Category: Uncategorized

When I stumbled across the newspaper article where Walter Burridge commented on David A. Strong being the “only survivor of the Düsseldorf School,” I started to wonder what other scenic artists from his era might have been associated with the group. Burridge’s comment was made in 1892, and although the movement was not over, what was considered its “golden age” had certainly passed. I wanted to see if I could find some connections between the Strong’s painted scenes for the theatre and artists from the Düsseldorf movement. As I studied hundreds of works, numerous stage settings came to mind, especially for Scottish Rite degree productions. The rise of this movement occurring during the early development of Masonic degree productions appeared to be a perfect pairing.

The Düsseldorf School referred to a group of painters who either taught or studied at the Düsseldorf Academy (now Düsseldorf State Academy of Art). An extension of the German Romantic movement, it had a significant influence on nineteenth century landscape painting from the 1830s through the 1860s. The artists’ works were characterized by dramatically lit landscapes, often with historical subjects or allegorical stories. What a wonderful foundation for Masonic degree productions and the artists that created the stage settings!

The focal point of their compositions often fell in the middle ground with dark framing masses placed at the sides, using a realistic and detailed treatment for the forms. Roads, trails, streams, and other visual paths also drew one into the composition. I immediately recalled the forest compositions, the Road to Jerusalem, and the bridge scenes. As on the commercial stage, this was a popular method used in many theatrical settings.

Those associated with the Düsseldorf School also supported plein air painting, where you leave the four walls of your studio and work from nature. This remained a continued practice for many artists, including Thomas G. Moses and his contemporaries. I thought back to his numerous sketching trips where he sat in meadows, rocky mountain landscapes, and beside babbling brooks, to not only capture the beauty of nature for his future fine art works, but also record these same subjects for his future stage compositions. Moses’ trips to the Catskills, Colorado, New Mexico, California, Canadian Rockies, and many other picturesque locations were all incorporated into his small-scale and large-scale artworks.

When the Düsseldorf School was under the direction of Friedrich Wilhelm Schadow (1789-1862) from 1826-1859, many American painters flocked to the school during this time. The methods taught there were spread to many other academies throughout Germany and other countries. Those connected to this artistic movement would also have a significant influence on the later Hudson River School artists of the United States. For more information about this school within an international context from romanticism to impressionism, please see “The Düsseldorf School of painting and Its International Influence 1819-1918” (Bettina Baumgärtel, Editor, 2012).

In looking back at some of the Scottish Rite compositions, such as the rocky seacoast, they are extremely reminiscent of both the Düsseldorf and Hudson River artists. The compositions remain basically the same, but the painting of the scene by the same hand at the Austin Scottish Rite, Fargo Scottish Rite, Salina Scottish Rite, Winona Scottish Rite and some others are truly unique. I believe that they are all the work of Strong.

There is a distinct departure from this “Düsseldorf approach” post-1911 as depicted in the setting for the Grand Forks Scottish Rite.

The Austin (original Guthrie scenery 1900), Salina (1901), Fargo (1903), and Winona (1909) settings have what Burridge suggested of Strong’s work as the only survivor of the Düsseldorf school with “the quality of opaqueness peculiar to his school.” I believe that the “opaqueness” referred to is the dark framing masses that make the middle for he composition glow, especially effective in the rocky seascapes. There is an underlying depth and rich quality to the masses. When compared with similar compositions across the country manufactured by Sosman & Landis studio artists after Strong’s passing, there is a much more even distribution of values throughout the seascape, even on the rocky shores.

To be continued…

When I look at the key figures, such as David Austin Strong, in the development of Masonic theaters, I always return to the same thought: the system worked extremely well for the unskilled – the Masons. Did the development of the design also take this factor into consideration, or was it all a happy coincidence? Handling scenery in commercial houses was complicated and needed a specific skill set. Installing rigging systems for fraternal theaters required extensive knowledge in the stage machinery, painted illusion, and stage work. Once properly installed, the raising and lowering of dedicated lines, did not.

Being able to sell and install more scenery due to closely spaced lines also contributed to the evolution of Masonic stages as lines were often spaced 2” to 4” apart. However, the lines would still be handled by unskilled labor. The Masonic stagehands would be businessmen, farmers, ranchers, and others who had never stepped foot on the stage, let alone examined the rigging that raised and lowered painted scenery.

Suddenly, there was a group of unskilled stagehands handling the scenes for Masonic degree productions. This was a secret society and a unique situation where trained individuals could not simply be hired to run the show. Therefore, the system of scenic mechanics for degree production needed to accommodate the unskilled. Again, the installation of a counterweight system is complicated, but the running of dedicated line sets is easy. Some lines that I have handled were weighted so well that I could lift a line no effort whatsoever.

Thomas Moses credits David A. Strong as being the “Daddy” of Masonic design. Up until recently, I had believed that his comment primarily indicated the design and painting of compositions for the earliest fraternal stages. I now wonder if he wasn’t referring to the new scenic mechanics for the stage that Rick Boychuk covers in his book “Nobody Looks Up.” Strong was intimately familiar with the transition scenes used in east coast theatre, especially New York City. He brought this knowledge to the theatre and scenic studio in Chicago. He was in New York when the Theatrical Mechanics Association was formed and there when it arrived in Chicago. He was at Sosman & Landis, one of the earliest studios to create Scottish Rite scenery.

Instead of Strong being solely a scenic artist, what if he was really a stage machinist who could paint extremely well? Is it possible that he developed the Scottish Rite installations with the stage machinist Charles S. King, another Sosman & Landis employee? Think of those unique individuals who can create new technology and skillfully communicate their ideas to others, and then create art? Maybe Strong was equally equipped to design both the stage mechanics for Scottish Rite theatres as well as the painted compositions, but was best used in the studio as a scenic artist.

Then there is another factor to consider: Strong’s familiarity with the Fraternity. He had been a Mason since 1852, living in both the fraternal and theatrical worlds.

To be continued…

While researching the scenic artist David A. Strong (1830-1911), I stumbled across his membership in the Theatrical Mechanics Association (TMA) during 1891. Strong was an employee of Sosman & Landis and Haverly’s Theatre and credited by Thomas G. Moses as the “Daddy”of Masonic design. He became a Mason in New Haven Connecticut during 1852 and joined the Chicago Scottish Rite in 1876. I recently read an article noting Strong’s attendance at a TMA meeting in 1891. If you recall, Strong was one of the original artists for the 1866 production of “the Black Crook.”

Intrigued with his involvement in a theatrical mechanics group, I carefully examined the article and was surprised to discover a recount of the association’s New York origins in 1866. I thought of those working on the various “Black Crook” transformation scenes that same year.

The July 27, 1891 issue of Chicago’s “The Daily Inter Ocean” newspaper (page 2) noted that Chicago Lodge No. 4 (of the TMA) had a recent meeting where they appointed a reception committee for the TMA, including Strong. Chicago Lodge No. 4 was organized on April 16, 1884 and its first President was John Barstow (stage carpenter at McVicker’s Theatre). The first meeting was at the Grand Opera House and some seventy-five names were enrolled as charter members. Certificates of organization were filed with Barstow, John E. Williams, and Frank F. Goss as organizers and first directors.

Now the Theatrical Mechanics Association was new to me. I had only researched the Protective Alliance of Scene Painters of America (est. 1895). For the TMA in 1891, it listed that there were 78 members and 28 lodges in attendance at the Chicago convention, including Chicago Lodge No. 4 members James Quigly, John Bairstow (Bartstow) William Faber, Thomas McGann, John Foust, Frank Faber, L. B. Savage, F. V. Sauter (became a Scottish Rite Mason in 1892), David A. Strong (became a Scottish Rite Mason in 1876), Frank A Lathrop, and Wallace Blanchard (became a Scottish Rite Mason in 1899). After the morning session at the convention, the committee “took forcible possession of the conference.” The main topic of their discussion was the World’s Fair plans.

Later, the Grand Master James McCurdy spoke at the convention and recalled the New York origin in 1866. McCurdy was recognized in the article as being connected “with nearly every theatre of prominence in the East” and also one of the charter members. The organization first met with not only managers from the houses but also men working as mechanics. The initial membership in sixteen rapidly increased to thirty in their first year. The TMA motto was “Charity, Benevolence, and Fidelity.” By 1891, the membership in New York membership was 250 with a nationwide membership of 2,300. Wow!

A second lodge was organized in Boston and then Philadelphia “fell into line.” By 1891 they had already paid out $6,000 in benevolent purposes. The 1891 article continued to note, “Perhaps the public does not know it, but it is a fact that the theatrical mechanics deserve as much credit for a successful performance as the actors themselves. If one will only stop to think of the improvements that have been made in the last few years, the worth of the mechanic must be recognized. The ugly, heavy, and unweilding scenery which twenty years ago littered up the stage has given place to scenery that is the work of artists and that is handled by skilled mechanics. No longer are there dreary waits between acts. All this was accomplished, and much of it due to the association, by means of which have been given and taken.”

To be continued…

Part 124: Memories of Malmsha

When Malmsha passed away, scenic artists from across the country bemoaned the loss of his painting skills for the stage. Although he died in Chicago, the New York Times on 21 October, 1882 (page 4) published comments by a fellow artist, “Mr. David A. Strong, scenic artist at Haverly’s theatre, says that Mr. Malmsha, as a scenic artist, had no superiors and only two equals in the country – Marston and Roberts.” Remember, Strong was credited by Moses as the “Daddy” of Masonic stage design in his typed memoirs (see previous installment #65). He was a well-recognized artist himself and one of the original artists for the 1866 production of “The Black Crook” at Niblo’s Garden. The two artists that Moses credits Malmsha as the only two equals are Richard Marston (1842-1917) of New York and David Roberts (1796-1864), the famous English artist and scene painter.

Henry C. Tryon also wrote a tribute to Malmsha that appeared in the Salt Lake City Herald on October 22, 1882. Tryon was born in Chicago in 1847.  At the age of seventeen, he enlisted in the army in a regiment attached to the Second Army Corps, Army of the Potomac, serving until the close of the Civil War. He later became a student at the Pennsylvania Academy of Design, intending to become a landscape painter and was a pupil of Thomas Moran and William Hart. Tryon work with Malmsha at Wood’s Theatre in Cincinnati and later at McVicker’s Theatre in Chicago.

The title of Tryon’s article was “Louis Malmsha. A Tribute to the Great Scenic Artist.” Here is the article in its entirety:

“Editors Herald: Malmsha scenic artist of McVickers Theatre, Chicago, reputed the best in his profession, died last night. The above appears in the Associated Press reports in the morning papers.

As an humble follower, ardent admirer, friend, and confrere of this dead artist I felt it my duty to render tribute and homage to his transcendent genius. He was “the best in the profession.” Every artist who has seen his work has without qualification given him this position as a matter of simple fact. I have seen samples from the hands of the best scenic artists in England, France, and Italy, and from what I have seen and learned. I am convinced that Mr. Malmsha was the greatest scenic painter in the world. His identity appeared to be unbounded. The most familiar with his work could not guess how he would paint next. Week after week and year after year his productions were a constant succession of surprises. He was entirely an artist, and used none but purely art means to accomplish even a mechanical object. His compositions (the motive of which was ever noble and elevated) were entirely original, and were produced with astonishing rapidity. He united power and strength with the sweetest, tenderest delicacy, dignity with grace, sublimity with loveliness. I have yet to see in American any art example which manifest the wealth of genius that this man proved that he possessed. I am quite certain that had he turned his attention to the painting of pictures, that he would have ranked as the greatest artist that our country has ever produced, for his genius was certainly preeminent. His position in his profession was an isolated one. He had no peers. His place, vacant now, there is none can fill. We have great artists among our scene painters, but no Malmsha; just as there was but one Charlotte Cushman among many great actors.

Mr. Louis Malmsha commenced his career as a scenic artist at Crosby’s opera house, Chicago, in 1865. He was then a mere boy, and while working in the auditorium under the employ of a fresco painter, he saw the scenic artist painting the scenery for the stage. He became so infatuated with this (to him) new art, that he could not be kept at his work, spending all of his time from his employers. From this time forth fresco painting was distasteful to him, and he accompanied the artist to New York. He there improved his advantages to such a degree that in a few years he was the peer of the best of his brother artists.

He returned to Crosby’s Opera House about the year 1869, producing “Hammersmith Bridge” and an English boat race at Putney. This scene astonished Chicago –(no easy matter) as it was the finest of the kind that had ever been painted there. He remained at Crosby’s for several months, until engaged by Mr. McVicker to paint the entire stock of his rebuilt theatre. (It was by the study of his beautiful work at this time that I drew my own first impressions of the possibilities of scenic art.) He remained at Mr. McVicker’s until the destruction of the theatre by the great fire in 1871.

The following fall and winter he was engaged at Woods’ theatre, Cincinnati, returning the next summer to Chicago to paint scenery for Aiken’s Theatre and for Myers’ Opera House.

His drop curtain at Aiken’s Theatre (Dearborn Theatre) was undoubtedly the finest and most artistic of any in the country. He then left Chicago for a year or more returning to McVicker’s theatre where he remained until the time of his death.

Such is the brief career of this brilliant young man. He was (I judge about) 37 years of age. For the past ten or twelve years he had been afflicted with consumption so that it was difficult for him to exert himself violently or to do more that two or three hours a day, but as he was for the past few months required to do none but purely artwork, other artists doing all of the preliminary work possible to make his labor easier, he was enabled, no doubt up to a recent period to astonish and delight the audiences at McVicker’s with the exhibition of phenomenal genius. He will be sadly missed in Chicago, and now that he is dead the general public will join the artists in appreciating as he deserved to have been appreciated during his life.”

 

To be continued…

Thomas Moses was initially exposed to the world of scenic art through the painting of Charles S. Graham. However, scenic art skills were introduced to him while working as an assistant to Lou Malmsha (1847-1882). Malmsha was the head designer at Jevne & Almini, having worked for the company since 1863.

In Moses’ typed manuscript, he commented on his work for Malmsha at the decorating firm, writing, “He had a number of small panels to paint on paper which were afterwards pasted onto the ceiling. I was certainly very fortunate, being to green to be fresh in my work. I was soon working on portions of his work.” It was Malmsha’s after hours work at McVicker’s Theatre that provided Thomas G. Moses with his first scene painting opportunity.

McVicker’s Theater was built by James Hubert McVicker and opened On November 5, 1857. It was remodeled in 1864 at a cost of $90,000 and destroyed in the great 1871 fire.

McVicker’s rebuilt the building at a cost of $200,000 and reopened on August 15, 1872.

In 1883, the building Adler & Sullivan remodeled McVicker’s Theatre at a cost of $145,000, then again destroyed by fire on August 26, 1890. What is interesting to note is some of the technical specifications and information published in “Harry Miner’s Theatrical Guide” from 1884-1885. Rick Boychuk pointed this out the other day. At that time J. H. McVicker was still the manager. The scenic artist was Malmsha’s previous partner, J. H. Rogers and the stage carpenter was John Bairstow (also listed as John Barstow).

For a third time, McVicker’s Theatre was rebuilt and reopened on March 31, 1892. McVicker died in 1896 and his widow assumed management until she sold the theater to Jacob Litt in 1898, for a term of ten years. The building was demolished in 1922 and again rebuilt. The last McVicker’s Theatre was owned by the Balaban & Katz theater chain and was demolished in 1985.

Much of Malmsha’s history was published at the time of his death in the Inter Ocean from Chicago, Illinois (Saturday, October 21, 1882). The obituary noted that C. Louis Malmsha, the noted scenic painter of McVicker’s Theater, died at his residence on Thursday evening. Mr. Malmsha was suddenly seized with hemorrhage while at work on a watercolor at his home that evening and died before his wife could reach him from an adjoining room. This an other newspapers note that Malmsha “was ranked next to Marston of the Union Square Theatre.”

Born in Goetenburg, Sweden during 1847, he was only 35 years old at the time of his death. The Inter Ocean article notes that from an early age, Malmsha demonstrated a strong talent for painting, immigrating to America at he age of sixteen in 1863. He initially found employment with Jevne & Almini fresco painters in this city, but soon became interested in painting for the stage and assisted Mr. Arragon at Crosby’s Opera House.

In 1866 Malmsha went to New York where he executed the first scene for “The Black Crook.” In New York he also was engaged multiple times at the Union Square Theatre, as well as Dan Bryant’s Old Hall on 23^rd Street and Kelly and Leon’s Minstrels. Leaving New York, Malmsha traveled through the country with fellow artist Barney MaCauley of Cincinnati. In September 1871, he returned to Chicago and began working at McVicker’s with J. Howard Rogers, who had already been there for twelve years. A few weeks into this job, the great fire of 1871 occurred and Malmsha returned to Cincinnati.

Returning to Chicago in 1874 he began working at McVicker’s and remained there until his death. It was noted that he ignored the advice of his physicians to “seek a more salubrious climate,” and remained in Chicago to continue his art. He was widely known for his exterior scenes at McVicker’s, including those for “Little Innocents” (1877), “After Dark” (1878), and “The Parson” (1880). It was when Malmsha returned from New York to work at McVicker’s Theatre that Moses began as his assistant.

In 1878 he ventured north to St. Paul, Minnesota, and painted the scenery for the Opera House. He possibly would have met Peter Gui Clausen at Jevne & Almini in 1866 before he departed to New York. Clausen also worked at the Opera House in St. Paul. He and Clausen’s paths might have crossed in the Twin Cities, if they did actually work on the job together.

To be continued…

I first encountered the Jevne & Almini Company when creating an index for the typed manuscript of Thomas Gibbs Moses. It was an independent study project for my mentor, Lance Brockman. This decorating firm would remain in the back of my mind for almost three decades until I started making a few connections during January 2017. Moses was one of many nineteenth-century scenic artists who would begin their careers at the fresco studio of Jevne & Almini.

While working as a decorator for the company, Moses recalled a project at Hooleys Theater where he first encountered the scenic art of Charles Graham (1852-1911). In 1874. Moses wrote, “In June I was sent to Hooleys Theatre to work. On the scenery [were] employed J. Francis Murphy and Chas. Graham. I was put in charge of the proscenium boxes, mostly gilding. I could see the work being done on the paint frame. I was more convinced that scenery was what I wanted to do; more opportunity to do landscapes.”

Hooley’s Opera House, the Parlor of Home Comedy, was dedicated on 21 October 1872 and later became known simply as Hooley’s Theater (1872-1924). Located at 124 West Randolph Street, the cut stone and iron building occupied twenty-three feet of street frontage.

The auditorium had a seating capacity of 1,500 and the stage was 50 feet wide and 65 feet deep. Mr. Hooley and his stock company first appeared on Monday evening, 31 August 1874. This upcoming performance was why an eighteen-year-old Moses was working at the theater that June.

Charles S. Graham (1852-1911) was born in Rock Island, Illinois. He became a topographer in 1873 for the Northern Pacific Railroad and it was this position became his training ground as a draftsman and artist. However from 1874 to 1877, Graham painted theatrical scenery in both Chicago and New York. It just so happened that it was on one of his first scenic art jobs that Moses encountered his scenery painting. By 1878, Graham started as the staff artist at Harper’s Weekly and remained there until 1892. He was also a contributing illustrator for a variety of other publications, including the New York Herald, the Chicago Tribune, the American Lithograph Company, and Collier’s. The work of Graham is best known in the publication “Peristyle and Plasaisance” where he created a series of watercolors depicting scenes from the 1893 Chicago world’s fair. Advertisements stated that the illustrations illustrated “nooks and corners of the Fair as no photograph could do.”

Amazingly, it was one of Graham’s 1878 illustrations for Harper’s that caught my eye years ago as it beautifully captured scenic artists at work in a theater.

It was created for “The Sunday Telegraph” (New York, September 28, 1902) and titled “The Scene Painter is No Ghost.” Here is the article that accompanied Graham’s illustration:

“How many theatregoers can give the names of three scene painters in New York? Playhouse patrons admire their art, and even applaud it on opening night, but they know nothing about it, and it is a most unusual occasion when the artist is called before the curtain. He is not discussed at clubs or in the drawing rooms. The cheapest show girl in a Broadway burlesque, with just about brains enough to remember he name over night, gets her picture in the magazines several times in the course of a season and is written about as if she really was of some importance.

Up on the paint bridge, seventy feet above her head, is the scene painter. He is putting the finishing touches to a drop that has taken him many days to paint and more years of hard study to learn how. The press agent never worries him for his photograph, the dramatic reporters couldn’t find him if they went back on stage. The show is over, the lights are put out and a deathly stillness settles upon the theatre. The watchman lazily makes his rounds and finds the scenic artist and his assistants at work finishing a drop or a border or priming new ones. When the artist leaves the theatre the streets are still. He reaches home and over his pipe wonders if the game is worth the candle.”

To be continued…

Drapery painting for the theater has a long tradition dating back centuries. Many of the earliest examples depict the same techniques practiced by early-twentieth century artists. It is part of a painting tradition that creates a composition to be viewed from a distance. The three-color painting techniques described in the past two installments to depict drapery for the stage were not only used in eighteenth century painted curtains and scenery for court theaters, but also in ceiling frescoes. Murals placed high above used the same techniques that early-twentieth century scenic artists also would produce for the stage. There remained the separation of color and value that allowed the eye to complete the illusion, making these painted compositions extremely successful when viewed from a distance.

The similarities were not coincidental as many scenic artists found early work and training in fresco studios. As I began compiling a database on North American scenic artists this past fall, I repeatedly encountered nineteenth century scenic artists who began their careers at fresco studios. I had started explored the connection between theatre decorators and scenic artists while touring Europe last year; large-scale paintings intended to be viewed from a distance followed many of the same rules that scenic artists used in terms of value and technique. One decorating studio that provided a start for many nineteenth century scenic artists was the Chicago-based firm of Jevne & Almini. Founded by Peter Magnus Almini (1825-1890) and Otto Jevne (1823-1905) in 1853 many theatre artists and recent immigrants found work in their studio.

Jevne was born near Lillehammer, Norway, and learned the trade there as a fresco painter. He had a variety of skills in both stained glass and fresco work. In 1872, he applied for a patent concerning the improvement in lath-and-plaster walls and ceilings. The invention related to a novel form of wooden lath and “the combination therewith of plaster in such a manner that the wall or ceiling may be made of much thinner and lighter, and at he same time have a firmer texture and be less liable to exhibit the lines or strains caused by lath over time in common walls and ceilings” (US Patent 124,138).

Almini was born in Linderås, Småland, Sweden, and learned his painter’s trade in Eksjö, working his trade in Russia and Finland. For six years, Almini lived in Stockholm and was the assistant superintendent in the decorating of the royal palace.

The two immigrated to the United States around during the early 1850s. What they created for many public spaces, Americans gazed at in wonder. In I. D. Guyer’s 1862,“History of Chicago; Its Commercial and Manufacturing Interests and Industry; Together with Sketches of Manufacturers and Men Who Have Most Contributed to Its Prosperity and Advancement with Glances at Some of the Best Hotels; also the Principal Railroads which Center in Chicago,” the firm of Jevne & Almini is highlighted in the chapter “Interior Decorations.” The publication states that Jevne and Almini had “inculcated and infused a higher level of Fresco Painting” in the city since 1853. The firm is credited with decorating the Crosby Opera House, the Sherman House, the Chicago Chamber of Commerce, Trinity Church, First Presbyterian, Wabash Avenue Methodist Church, and many State Capitol buildings that included Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, and Wisconsin. They also were involved in the decoration of many early Masonic Halls, including those in the American Express Building.

Jevne & Amini were not simply known for their plaster innovations and decorative painting skills. The two were also quite infamous as publishers, printing a journal devoted to art and architecture titled “Chicago Illustrated.”

In 1865, Jevne & Almini joined with Louis Kurtz to form the Chicago Lithographing Co. Kurtz drew the prints for one of the company’s portfolios, titled “Chicago Illustrated.” Their portfolios are some of visual records depicting life in this bustling city before the fire of 1871. They had a winning talent for not only printing descriptive lithography of landscapes, architecture and cityscapes, but also printed letterheads, cards, bonds, and checks.

Kurtz (born Ludovicus Ferdinandus Josephus Kurtz von Goldenstein) had previously gained recognition in Milwaukee as a scenic artist at his father’s German-language theatre. Moving to Chicago in 1864, he produced some of the stage designs for McVicker’s Theatre and Crosby’s Opera House.

It was his work at Crosby’s that introduced him to Jevne and Almini as they had decorated the building. This trio later added Otto Knirsch and Edward Carqueville to their ranks at Chicago Lithographing Co. Knirsch and Carqueville had previously worked at the Edward Mendel and Currier & Ives firms.

Many visual artists for the theatre found their initial vocation as illustrators, draftsmen, and decorators. Jevne & Almini was the perfect firm to expose artists to a variety projects and unique skill sets. As previously discussed, scenic artists often worked for a variety of venues during the nineteenth century, not just the theatre. They found work wherever they travelled whether it was illustration, drafting, sign painting, interior decoration, or stage scenery. Additionally, Jevne & Almini advertised as “dealers in artists’ and painters’ materials, oil paintings, steel engravings, chromo lithographs, &c.”

They are credited with establishing the first art gallery in Chicago. This would be the forerunner to the Academy of Fine Arts (1879-1882), later the Art Institute of Chicago.

After the 1871 fire, Jevne and Almini separated, each going their own way and founding new companies: Otto Jevne & Co., 226 E. Washington Street and P. M. Almini & Co., 344 State Street.   Whether together or apart, their contributions as two of the leading figures in Chicago’s art scene and businessmen paved the road for many future immigrants working in the city.  Of special note is the assistance that Almini provided to fellow artists as a member of the Academy of Design and vice-president of the Master-Painters and Decorator’s Association of Chicago and the treasurer of the National Association of Painters and Decorators when they were founded. As many other artists, he studied ancient and modern art, always sketching for study and leisure. He was also one of the charter members of the Svea Society, organized in 1857. Interestingly, Almini also became a Mason, belonging to both the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite and the Ancient Arabic Order of the Noble Mystic Shrine.

To be continued…

Frank Atkinson described the painting techniques for shiny fabrics, noting that the configuration of the folds was of lesser importance to the reflective quality. He writes, “Thus satin, with its large, sufficiently remarkable folds, is distinguished still more by its singular brilliancy and the beauty of its reflection.”

In other words, the brush strokes that denote the final highlights are of the utmost importance for reflective fabric. As previously discussed for dull materials, the shape of the fold and suggestion of texture was paramount. This was not necessarily the case with shiny fabric where the placement of the highlight becomes crucial. A good example of this technique is depicted in the front curtain for the Masonic Theater in Grand Forks, North Dakota.

The painted front curtain’s highlights are indicative of the specific fabric. Interestingly, the lightest color does not simply follow the fold but frequently crosses it, catching the light.

This light color may be placed as jagged lines, some even placed at an angle across the fold. It is the placement that creates visual interest and suggests the reflective characteristics of the material. Furthermore, the painting of gathered, or Austrian draperies, also use an interesting highlight at the seam. In some cases, the highlights are painted in loops that indicate the puckering along the gathered line.

It is this particular application of highlight that allows the audience to immediately identify the fabric and understand its unique characteristics.

This now brings us to the patterns placed on either dull of shiny draperies. There is also process to create pattern on ornamental decoration on draperies. Many painted curtains with incredibly complex patterns do not necessarily alter the shape as they cross the deep recesses and peaks for each fold. Simple shapes need to follow the shape of the fabric whereas complex designs do not. For a standard stripe, the scenic artist will carefully follow the curvature of the material, reinforcing each rise and fall.

If the print is complex, one only needs to accentuate the highlight. For the painting of complex patterns of draperies, a stencil could be applied over the entire area of the fabric drape; it does not have to conform to the shape of each fold. Placing the appropriate highlights and shadows on the pattern allows the eye to successfully translate the overall appearance from a distance. It will appear as though the pattern is moving with each fold, even though it doesn’t. This is the same approach as with the broken lines that visually tie it all together.

To be continued…