The situation, as far as territory is concerned, is no different than it was before, but by buying interests with Mr. Keith and in other ways tying our interest more closely together we have accomplished something for which we have been working for years, and the public and artists will reap the benefits as well as ourselves.

‘We are all men who have practically brought the high class vaudeville business to its present high standard, both sides owning controlling vast interests thoroughly established. And we feel that the fruits of our labor for 30 years have been consummated by the arrangement we have entered into.’”

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 792 – The Opera House in Bangor, Maine, 1912

At the beginning of 1912, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “Started right by hustling out some work for Bangor, Maine.” Moses was referring to the recently fire-damaged Bangor Opera House. An extensive fire damaged the building in 1911, necessitating a new stage, scenery and necessary machinery the following year. The 1912 Sosman & Landis installation was short lived, as two years later another fire destroyed the building. The “big conflagration of 1911” was recalled in a newspaper article after the second fire. On January 15, 1914, “The Boston Globe” reported, “The Bangor Opera House, the oldest and largest theatre here was destroyed by fire this morning.” The fire department managed to contain the flames to the theater and prevented its spread to nearby buildings, with losses estimated at $80,000. Sadly, five men lost their lives as they fought the flames in frigid temperatures that night. The hose men were all in line, playing the hose through the door, when an explosion occurred and toppled the brick wall nearest them. All of the firemen were instantly crushed to death.

1914 newspaper photograph of the Bangor Opera House, destroyed by fire.

The first Bangor Opera House, designed by architect Arthur H. Vinal, was built in 1882 for a population numbering 20,000. Prior to this new theatre space, “Jno. B. Jeffrey’s Theatrical Guide and Directory” listed only three performance halls in the city: Bangor Music Hall (seating capacity 650), Norombega Hall (seating capacity of 1500), and Bangor City Hall (seating capacity of 800). Neither Bangor’s Music Hall nor City Hall contained any painted scenery. Only the Buskin Club had purchased nine scenes that were used at Norombega Hall; a modest enticement for touring theatrical troupes.

For many years, the opera house was the only stage in Bangor available for legitimate theater and touring productions. The Bangor Opera House had a seating capacity of 1,109, a fair size for many types of events. The size of the proscenium opening measured 31’ high by 31’ wide, with the height from the stage floor to the rigging loft was 45. Some records indicate that the height of the rigging loft was only 40 feet. The depth under the stage was 10 feet and boasted 2 traps. The full stage area measured 40’ deep x 65’wide. There was a height of 18’ from the stage floor to the underside of the grooves to accommodate the painted wings. In addition to painted wings, theatrical directories indicate that there were fifteen sets of scenery. The original installation was painted by scenic artist M. H. Andrews and added to over the years. Unfortunately, all painted scenery was destroyed during the 1911 fire, providing an opportunity for Sosman & Landis to provide a new installation

By 1912, the Bangor Opera House building was owned by a corporation, with local businessman Dr. Thomas U. Coe as a significant stockholder. The population of Bangor at this time numbered 40,000 people. “Julius Cahn’s Official Theatrical Guide” for the 1913-1914 season reported an increased seating capacity after the fire of 1159. The stage was also illuminated with electricity by this time (110 AC and 8 stage pockets). After the 1914 fire, however, everything was lost, leaving Bangor without a full-stage theater once again. Although immediate action was taken to replace the city’s lost theater, it took time to gather the necessary funds, and then the United States entered World War I

The lot theatre lot was purchased by Joseph P. Bass in February 1919. Bass was a businessman and publisher of the “Bangor Daily Commercial.” He announced his plan to rebuild the opera house, selecting the new lessee to be the Alfred S. Black chain of theatres. For the next few decades, a variety of entertainment was featured at the Bangor Opera House. Like many theaters during the mid-twentieth century, however, the stage would eventually feature film. By 1966, the theater was known as the Bangor Cinema. Over the years, it fell into a state of disrepair.

By 1997, the building was acquired by the Penobscot Theatre Company. The opera house underwent a series of restorations, with the exterior façade being restored during 2007-2008. By 2016, the company launched a capital campaign to complete a number of other necessary improvements. The recent auditorium makeover included new carpet, seating, lighting fixtures and fresh paint. It is now a very blue auditorium. As with many historic theater venues, much of the early history is forgotten, with the main focus remaining on the architectural style and/or a specific architect. Little is remembered interior, especially details of the original stage, scenery, lighting, and other mechanical systems that remained behind the curtain line.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 791 – Mrs. Thomas G. Moses, 1911.

As I conclude the year 1911, Mrs. Thomas G. Moses re-enters the story as a one-line entry in a newspaper article published in the “Joliet Evening Herald-News” (11 June 1911, page 12). I seldom explore the life of Thomas G. Moses’ wife, Susan “Ella” Robbins, in my posts. One of the reasons is that she primarily remained absent from print, being primarily identified in minimal public records and a few brief mentions in her husband’s memoirs. Prior to 1911, there are only a few mentions of “Mrs. Thos. G. Moses” in the newspaper mostly associated with various church events.

It is not that she was confined to the home, unloved by her husband. However, like most women of her time, she was cast in a supporting role. Ella spent much of her married life taking care of home responsibilities while her husband crisscrossed the country to complete one theater project after another. After the children were grown and her own parents had passed, what was there to do other than housekeeping? Primarily volunteer and church work. Her husband worked until his death, never really slowing down. Ella had not worked outside of the home since getting married. For one year, she worked as a seamstress’ assistant in Sterling, Illinois, before giving birth to their first child.

Ella was the love of Tom’s life, their first having met in the one-room schoolhouse in Sterling. Moses recalled their first date in 1872, writing, “The first party we attended together compelled me to do some hustling in putting my clothes in shape, as about the only clothes I had were made from my Father’s cast-offs, which had done good service in the tannery. A paper collar and “dickey” over my flannel shirt, a piece of ribbon for a tie, a good coat of blacking on my heavy shoes and I was ready to shine in Society. I think Ella was awfully brave to go with me, especially when the other boys always dressed better than I.” The couple was married on October 31, 1878, with their first child, William Pitt Moses, arriving in 1879.

Ella was her husband’s confidant, counselor, and eventual caretaker. When Moses’ father and step-mother rejected him, Ella and her family were there to welcome him with open arms and support him. They offered unconditional love, something that had vanished when his birth mother passed away at a young age. Ella became his rock, an integral link that completed her husband’s network of support throughout the decades. When her husband did return home after a project, he escaped to the solace of his attic studio, always painting. He also left home between work projects to hone his artistic skills on sporadic sketching trips. All the while Ella was there to keep everything quiet on the home front. She was the one who packed up their entire house and moved east when her husband started a new studio in New York in 1900, with children in tow. She was the one who kept children and grandchildren from bothering their father/grandfather while he was painting. As most women during this time, her life was defined by the desires and actions of her husband. There was little time for her to follow her dreams as she was always busy with home and church projects. We will never know if this was “enough” and made her life complete.

It was a time when women could note vote, and most of their activities were limited by gender. As fascinated as I am with this particular period of time, I would have hated the restrictions of being a female at this time. I think of my mother’s frustration when she first purchased a car during the 1950s. She had an advanced degree, a full-time position as a teacher, and a guaranteed income, yet could not secure a car loan without the co-signature of a male, ideally a father or husband. Yes, my grandfather thought this was ridiculous too, so he loaned her the money. Forty years prior to my own mother’s experience, women had limited control of their bodies, their bank accounts and property without some form of guardianship from a male; these restrictions suggest that women were in capable of making important decisions. And yet there remain men who yearn to return, restricting women. We remember that when women are kept at home, unemployed, and constantly pregnant their voice in society is effectively silenced.

One of the few outlets for women during the early twentieth century was charitable work for religious organizations. Such was the case for Mrs. Thomas G. Moses and the Woman’s Foreign Missionary Society of the Chicago Presbytery. In 1911, she was a speaker at the annual meeting held at DuPage church. The Thursday, June 8, event was attended by 125 ladies, 67 of whom were representatives from various Chicago churches, with the remaining number coming from the surrounding parishes and towns. The morning session opened with a hymn, a devotional service and words of welcome from Mrs. M. B. McNutt. Then various reports were presented from the secretaries, treasurer and a personal story described foreign missionary work.

Mrs. Thomas G. Moses spoke in the afternoon about “Where Foreign and Home Missions Meet.” Other afternoon speakers discussed reports on recent gatherings, a plea for young people to commit to mission work, and thoughts for the coming months.

For the remainder of her life, Ella, was an active participant in various church activities. As wonderful as this sounds, what else could she do? Church socials, fundraisers, and other volunteer work kept some women’s minds and bodies active. A few were able to rise above social constrictions in 1911, but most of them were an anomaly.

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 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:

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 785 – The 20th Street Studio, or the Sosman & Landis Annex

Sosman & Landis catalogue image from 1894

In 1911, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “We started Brewer’s work at the 20^th Street studio, with an extra number of men. 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.”

Before building their main studio on Clinton Street, the Sosman & Landis studio was located at 277 and 279 S. Clark Street in Chicago. As business increased, it became necessary to build a larger studio to simultaneously accommodate multiple projects. However, even the new Clinton space could not accommodate all of the contracted projects. Therefore, some projects were manufactured on site, Carpenters were sent ahead of scenic artists, building paint frames in various opera houses, theaters and music halls.

Space and location was the key to any studio’s overall success; scenic artists needed access to multiple frames throughout a city when a very large project hit. They referred to these additional spaces as “annex studios,” temporary locations that complimented the main studio and business offices. Sosman and Landis opened a second studio space on the West Side of Chicago, renting the “old Waverly theatre” and referring to the second space as “the Annex” during August 1892. According to Thomas G. Moses, the studio measured 93 feet wide by 210 feet long and 40 feet high. The first annex studio had four paint frames with plenty of floor space for all kinds of work. This space was specifically secured for Moses and his crew to accept additional work for the Columbian Exposition. Moses’ arrangement with Sosman & Landis was to receive all of their sub-contracted work. Moses records that his annex studio crew included A. J. Rupert, Frank Peyrand and Harry Vincent besides a number of assistants and paint boys. He wrote, “It was awfully hard to keep the building warm. It was so big we had to use stoves.” Even with his own studio, however, Moses was still constantly sent on the road to complete on site work for the company. During these extended absences, Ed Loitz took charge of the Annex studio.

The annex space remained open throughout 1894. During the summer of 1894, Thomas G. Moses painted a number of small shows there. The work kept the annex studio open, despite the decline in projects after the close of the Columbian Exposition. Moses also wrote that the annex staff was always needed to “get the work out on time.”

In 1896, Sosman & Landis opened another annex studio. Moses wrote, “I had so much special work to do and it was hard to handle in the Studio. We rented the frames at the Alhambra Theatre and I worked there during the Fall and Winter.” This annex studio, however, was located in quite a rough neighborhood. Moses recorded the Alhambra Theatre was located on State Street and Archer Avenue. Moses wrote, “It was a long ride to Oak Park and I disliked the theatre. It was a very rough neighborhood – a hangout for all the big crooks.” In 1897, Moses was still supervising the annex at the Alhambra Theatre.

In 1907 Sosman & Landis established another Annex studio. Of it, Moses wrote, “We opened our annex studio at 19 W. 20^th Street in July, and Ansel Cook went there as a manager. He did some very good work but was a long time doing it, which, of course, didn’t pay us.” Moses divided his time between Sosman & Landis’ main Clinton Street studio and the annex studio that year, in addition to being on the road for weeks at a time. After one extended absence from the annex studio, he wrote, “Took charge of the 20^th Street Studio on my return weeks. Cook did $750.00 of work in three weeks. My first three amounted to $3,500.00, some difference. I hustled while he talked art and what the firm ought to do to get business.” Moses was obliged to stay at the 20^th Street annex in 1908, commenting it was “an awful place to heat.” Nicholas J. Pausback eventually replaced Cook as second in command.

In 1909, Moses primarily worked at the main studio before finding himself back at the annex again. Of the move, Moses wrote, “Sosman seemed to think I was needed there more than at 20^th Street. Pausback took charge of the 20^th Street studio.”

My research suggests that Sosman & Landis painted approximately 1200 drops during 1909, this being very conservative estimate. Fortunately, they had a staff of forty-eight on payroll in the main studio and twelve in the annex to help with the ever-increasing demand for painted scenery, stage machinery, draperies, and other theatrical equipment.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 784 – The Thomas G. Moses Family, 1911

In 1911, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “I have not been as active on my picture work this year as I was last – too much hard work. No vacation this year, and I miss that very much, as a month means a good deal to both Mama and I.” Moses went on an annual sketching trip every year, often accompanied by his wife and their children. Unfortunately, 1911 was a busy time at Sosman & Landis, with Masonic projects pouring in, as well a variety of other projects beyond their standard opera house and theatre work.

Since the beginning of Sosman & Landis, Moses was on the road for months at a time. Even during the first decade of the twentieth century, much scenery was still painted on site. The practice continued as studio space was limited and any theater could be transformed into a temporary paint studio. Staying in one place for any significant length of time was an anomaly for Moses, even after 1904 when he became the vice-president and a Sosman & Landis stockholder.

When Moses was not finishing projects on site, meeting with clients, supervising installations, or securing new contracts for upcoming work; travel was a necessity. If railways gave out “frequent flyer” miles at the time, Moses would have been set at the platinum level for life. He was constantly crisscrossing the country from one coast to the other, spending many nights sleeping on a train. In many ways it must have been quite freeing, escaping the monotony of the main studio as one project systematically replaced another, yet it resulted in limited time spent with his family too. His salary, like many other scenic artists of the time, was substantial enough that he was able to afford a comfortable home, nice things, and a month-long vacation every year. Regardless of the quality of his home life, he was seldom there to enjoy it. He entered the painting profession when profits abounded in the painting industry. A talented scenic artist could quickly rise to the top of his profession, surpassing the annual salaries in most other trades at the time. Scenic artists were highly respected and appropriately compensated for their skills.

Although Moses did not enjoy a vacation during 1911, there were plenty other reasons to rejoice that year.

On February 8, 1911, Moses wrote, “Mamie surprised us both by informing us that she and Wm. Hanover were married in Wheaton, Illinois, on February 8^th, 1911. We are becoming accustomed to these surprises.” “Mamie,” born Mary Titcomb Moses in 1881, was the second eldest of the couple’s children, with William “Pitt” being the eldest (b. 1879). In 1911, Pitt was still residing in New Jersey, successfully working with his Uncle Frank.

The next month, Lillian Ella Moses Salzmann (b. 1886), had a baby. Of the event, Moses wrote, “Lillian presented her husband with a bouncing son, Thomas George, in New York, March 9^th. Mama went to New York to be with Lillian for a week or so.” The couple would go on to have four more children (Marjorie, William, Gertrude and Betty).

Of their youngest child, Rupert Thomas Moses returned from California on March 2, 1911. The previous year he left Chicago to seek employment there. Of this departure, Moses wrote, “Rupert went to California to work for Shearer, but he was not put on. He went to work for the irrigating company. They treated him better.” At the time, Rupert was 22 years old. He would later enter the theatrical trade with his father, traveling across country and completing various Sosman & Landis projects. Rupert was also an artists and the two would even spend time sketching at the Palette & Chisel club’s Fox Lake camp.

By the fall of 1911 the Moses family began to expand again. In November Moses wrote, “Miss Ula McNeill of Ames, Iowa, Rupert’s best girl, paid us a short visit…She appeared to be a very amiable young woman and we enjoyed meeting her.” The two would be married by 1914 and raised three girls (Evelyn, Doris and Marilyn). As an undergraduate, I met Doris at her farm while accompanying Lance Brockman on a research trip during the early 1990s. After our visit to her farm, we corresponded for a time. Doris described her talented grandfather and her memories of Moses. In 2016, I began corresponding with both of Marilyn’s sons, getting a new sense of Moses’ personality.

Rupert’s family would stay close to Tom and Ella, even living in their Oak Park home, when they went away to Oakland, California. Upon their return, Rupert and his family stayed with other family members in Ames, Iowa. After the stock market crash, however, Rupert’s family permanently resided in the Oak Park home with Tom and Ella. Of this transition, Marilyn wrote, “We weren’t used to having anyone else in the house and neither were my grandparents.” In a full house, the granddaughters would recall being warned against bothering their grandpa when he was painting. Granddaughter Marilyn recalled, “Grandfather had a studio on the third floor of his house. He spent most of his time up there painting.” She continued, “Grandmother tried to ‘protect’ Grandfather from his grandchildren or maybe it was his working time, which was important. I didn’t realize the reasons behind the rules. I would go up to the studio to watch. It was quite exciting to see the sets develop. Grandfather taught me how to make furniture out of cardboard and put me to work. I made tables, chairs and lounges.”

The Moses family home in Oak Park, Illinois.

Marilyn described evening in the Moses home later in lofe, “In home life, dinner was always a party with a lot of conversation about all things going on in everyone’s lives. Conversations would trigger reminiscences and Grandfather would be off on one of his tales of the past.” Moses’ stories even helped the grandchildren out with their homework too. After dinner, the three granddaughters were expected to complete any homework assigned that day. Of her grandfather’s nightly dinner conversation, Marilyn wrote, “He was a good source for material for English compositions. We would take the gist of his stories and develop them in an embellished creation. His life was exciting between his travels and the people he met and associates in connection with his work. Being a stage set designer he met actors and actresses and opera singers. Some we met not through his work but through social contacts and fraternal organizations.”

Each evening ended with Marilyn fetching an apple from the basement cellar for her grandfather to munch on during a game of cards. After he finished his apple, Moses would go to his room and write in his journal.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 783- Thomas G. Moses in the Kilbourn, Wisconsin, 1911

On July 4, 1911, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “Mama and I went to Kilbourn, Wisconsin, to get away from the noise and heat. I think we ran right into it. I have this written up elsewhere.” Moses is referring to his travelogues and their visit to the area now known as the Wisconsin Dells. Many artists and their families escaped the heat of Chicago during the summer, venturing beyond city limits to nearby lake resorts and summer homes. Without any effective way to cool the air in homes or businesses during the early twentieth century, cooler breezes near a lake or river offered much needed relief to those who could afford venturing north. This is one of the reasons that Chicago’s Palette & Chisel Club members established their summer camp near Fox Lake Camp 1906.

Kilbourn, Wisconsin, was due north of Baraboo, home to the Ringling Brothers Circus at the time. Moses repeatedly visited Al Ringling in Baraboo from 1904 until 1915 when he was designing elaborate settings for the Ringlings’ grand circus spectacles. The city of Kilbourn was located in the area, along the Wisconsin River. First identified in public records during 1856, the city named after Byron Kilbourn. Kilbourn was a surveyor, railroad executive, and politician who was also significant in the founding of Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

The town of Kilbourn was an ideal location, the midway point on the railway between Chicago and Minneapolis. It was also a well-known resort area known for the picturesque landscape. In 1875, landscape photographer H. H. Bennett established a studio in the Kilbourn, where he captured the nearby sandstone formations that helped publicize the resort town. He distributed his photographs and stereoscopic cards across the United States, promoting the area as a destination location for sightseers. He also offered souvenir pictures of visitors, and was an ever-increasing asset to the area’s tourist trade. The old H. H. Bennett Studio is now a historic site operated by the Wisconsin Historical Society.

The name of Kilbourn City was officially changed to Wisconsin Dells in 1931. Home to boat tours and a variety of popular amusements, the area continues to attract a mass influx of visitors every year. It is also the home to Tommy Bartlett’s Water Ski & Jumping Boat Thrill Show (est. 1952), later known as the Tommy Bartlett Show. Tourism remains a major contributor to the economy, now advertised as the “Waterpark Capital of the World.”

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar: Part 781 – The Chicago Land Show, 1911

In 1911, Thomas G. Moses wrote, “Lawrence, Kansas, yielded a Masonic job, which meant a lot of work for the Land Show.” Land shows were held for the purpose of exhibiting and explaining the agricultural and other resources of the states with exhibits that included lectures and the distribution of information.

Scenery for Lawrence Scottish Rite was a little free advertising for Sosman & Landis, leading to the Kansas exhibit for the Land Show in Chicago. On Nov. 8, 1911, the “Evening Telegram” reported that Charles I. Zirkle of Topeka was leaving for Chicago to “install the Kansas Land Show exhibit” (Garden City, Kansas, page 3). Later, Zirkle spoke at the “Kansas Realty Men” convention in Topeka, delivering the same daily lecture from the Chicago land show that promoted settlement and travel to the Kansas (Parson Daily Sun, Parsons, Kansas, 29 Dec. 1911, page 4).

In 1911, Land Shows were held in Minneapolis, Houston, Los Angeles, New York, Omaha, Pittsburgh, and Salt Lake City. Of the Land Show in Los Angeles during 1911, the “Los Angeles Times reported, “The big railroad companies interested in the settlement of the West immediately grasped the possibilities of the show and bought space in the Coliseum Building and spent many thousands of dollars in getting together splendid exhibits of fruits, grains and vegetables from districts along their line.” (5 Nov. 1911, page 21). A general sales agent for the Southern Pacific Railroad said, “The big land shows are a wonderful illustration of newspaper initiative and railroad co-operation,” explaining that when the land shows commenced, Chicago was then “the great land distributing center of the country.”

Advertisement for the Omaha Land Show from the “Omaha Daily Bee,” Jan 19, 1911, page 16

Advertisement for the Omaha Land Show from the “Omaha Daily Bee,” Oct 18, 1911

For the Chicago Land Show, the “Chicago Daily Tribune” advertised the event as “the greatest exposition in Chicago since the World’s Fair” in 1893 (Nov. 16, 1911, page 20). The exposition was held in the Chicago Coliseum on Wabash Ave., near 16^th St. and exhibiting space was valued at $47,000 and filled with the finest produce of the land from fifteen states, inviting men and women of Chicago to exchange their steam-heated flats for rural homes.

The Union Pacific Railroad exhibit at the Chicago Coliseum was installed at an expense of $20,000, consisting of three specially prepared rooms and thousands of feet of moving picture films. Of the exhibit, the newspapers described, “Continental moving picture travelogues are to be operated in the rooms, illustrating mining and agricultural industries in the territory through which the railroad furnishes transportation (Nov. 16, 1911, page 20).

Local advertisements urged, “Come down and talk to the men, who like yourself, could not get ahead in the big city and who gave up their jobs, went West and South and are now independent of the landlord.” Each day of the Land Show, one farm was given away to a lucky visitor. Other daily prizes included potatoes; 40,000 of which were distributed on Idaho day at the expense of the state. The State of California shipped in seven carloads of fruit and one carload of violets to be presented to female visitors on California day.

An advertisement for the Chicago Land Show, from the “Chicago Tribune,” Nov. 16, 1911, page 20

The first Land Show was held during 1909. In 1911, it was estimated that $33,000 were spent by the management and exhibitors in decorating the interior of the coliseum, with the entire collection of exhibits valued at $150,000, the spending equivalent of over $4,000,000 today. Of the $150,000 in 1911, $47,000 worth of products was sold during the show, and increase from $34,000 in 1909.

Of the Salt Lake City Exhibits, the “Los Angeles Times” reported, “According to the Salta Lake Tribune, the Commerical Club and the Utah Development Company of Salt Lake are arranging one of the best exhibits that Utah can produce for tge land show here.‘The results of the exhibit sent to the last land show at the Los Angeles were so successful that it is proposed to make the best of this opportunity.’ Says the Tribune. Elaborate and extensive preparations are in progress in Salt Lake City for a series of excursions from the city during the land show, and it is expected that hundeds of members of the Commercial Club and other organizations will come here especially to attend the exposition. General Manager Wilson is in receipt of a letter from Frederick Thompson, scenic artist, who designed Luna Park, Dreamland and A Trip to the Moon at Coney Island, stating that he will submit plans for decorations and entertainment which he expects to surpass anything heretofore attempted in the West” (“Los Angeles Times” 5 Nov. 1911, page 21).

To be continued…