Category: Uncategorized

Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

When scenic artist C. Louis Malmsha (18 Aug. 1845- 19 October 1882) passed away, the American theatre industry mourned his loss. At the time of his passing, this Swedish-American was principal artist at McVicker’s Theatre in Chicago. Malmsha died at his residence on October 19, 1882, suddenly seized with hemorrhage while painting at his home. He passed before his wife could reach him from the adjoining room (Inter Ocean, 21 October 1882).  There is a monument to Malmsha in Stoughton, Wisconsin, at  Riverside Cemetery, “erected by his Wife and his Friends.” We are six days away from the anniversary of his passing, and I leave in about an hour to drive to Wisconsin. I will be only thirty minutes away from his gravesite and am compelled to try and visit.  

Henry C. Tryon, worked closely with Malmsha and wrote a tribute to his friend that appeared in the “Salt Lake City Herald” on October 22, 1882. As I am in the midst of examining the writings of Tryon this week, it seems like a perfect time to include his tribute to Malmsha.

Tryon worked 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.” Although I published this article years ago, I am reposting it today.  There are a few reasons for my choice today. First, we are coming up on the anniversary of Malmsha’s death and it is a fitting memorial.  Secondly, the article also provides insight into the life and career of Tryon, his friendship and loyalty. In light of Tryon’s 1883 article that I posted yesterday about his perception of art, it seems fitting to include an article by Tryon and his characterization of Malmsha who he deemed, “…entirely an artist, and used none but purely art means to accomplish even a mechanical object.”  Those who we respect and remember are a direct reflection on our own character.

Here is Tryon’s 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.

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.”

On October, 21, 1882, the “New York Times” published comments about Malmsha by David A. Strong. Strong worked at Sosman and Landis and was credited as the “Daddy of Masonic Design” there by Thomas G. Moses.

The “Inter Ocean” published:

“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” (page 4). The two artists that Strong stated as “equals” were Richard Marston (1842-1917) of New York and David Roberts (1796-1864), the well-known English artist and scene painter.  Strong was a well-established and well-known scenic artist in both New York and Chicago. He is credited with one of the scenes for the original “The Black Crook” production at Niblo’s Garden in 1866. Malmsha also painted some of the first scenery for “The Black Crook” (Inter Ocean, 21 Oct 1882, page 4).

For some additional perspective, Thomas G. Moses (1856-1934)  began his scenic art career as an assistant to Lou Malmsha. Malmsha was the head designer at Jevne & Almini, the fresco painters. The firm offered Malmsha his first job when he arrived in America (Inter Ocean, 21 October 1882, page 4). Both Moses and Malmsha were introduced to scenic art while working as decorative artist for Jevne & Almini. In Moses’ typed manuscript, he commented on his work for Malmsha there, 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.”

Eventually, it was Malmsha’s after-hours work at McVicker’s Theatre that provided Thomas G. Moses with his first opportunity to paint scenery. 

To be continued…

Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

Henry C. Tryon was a friend and colleague of Thomas G. Moses. During the early 1880s Tryon was working in the western states as a scenic artist for the Tabor Grand Opera House in Denver, Colorado, and the Salt Lake Theatre in Salt Lake City, Utah. In 1884, Tryon returned to Chicago for a year, working alongside Moses at Sosman & Landis Studio on Clinton Street. The two would even take a sketching trip to West Virginia in 1885.

There are many reasons why Tryon was considered an asset to any studio. As a skilled scenic artist, he was well-versed in painting Masonic scenery, having delivered two collections to the Indianapolis Scottish Rite from the onset of their staged degree work. He entered the Masonic scenery scene at a time when scenic studios were starting to identify this new and lucrative client. He also came with connections to theatre managers and artists across the country. Well-known scenic artists on staff helped studios secure contracts.

However, Tryon was considered a fine artist, as well as a trade artist. This would prove to be a challenge for any employer, as profit margins were not always first and foremost in an artist’s mind when creating a masterpiece. As Tryon wrote in 1883, “The true artist will approach nature with awe, reverence and fear. It is audacious of him to attempt to represent with pigments his feeble thoughts.” This would have been difficult to do when painting an exterior scene in a shop with an imposing deadline.

Tryon published his thoughts about art in a “Deseret News” article in 1883 (Salt Lake City, Utah, 9 Feb 1883, page 3). It provides a little insight into this interesting character whom Moses described as “clever, but awfully eccentric.”

Here is Tryon’s 1883 article in its entirety:

“Bright Beams

Artistic Flashes From the Pen of H. C. Tryon

Some time since we published a few flashes from the artistic mind of Mr. H. C. Tryon, scenic artist of the Salt Lake Theatre. We understand that they many of our readers perused them with pleasure. We present another collection of intellectual gems form the same source:

“The higher order of true genius usually manifests itself in the child. It is developed in the man. “Art is long and time is fleeting.” The world’s greatest artists are old men, and with all their power of genius it has required the study and experience of a long lifetime to develop the possibilities. As a rule the artist who early develops his genius never reaches a very exalted position. His precocity promises great results in the future, but they are seldom realized. If we build a pyramid of sand, the height we can reach is proportionate to the width of the base. If that be narrow the pyramid, is soon erected, but it cannot reach a great height. It is so with the human mind. If it is not wide, deep and comprehensive, it cannot rise to great heights or accomplish really great things. What we understand by the title a “smart man” is never a great one.

The true artist will approach nature with awe, reverence and fear. It is audacious of him to attempt to represent with pigments his feeble thoughts. But he cannot help but to symbolize the love and awe which nature impresses on every sensitive soul. He cannot have out door nature in his dwelling, so its counterfeit must suffice him there, but he will forget, when he approaches her, all ideas of egotism and proceed to his task with veneration. “Take the shoes from off thy feet, for the ground whereon thou standest is holy ground.” The simplest object in nature is a thousand times more beautiful than he van paint it. The most common weed he cannot imitate. The stagnant water by the roadside is palpitating with the most exquisite hues.  The pure ethereal blue and the clear brilliant amber he can merely suggest with his crude pigments. But when nature pours its flood of brilliant sunshine over the face of all the landscape, lighting up with its Master Artist’s touch each point of sublimity and beauty, arising out from the delicious mystery of its veils of transparency, glittering gems in the rivulets sparkling among the streaming silver; the grand infinitude of interest bewildering even in its detail, massed and thrown together with such power, such delicate art. Think of the beauty of a leaf of a twig, of a cloud, of any object which is purely nature’s. Think of all this design, this loveliness, multiplied into infinity, and arranged with nature’s matchless art, and then think of man in his puny efforts to get this on canvas.

How poor and pitiful must be the work on the grandest mind in competition! How small a thing an artist seems to himself when he throws aside his vanity and tries to catch some inspiration from nature’s art! I think if we could at all times have nature’s grandest work before us, that no true artist would dare copy her. Whoever saw a real artist that was not ashamed to have you look over his shoulder while sketching outdoor nature? He knows he is guilty of an impertinence, yet cannot help it. He must try. He must study her, he must adore her, and he must realize the pain and humiliation of feeling, how poor are the powers of the human mind. But when he gets that same sketch in his studio, how vain he is, where he has not nature present to show him his feebleness.

The artist should never let sentiment run away with him. He should consider every poetic and sentimental thought to be precious to him and to the world, and use it legitimately on his canvas, never forgetting that this is a practical world, and that tangible and practical means are the only ones that can disseminate sublime and beautiful thought. Is not Shakespeare an example of proof? He put his grand poetic thought into his plays. He did not waste it among the low associates whom he seemed to prefer as companions. I cannot help thinking that if artists would be more practical in their ordinary lives, and more poetic on canvas their influence (being better directed) would be far greater.

Do not sacrifice a grand object for a petty one. It is of greater importance that the graceful, wide spreading undulating infinitude of glittering, twinkling foliage of that grand old elms, be fitly expressed, than that bird’s nest be given conspicuous and undue prominence among the boughs. You did not see it until it was pointed out to you. Nature did not intend that you should see it, still less that you should sacrifice that tree for it. The bird knows where it is; that is enough. Nature intended that you should see the tree. When you paint a tree, paint a tree and paint the nest some other time; but then don’t want the tree. Don’t falsify nature by attempting, with your petty vanity, to improve upon her work. You will fail, because nature as an artist is pre-eminently superior to you.”

To be continued…

Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

Yesterday, I started exploring the life and career of scenic artist H. E. Burckey. Remnants of Burckey’s painting still exist at the Tabor Opera House in Leadville Colorado. In 1890, Burckey painted eight jungle wings constructed by William J. Moon for the venue. Burckey was a scenic artist who grew up and entered the theatre industry in Chicago.

By the age of eighteen, Henry E. Burckey was listed as “scenic artist” in the 1875 Chicago Directory, living at 83 S. Halsted. Little is published of Burckey’s early career, but in 1879 he was credited as the sole artist for “Queen’s Evidence,” playing at Hamlin’s Theatre. The show starred Geo. C. Boniface and advertisements reported, “Every scenic in this play will be entirely new and painted by Henry Burcky” (Chicago Tribune, 14 Dec. 1879, page 16). Five months later, Burckey was credited as the scenic artist for a charity event that included a production of “The Frog Opera.” The “Chicago Tribune” reported,  “This novel extravaganza, which has recently been given in New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore and other cities, will be brought out at the Central Music-Hall on Tuesday and Thursday evening s and Wednesday afternoon this week, for the benefit of the Nursery and Half-Orphan Asylum. Among the cast and chorus of frogs are some of the best actors in the Farragut Boat Club. Special scenery, representing the swamp in the earlier part of the piece, and the old mill in the last act, is being painted by Burkey, the scenic artist. As its title indicates, the Frog Opera is purely an extravaganza, and, with considerable continuity of plot, it describes the wooing on Prince Frog and his experiences with Simple Simon, Baron Rat, Sir Thomas Cat, Baroness Rat, etc. The costumes are made after designs by Mark Waterman, the Boston artist, and are said to be unusually effective” (“Chicago Tribune, 16 May 1880, page 11). His career was on an upward swing, bringing him into contact with other scenic artists, such as Henry C. Tryon who worked at McVicker’s Theatre.

By 1881, Burckey partnered with Tryon, and the two ventured south to paint scenery for the Cincinnati Opera Festival. Their work was very well received, and their departure even made headlines.  The “Cincinnati Enquirer” reported, “Messrs. Burcky and Tryon, the distinguished artists who painted part of the scenery for the Opera Festival, are delighted with Cincinnati; say they were never treated so kindly, and never had so much appreciation shown them. They will probably leave for Chicago this week” (4 March 1881, page 5). Burckey, like most scenic artists of his generation, would travel to secure work. This was often in addition to holding down a seasonal theatre gig.

Western theaters offered wonderful opportunities for artists young and old alike. Soon, Burckey and Tryon two headed west, making a name for themselves in Colorado. In 1882, Tryon settled in Denver and was associated with H. A. W. Tabor’s second theater, the Tabor Opera Grand House. Built only a few years after the Tabor Opera House in Leadville, the Tabor Grand was a massive undertaking. By 1884, Burcky was listed as the scenic artist for the venue. Although Burckey was still listed in Chicago directories throughout the 1880s, he was building a good reputation as quite an accomplished artist. Although Burcky was now listed as the Tabor Grand’s scenic artist, he continued to paint for touring productions and other Chicago shows. The train ride from Chicago to Denver was only a day away, 17 hours and five minutes; a short jaunt with only one overnight. Similarly, Denver to Salt Lake City was only a fifteen-hour trip, explaining the ease of Henry C. Tryon working at both the Tabor Grand Opera House and Salta Lake Theatre during the early 1880s. Rail travel made it possible for scenic artists to hold dual positions in two different states.

While in Denver during 1884, Burckey painted the State’s exhibit for the World’s Industrial and Cotton Centennial Exposition. The States of Colorado constructed a 6,600 square-foot exhibit in the Government & States building. One of thirty-eight states represented at the exposition, the Colorado exhibit was located near the north entrance of the building, and included a realistic representation of the Rocky Mountains, painted by Burckey. As with other exhibits, Colorado’s agricultural products, ores and minerals were set out on display.

The “Memphis Daily” credited Burckey with painting “The Pioneer Car” for the World’s Fair in New Orleans, (Memphis Daily Appeal, 19 Nov. 1884, page 2). The exhibit was described as a “work of art” in the “Memphis Daily Appeal.” The article described Burckey’s work in detail. Here is the article in its entirety:

“Upon its sides are some splendid paintings from the brush of H. E. Burcky, the scenic artist of the Tabor Grand Opera house. These pictures are well worth careful scrutiny.

Upon one side of the car the picture is emblematic of Colorado’s beautiful scenery, her resources and the glory of the South, with New Orleans as the crown of that section. In the center is a large horseshoe, upon the arch of which is the inscription, “Miner’s Cabin.” Withing the arche, formed by the emblem of good luck, is the full-length figure of a miner with pick upon his shoulder, apparently just starting out on a prospecting tramp.

In the right center is a group of two figures, one a farmer binding a sheaf of wheat, while beside him sits his wife with a dinner-pail and basket, evidently resting after her noonday walk with her husband’s lunch. From this scene, the perspective goes back over fertile plains across which a railroad train is gliding, until the plains heighten to a grand view of the Rocky Mountains.

Upon the extreme right of the picture is a splendid view of the Grand Canyon from the mouth of which is approaching a train, the locomotive tender showing the letters D. & R. G.” At the left of the horseshoe, and covering about one-third of the side car, is the Southern scene, with idle darkies lounging around bales of cotton and cut watermelon lying in the foreground, while away to the left of the scene and in the depth of perspective is a river with the city of New Orleans in the distance.

Upon the other side of the car, about one-third of the picture represents a miner’s cabin, with utensils of a prospector’s housekeeping hanging upon its wall, while sitting a little distance in front is the miner with extended hands. In his hands he holds a pan, into which his eyes gaze earnestly for the coveted gold. The remainder of the picture is a sweeping view of snow-capped mountains.

This car and decorations will be a credit to the artist and to Colorado which sends it forth, and is safe to predict that no exhibit which will arrive in the Crescent City will attract more attention before it is opened to view.

The Miner’s Cabin idea and its careful preparation is highly creditable to its agent, Mr. T. E. Boynton, and Mr. Noel May, who so ably assisted in carrying the conception to a reality. Mr. Boynton will accompany the car to-night and Mr. May will follow in a few days.

The car is loaded with contribution of ores and minerals from over 100 different mines throughout the State, to be used in the construction of the “Miners’ and Prospectors’ Cabin,” connected with the Colorado exhibit at New Orleans. This collection includes many rare and valuable specimens of bullion-producing mineral. The “Cabin” is intended to be emphatically a Colorado structure, the mortar used being compressed of a material presented by the Denver Cement Manufacturing Company, and sand taken from the bed of Cherry Creek. Other shipments of ore will follow this car, to be used in keeping the cabin in repair, as well as to constantly ass its attractions.

The train containing the exhibits from the Denver Exposition and some other exhibits will follow, leaving Denver about the 20^th instant. The Denver Exposition display is now nearly all packed ready for shipment. A very valuable addition was made yesterday by the Hon. H. A. W. Tabor, who will send a splendid cabinet containing the specimens from Robert E. Lee and the Matchless mine, and valued at $1000.”

Much has been written about the World’s Fair in New Orleans, but here is a link to the 1885 publication – “Practical Common Sense Guide Book trough the World’s Industrial and Cotton Centennial Exposition at New Orleans”-  http://archive.org/stream/practicalcommons00perkrich#page/26/mode/2up

To be continued…

Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

 “W. J. Moon carpenter and H. E. Burpey [sic.] scenic artist, October 6, 1890” is penciled on the back of a jungle wing at the Tabor Opera House in Leadville, Colorado. William J. Moon was a local resident and Henry E. Burkey was a scenic artist who began his career in Chicago. By 1884, “Harry Miner’s Dramatic Directory” listed “Burckey, Tabor Opera, Denver” as the scenic artist for the Tabor Opera House in Leadville; he was working for both venues. Burckey was still working for Tabor five years later. After completing the jungle wings for the Tabor Opera House in Leadville, the “Herald Democrat” reported his departure for Denver on October 16, 1890, noting “Mr. H. E. Burcky left last evening for Denver.” 

Yesterday I wrote about stage carpenter and stage manager W. J. Moon. Today I explore the life and career of  Henry E. Burckey (1852-1908). Burckey was been a bit tricky to track down, as the spelling of his name greatly varies in newspaper accounts and historical records. Variations included Burckey, Burkey, Bercky, Berkey, and Burcky; I am going with Burckey.

Born in 1852, Henry E. Burckey was the son of German immigrant Frederick Burckey (1813-1902). The 1850 US Federal Census lists that Frederick Burckey was born in “Frankfurt-Main” and emigrated from Germany in 1830. He eventually settled with family in Chicago area where he resided until his passing on October 21, 1902. Frederick was employed as a confectioner until he opened a restaurant with Augustus Berlin. He later worked as a clerk.

The 1870 census listed that Burckey was living with his three sons William, Henry and Charles, ages 16, 13 and 7.  Between 1870 and 1875, Henry entered the theatre industry and became a scenic artist.  He entered the scene about the same time that Thomas G. Moses did, about 1873-1874. By 1875 Henry was listed as “scenic artist” in the “Chicago Directory” living at 83 S. Halsted. Interestingly, Henry’s younger brother Charles followed him into the painting business and was listed as a “painter” in the 1880 Census. Burckey remained in the directory for the next decade, despite working for extended periods of time in other regions. At this time Chicago was a major theatrical hub with equal access to almost all of the country; it was the place to be during the second half of the nineteenth century. Ever-expanding railways provided easy routes for the marketing and shipping of both goods and services. A vast transportation network allowed remote communities access to a variety of services when constructing a performance venue that included scenic art. Many scenic artists, such as Burckey and Moses, made the Windy City their home and constantly traveled to new venues. Even when working for a studio, their lives remained that of itinerant artists.

By 1880, Henry Burckey, painted an old mill scene for the “Frog Opera.” The production toured New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore. By the spring the production played at Chicago’s Central Music Hall (Chicago Tribune, 16 May 1880 page 11). As Burckey made a name for himself, he began to partner with other well-known and respected scenic artists, such as Henry C. Tryon.

In 1880, Tryon was working as a scenic artist at McVicker’s Theatre, where he came in close contact with Thomas G. Moses, as well as Joseph Sosman, of Sosman & Landis. Moses joined Sosman & Landis in 1880 as their first employee, Tryon would follow four years later. There was an abundance of work for many, and the fortunate few secured permanent positions in popular theaters and opera houses.

By 1881, “H. E. Burcky” was listed as scenic artist at Hooley’s Theatre in Chicago. At this same time Burckey partnered with Tryon to provided scenery for Cincinnati’s Opera Festival. They worked alongside some other very respected gentlemen, including Fox, Magnani, Humphreys, Hughes, and Rettig & Waugh. An article in the “Cincinnati Enquirer,” reported, “Messrs. H. E. Burcky and Henry Tynor [sic.], the young and talented artists who came here from Chicago to assist painting the scenery, have been doing excellent work. They are bright, intelligent and rapid worker and but for their assistance it would have been difficult to have the scenery ready by Monday next. Mr. Burcky is scenic artist at Hooley’s Theater in Chicago, and Mr. Tryon at McVickers. They express themselves as amazed at the extent and magnitude of the affair” (“Cincinnati Enquirer,” 15 Feb 1881, page 4).” Burckey and Tryon were applauded for one “Magic Flute” setting, heralded as a “Beautifully painted scene.” The “Cincinnati Daily Enquirer” article described the painting; “…massive rocks in the foreground appear so real as almost to deceive the eye.  Rich masses of dark foliage relieve their barrenness while their golden-yellow color is projected boldly from the deep blue sky.  Two transformation tableaux occur in this scene, the first the ordeal, by fire, remarkable for its brilliancy and warmth of color; the second, the ordeal by water, for its cool and delicious coloring, complete contraries delightfully portrayed” (23 February 1881, page 4).

The opera festival was not only a game changer for each artist, but an incentive to travel westward. By the fall of 1882, Tryon had left Chicago and was working in Denver, Colorado, for Horace Tabor. Even when Tabor traveled to Salt Lake City for work, newspapers listed the artist as “Mr. Henry C. Tryon, of the Tabor Grand Opera House” (“Ogden Standard,” 30 Sept, 1882, page 3).  Two years later, Burckey became known as “H. E. Burckey, the artist of the Tabor Grand” (“Memphis Daily Appeal,” 19 Nov. 1884, page 2). It remains unclear if they worked together on scenery at the Tabor Grand between 1882 and 1884.

Regardless, Burckey became the sole scenic artist at the Tabor opera house by 1884, the same years that Tryon returned to Chicago to work for Sosman & Landis. In 1884, Moses wrote, “Henry C. Tryon came to the studio to work.  He enthused Young and I more than anyone ever had.  He was a pupil of Thos. Moran and James and William Hart and was very clever, but awfully eccentric.” Tryon also joined Moses and John H. Young on a sketching trip to West Virginia in 1885. I will expand Tryon’s story in the next few weeks.

Between 1880 and 1884, Tryon submitted a series of articles about the scenic art profession in papers across the country. On Dec. 19, 1880, the “Chicago Tribune” published “ Scene Painting: Some hints to the Public Regarding a Special Department of the Painters’ Art Not Well Understood” by Henry C. Tryon (page 19). Here is the link to the article as I included it today as part of my “Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar” storyline (part 1087): https://drypigment.net2020/10/11/tales-from-a-scenic-artist-and-scholar-part-1087-henry-c-tryon-scene-painting-some-hints-to-the-public-regarding-a-special-department-of-the-painters-art-not-well-understood/

To be continued…

Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

Yesterday I resumed “Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar” after a short break. Although I returned to the year 1921, an 1884 article prompted me to revisit a friend and colleague of Thomas G. Moses – Henry C. Tryon. This is just one example of the many rabbit holes I get sucked into while doing research. But I have no deadline and can enjoy these sidetracks.

Moses first worked with Tryon at Sosman & Landis in 1884, writing “Henry C. Tryon came to the studio to work.  He enthused Young and I more than anyone ever had.  He was a pupil of Thos. Moran and James and William Hart and was very clever, but awfully eccentric.” In 1884, Tryon left two scenic art positions; one as scenic artist at the Tabor Grand Opera House in Denver, Colorado, and the other as scenic artist for the Salt Lake Theatre in Utah. He returned to Chicago, joining the Sosman & Landis staff for a year.

Now I am in the midst of writing historical analyses, conditions reports, replacement appraisals and collections care programs for the historic scenery collections at the Tabor Opera House in Leadville, Colorado. Some of the scenery is signed and dated, including jungle wings painted by Henry E. Burckey in 1890. Burckey and Tryon partnered in the early 1880s and then both worked at the Tabor Grand in Denver.  Burckey was still working at both the Tabor Opera House in Leadville and the Tabor Grand Opera House in Denver in 1890. You can find more information about Burckey at www.drypigment.net (keyword search “Tabor Opera House” or “Burckey”).

So, I am killing two birds with one stone this week, but there are lots of moving parts. While researching Burckey and Tryon for the Tabor project, I came across a series of article written by Tryon in the 1880s. He describes the scene painting profession, and I am compelled to share them as part of the “Tales of a Scenic Artist and Scholar” storyline.

Here is the first one published in the “Chicago Tribune” on December 19, 1880:

SCENE PAINTING.

Some hints to the Public Regarding a Special Department of the Painters’ Art Not Well Understood.

Chicago, Dec.8.-

Theatrical scenery is painted in “distemper,” dry color being mixed with a vehicle consisting of glue and water, much the same as is used with whiting for calcimining rooms. Stage scenery and drop-curtains are never painted in oil colors. While the color is less brilliant than when mixed with oils (the artist being compelled to get his brilliancy by skillful arrangement of dull color), the glare of varnish and oil is avoided which would destroy the realism of the scene. Scenery, then, being painted in watercolors, the danger from fire is much less than popularly supposed; in fact, when it does take fire it burns very slowly for a long time. The canvas is much less combustible than before being painted. Scenes painted on both sides are almost fireproof.

The qualities required of a first-class scenic-artist are of a much higher order than is generally supposed, and the technical difficulties to be overcome to produce any brilliant effect whatever for the stage are so numerous that, with a thorough knowledge of drawing, color, and composition, and the clearest possible idea on the part of the artist of what he desires to do, he will fail utterly, without great practice, to convey to the audience the effect that he may have already, in his brain, arranged in the clearest and most tangible shape. The artist in oil colors can produce any effect which his mind conceives. The scenic-artist must first overcome many very difficult obstacles. One of the chief difficulties arises from the fact that the colors dry out several shades lighter that they are when applied. (Throw a little water on the floor and the difference in color will illustrate this difficulty). The artist is compelled to paint with one color while thinking of another. He must think with every brush mark how the colors will “dry put.” The difficulty in doing this can be imagined when it is considered that all exterior scenes are painted from a pallet making a constant change of thousands of different tints. Then the effect of a night light is a serious drawback. Whoever has observed the changes in the colors of fabrics from the light of day to the artificial light of gas must have noticed how some colors are heightened and others dimmed by being brought under the yellow gaslight.

The scene-painter working in the broad glare of day must consider with every brush mark the effect of this gaslight on his color. A brilliant effect by daylight may, under an artificial light, be entirely destroyed, and also the reverse holds true; but must not be accident with the scenic-artist.

Do the audience in the theatre ever realize the immense difficulty of painting a scene while within three or at most four feet from the canvas, to produce the proper effect at a distance of from fifty to 150 feet, the artist being compelled to see his work in his mind’s eye this distance, when his first opportunity to dee his entire work is after it has been finished and on stage? The result of constant practice in this direction is, that, as he acquires knowledge, and consequently power and decision, he gradually choses larger brushes, until the skillful artist is enabled with the roughest and apparently most hideous “swashes” of the calcimining brush to produce effect as soft, tender, and full of appropriate  meaning as is done by the most labored, painstaking care on smaller surfaces by many landscape painters. In scene-painting, as in all other art, it is only the novice who takes the life out of his work by petty, contemptible smoothing down with small brushes. “Pictures are made to be seen, not smelled,” said Reynolds. In decorative painting mechanical finish is the important requisite, but in scene-painting it is no more an excellence than is mechanical finish in any other art.

The popular impression is that because scenes are thus painted with broad, bold, rough marks it is scarcely more than a grade or so advanced beyond mere decorative painting; but think for a moment of the knowledge of drawing, perspective, composition, and color required to enable the artist to produce on these large surfaces a scene which to the audience must be realism, when he can only see at any time a limited portion (say ten feet square) of his work – on a “drop” say thirty feet by fifty – while working within three feet of his canvas, and to be seen across a large theatre, The fact is, that a scenic artist is able to paint a small picture with much greater ease and readiness that he can with his theatrical work, because he has the knowledge to paint the small subject without very great obstacles attending his work on the large canvas.

Another thing to be considered in this connection: The scenic-artist does not always – in fact, seldom- have the leisure to do work at his best. He has neither the time nor opportunity to correct his work. When a picture is finished in an artist’s studio the artist sees where a change here and there will enhance the value of his work, and can perfect it. The scene-painter must call his work “a go” and start on the next scene. “We press your hat while you wait,” is the sentiment. The manager comes to the artist, and says we want a street – Paris, 1600 – to-night. He must have it then, though the heavens fall. “Time, tide, and managers wait for no man.” Many times in the experiences of all scenic-painters are they obliged to work thirty-six hours at a stretch,, their meals brought to them, and stopping for nothing else, each of those hours working against time, with no sentiment other than to get through, get out of the theatre and to the rest that exhausted nature loudly demands. Still he must be criticized on this very work. The audience doesn’t know anything about his having worked all day, and all night, and all day.

The great scenic-artists of the world are great artists, and so recognized in the world of art. Poor dead Minard Lewis was the very Prince of scenic artists, and his genius was the wonder and admiration of every artist of every department of art in New York. Yet the theatre-going public who for thirty or forty years had admired and applauded his beautiful work did not know or care to know his name.

The position of scenic-artist in a first-class theatre is one of great responsibility, which is properly recognized “behind the curtain line,” but the general public has no interest in the personality of the scenic artist, supposing in a vague sort of way that the manager paints the scenes. It is no unusual thing for scenery to be lavishly commended by the press and public, the manager receiving the press and praise for his “enterprise, taste and liberality,” while the artist whose brain and hand has created it all is never mentioned or even thought of. Scene-painters, like all other artists, have their ambitions, and are grateful for proper and honest appreciation. Much injustice has been done to them (perhaps through thoughtlessness) by the public press and this is strongly felt by every scenic-artist. If the newspaper dramatic critics would take the same interest in the scene-painters themselves that they do with other individual members of the theatrical business and that they do with other artists, and would find out under what adverse circumstances they generally labor, their sense of justice would cause them to be more discrimination in their reports. If a theatre during an extended period is uniformly negligent in the matter of scenic accessories, it would be but simple justice for the public critics to inquire whether it is due to the incompetency of the scenic-artist or to the economy of the manager. The truth in this matter can always be easily discovered, and when blame is laid, as it frequently is, it should not be done in loose and indiscriminate manner which injures most the artist who is frequently not to blame. If the dramatic critics would visit and become acquainted with the scenic-artists they would be welcomed, and would perhaps gain in the interest of dramatic art and progress some ideas from that unknown and unthought of portion of the theatre 9the paint gallery) that would be a revelation to them. The sooner the press and public recognize the scene-painters as artists and deal with them individually as with other artists – commending or condemn them on their own merits, – the better it will be for the elevation of scenic art.

            -Henry C. Tryon

To be continued…

Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

For additional installments, go to www.drypigment.net

It is often difficult to identify the work of nineteenth-century stage carpenters, seldom did they sign their work. When you factor in natural disasters, building renovations and changes of ownership, the challenge increases exponentially. Last month I evaluated a collection of nineteenth-century stage settings at the Tabor Opera House in Leadville, Colorado. Tucked away in the attic were dozens of wings, shutters and borders, placed there when the building was renovated over a century ago. On the back of one jungle wing was written the name of a local stage carpenter – W. J. Moon. Penciled in near the frame was “W. J. Moon stage carpenter and H. E. Burpey scenic artist, October 1890.” A bread crumb. It just takes a small bit of information to point the way.

The stage carpenter was William J. Moon and the scenic artist was Henry E. Burckey. There is no question that scenic artist “H. E. Burpey” was actually scenic artist “H. E. Burckey,” as newspaper accounts place Burckey in Leadville during October 1890. Burckey also worked as the scenic artist at the Tabor Grand Opera House in Denver, Colorado. His scenic art connection to both the Tabor Opera House and Tabor Grand Opera House is noted in theatrical guides too. The earliest mention of Burckey’s role as scenic artist for the Tabor Opera House in Denver was in 1884. Although there is no indication as to when Burckey began working part-time in Leadville during 1890, he departed town on October 16. The “Herald Democrat” reported “Mr. H. E. Burcky left last evening for Denver.” Again, the jungle wings for the Tabor Opera House are also dated October 1890.

This is the first of several posts about the Tabor Opera House’s nineteenth-century scenery collection. The stories of Moon and Burckey are quite complicated, each intersecting individual characters explored in past posts at www.drypigment.net.

I am starting with the life and career of William “Willie” James Moon (1867-1920). The 100th anniversary of his passing is only eleven days away, and that was my sign to start with Moon.

“Willie” Moon was a local resident of Leadville, Colorado, moving to the area as a child. Historical records list Moon’s parents as Jasper O. Moon (1831-1880) and Charity Peterson Moon (?-1895). Born in Missouri, there is no indication of the Moons’ eastern roots or why the family moved west. However, the promise of wealth associated with mountain mining camps was often enough to uproot anyone.

The 1870 US Federal Census listed the Moons as living in Granby Township, Missouri. The household included thirty-year old farmer, Jasper, living with his wife Charity (30 yrs. old), son William J. (3 yrs. old), daughter Elva (1 yr. old) and Mary J. Peterson, Charity’s twenty-year old sister-in-law.

The 1880 census listed a 13-yrs. old William living in Leadville with his mother and uncle, John Peterson; Peterson, like Jasper, became a miner. William, Charity and John lived at 318 3rd Street, a few blocks away from the newly constructed Tabor Opera House on Harrison Avenue. The 1880 Leadville Directory listed Jasper O. Moon living next door at 316 W. 3rd; how odd.Moon spent most of his life in Leadville living very near the Tabor Opera House, only a few blocks away. While I was working in Leadville this fall, I was also living on 3rd St, just a little closer; only ½ block from the opera house.

Moon began his theatrical career as a performer before transitioning to a stage manager and stage carpenter. In 1882, W. J. Moon traveled with the Tennessee Jubilee Singers and performed throughout Colorado. It is possible that he was picked up while the troupe was on tour in the region, like running away with the circus. On Sept. 2, 1882, Moon was listed as staying with the group at the Windsor Hotel in Fort Collins, Colorado. At the time, he would have been 15 years old. Other Tennessee Jubilee Singers at the time included Lew Johnson, Harry Mannaford, Z. A. Coleman, Ed Hawkins, Josh Bell, Effie Allen, Lottie Reno and Nellie Mark (“Fort Collins Coloradoan,” 2 Sept. page 4). Moon was still performing in 1884 when he toured Kansas with the Nashville Students, performing at Painton’s Hall. By this time, he was listed as the lead tenor in the minstrel production “Old Shady am Gwing up North,” featuring southern songs and dances (Weston Herald, Girard, Kansas, 8 May 1884, page 3). In 1885, the Nashville Singers were still touring and featured “original Jubilee and Plantation Melodies, as sung by the children of bondage in their own peculiar manner in religious and social meetings and on the plantation” (“The Record-Union,” Sacramento, California, 16 July 1885, page 2). Moon played the roll of “Pete (a young pickaninny).”

It was this same year that Moon returned to Leadville and was listed twice in the city directory. “Willie” Moon was listed as the stage manager at the Opera House, residing at 121 E. 7th Street, while William J. Moon was still listed at him previous home residence – 318 W. Although “Willie” would not be listed again, William’s home residence would remain on 3rd street in the 1885, 1886 and 1887 directories.By 1889 the Leadville City Directory listed Moon as the stage manager for the Tabor Opera House. He was also listed as the stage manager for the venue in 1891 and 1892. In 1890, however, Moon was listed as the stage carpenter for the Tabor Opera House in the Leadville Directory; this matches the jungle wing scenic notation from October 1890. Keep in mind that during this period stage manager and stage carpenter were often interchangeable titles, both being responsible for the construction of scenery and management of the backstage area.

Moon worked as a stage carpenter at the Tabor Opera House for at least a dozen years. The only difference was that the 1899 Leadville City Directory listed Moon as the stage carpenter for the Weston Opera House. For a time, the Tabor Opera House was named the Weston Opera House, initially under the management of Judge Algernon S. Weston and later under the management of his widow Leticia. By 1900, the Leadville City Directory again listed Moon as the stage manager for the Tabor Opera House.The 1900 US Federal census also listed Moon’s profession as a stage carpenter. Regardless of title, Moon was still listed as living at 318 3rd, but now with a wife and two daughters. Moon married Louise Buffer (alt. spelling Bueffehr) on September 11, 1894 in Denver, Colorado. [Note: my husband and I share the same anniversary as the Moons].

Louise actually worked as a dressmaker in Leadville before marrying Moon, although I have yet to discover what drew her westward from Kansas. It may have simply been the burgeoning economy at the time. In fact, the 1894 city directory listed Miss Louise Bueffehr, dressmaker, residing at 314 East 6th street. Louise was born in Big Creek, Kansas, the daughter of two German immigrants, John and Christina Bueffehr. She grew up on a midwestern farm, one of four children born to the couple, her siblings were Anna, John and Charley.William and Louise Moon couple celebrated the birth of two children by the turn of the twentieth century, with Algin arriving in 1895 and Doris arriving in 1897. Interestingly, Doris Marguerite Moon, born Aug. 16, 1897, was baptized in 1909, and at the time her father William was listed as having “no belief.” Her baptismal records also list the spelling of Bueffehr as her mother’s maiden name.

Moon transitioned from stage carpenter to bartender shortly after the opera house changed hands. The Tabor Opera House was purchased by the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks (B.P.O.E.) in 1901 and was renovated during 1902, necessitating new scenery as a fly loft was added to the building. The original wing and shutter scenery was simply placed in the attic and I have often wondered why is wasn’t sold or thrown out at that time. It is possible that Moon was a key individual in saving the old scenery, some of it constructed by both he and Burckey.

The 1902 Leadville Directory still listed William J. Moon as a stage carpenter, but his position soon changed. The 1903 Leadville City Directory listed, “Moon, William J., bartdr. Elks Opera House, rms. 303 Harrison av.” In 1910, Moon was still listed as a bartender in the directory, boarding at home of Julia Ross.Moon died at the relatively young age of 52 on 21 Oct. 1920 at 4:00 a.m. The cause of his death was listed as pneumonia. Moon is buried in the family plot at the Evergreen Cemetery in Leadville. His obituary was published in the “Herald Democrat” on October 27, 1920 (page 5) and in the “Carbonate Chronicle” on Nov. 1, 1920 (page 3).

Here is the obituary in its entirety:

“WILLIAM J MOON

The funeral of the late William J. Moon was held from his residence at 222 West Third Street yesterday afternoon at 2 o’clock and was attended by a large gathering of friends of the pioneer. Samuel Thomas, chaplain of the B.P.O.E. order, presided over the services which were marked by the ringing of three duets by Miss Kate McCoy and Mrs. Frank E. Brown who were accompanied on the piano by Miss Anna McLeod. The hymns were “Beautiful Isle of Somewhere,” “I’m a Pilgrim” and the “Home of the Soul.” [Note: I absolutely love “Beautiful Isle of Somewhere].

The casket was covered completely with beautiful flowers and a bouquet by a surviving daughter, Mrs. G. H. Gordon, of California.William J. Moon was born in Missouri in 1868 and during the period of his young manhood came to Leadville where he has resided ever since. He entered the Elks lodge here as one of the charter members ad in the early days was interested in a great extent in mining. When the great Tabor Opera House was operating under the management of Judge A. S. Weston Mr. Moon became stage manager of the house and served in that capacity for a period of two years.

Mr. Moon is survived by his widow, Mrs. Nellie Moon, a daughter, Mrs. C. H. Gordon of San Francisco, a sister, Mrs. J. Olds, of Basalt.The pall bearers, all of whom were close friends of Mr. Moon and fellow members of the Elks lodge, of which he was a charter member, were S. B. Crosby, Gus Ouren, Joe Mann, Alva Bless, Erwin Lockhart and George Hartung. Interment was made in the family plot at Evergreen cemetery.”

To be continued…

From September 20-28, 2020, I visited Leadville, Colorado. My mission was to document the historic scenery in the Tabor Opera House attic. This was the second phase of a project began last February. Six months ago, I examined all of the scenery stored on the Tabor Opera House’s stage. Last month I returned to document the scenery placed in the attic after the Tabor Opera House was renovated, 1901-1902.

During my stay, I was interviewed by Nancy Lofholm at Colorado Public Radio. Lofholm wrote, “At The Historic Tabor Opera House, The Old Stage Scenery Is Now The Big Show.” Here is a link to her article from September 29, 2020: https://www.cpr.org/2020/09/29/at-the-historic-tabor-opera-house-the-old-stage-scenery-is-now-the-big-show/  You may have to cut and paste the link in your browser, as I am having a difficult time embedding it in my post.

Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

I return to the life and times of Thomas G. Moses in 1921. That spring Moses and his wife Ella journeyed south for nine weeks. The primary reason was work; Mitchell and Halbach hired Moses to decorate the Majestic Theatre in Dallas. Other projects included scenery for the Dallas Shrine and an upcoming design for the Little Rock Scottish Rite.

Moses later wrote, “On our return home we stopped in Kansas City for a day, and a day in St. Louis, after an absence of nine weeks.  I could sit down for only a day before I was off to Fort Wayne for a contract for a vaudeville act, which we got.”

A constant stream of activity defined Moses’ career was often characteristic of late-nineteenth-century and early-twentieth-century scenic artists. Even those who represented a particular studio were often on the go, as many projects still occurred on site.  As I track the travels of these artists I am astounded by the time spent on the road.  By 1921, Moses was working for Sosman & Landis again, on annual contract. In 1918 he resigned as president of the firm and sought other opportunities at New York Studios and the Chicago Studios.  He had previously left the firm a few times before, always returning home to Chicago and the main studio on Clinton Street.

In regard to Moses’ 1921 diary entry, he noted stopping by Kansas City and St. Louis.  This was standard, as he kept close contact with fellow scenic artists, both friends and competitors. For years, Moses stopped by the Noxon and Toomey Studio to visit his good friend Patrick J. Toomey.  Likewise, there were several artists that Moses remained close to at the Kansas City Scenic Co.  The scenic art network was essential during times of plenty, as one studio would draw on the resources of another.  For example, Kansas City Scenic subcontracted Sosman & Landis in 1902 to deliver a large scenery installation to the Elks Opera House (previously Tabor Opera House) in Leadville, Colorado.

The is when the past and present intersect. For the past four years I have traced a network of scenic artists from 1870-1930, based upon individual entries in the 1931 memoirs of Thomas G. Moses. I am daily astounded at the scope of work produced by Moses during his career, 1873-1934. Until the past twelve days, I have dutifully written 1 ½ pages each day about Moses’ life, work and colleagues.  When I have been on the road, I often transition from “Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar” to “Travels of a Scenic Artist and Scholar,” describing a specific historic theatre or scenery collection. From Sept. 20-27, 2020,  I was in Leadville, Colorado, documenting a historic scenery collection that was stored in the Tabor Opera House over a century ago. The collection was primarily composed of historic pieces from 1879-1890, once used on the original stage before the Leadville Elks (BPOE) purchased the building and renovated the stage. Upon returning to my office in Minnesota, there would still be a month’s worth of research and writing to compile historical analyses, conditions reports, replacement appraisals, and a collections care and management program.

I posted many of my Colorado discoveries, with the intention of returning to the Thomas G. Moses timeline on September 30 when I returned home.  Within two hours of my arrival in Minnesota, we received a call from our eldest child about a medical emergency.  By the next morning I was on the road again, hoping to offer support while awaiting test results; we are still waiting for a definitive diagnosis. On my 4+ hour drive, I planned for the worse and hoped for the best. In the midst of everything, I was also planning the 14^th birthday celebration for our youngest child; I had scheduled my Colorado trip to return with ample time to prepare for the event.

This brings me back to Moses’ mention of Fort Wayne in 1921. This morning I decided that it was time to return to my blog; without writing every spare moment I feel like a rutterless ship.  Recognizing that I would likely never be able to locate the specific show in Fort Wayne, I decided to search for a mention of “Sosman & Landis” in Fort Wayne newspapers. Casting my net wide, they was a mentioned in 1884, just as Landis & Sosman. The firm was competing for the Masonic Temple scenery work, submitting a bid alongside Noxon, Halley & Toomey, St. Louis; Kover & Sons, Cincinnati; and Moses & Co., Kalamazoo.  The Moses & Co. is Thomas G. Moses and Lemuel L. Graham; Graham being the future founder of Kansas City Scenic Co. The irony is that I have been “living” in 1884 for the past two weeks. While waiting for test results, I decided to start doing some preliminary research on the Tabor Opera House attic scenery colleciton, tracing down two artists and exploring their careers during the early 1880s. Keep in mind that the original scenery for the Tabor Opera House was delivered in 1879, with additional pieces being delivered in 1888 and 1890. In the meantime, the Tabor Grand Opera House was constructed in Denver. Both H. E. Burkey and Henry C. Tryon were associated with the venue; Burkey was also listed as a scenic artist for the Tabor Opera House in Leadville.  As I traced the lives and careers of various Tabor Opera House artists, Tryon kept popping back onto my radar; he and Burckey partnered for other projects during this time too.

I have written about Tryon in the past, as he and Thomas G. Moses not only worked together at Sosman & Landis, but also went on a sketching trip to West Virginia in the 1880s. This brings me back to 1884, just after Tryon painted scenery for the Salt Lake Theatre; at the time he was listed as Henry C. Tabor, scenic artist of the Tabor Opera House, Denver. Between 1880 and 1884 Tryon published several lengthy articles on scenic art; I just transcribed one from 1884 yesterday. It is one of the most comprehensive writings about the trade and scenic art process, identified by region, that I have come across to date. Last night, I was trying to figure out when to add this bit of information into my blog. It seems that tomorrow is an appropriate time.

To be continued…

Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

We finished the attic scenery documentation today, cleaning and measuring the last nine borders by noon. The 28’-0” wide borders had holes for only two operating lines, much different that the current ones designed for use with three operating lines. The nineteenth-century borders depict blue sky, treetops and a fancy pink interior ceiling. These were intended to accompany the wing and shutter sets for the 1879 stage; the borders measuring just 2’-4” in height.  This narrow strip of painted fabric would have been just enough to conceal the gas jets above the stage. No sandwich battens at the top of the borders either, just a 4” board and double rows of tacks. I have encountered this technique several times. It is astounding that these tattered border curtains managed to survive in the attic for over a century without irreparable damage, but it is a testament to a long succession of stewards.

The most recent scenery collection stewards for the Tabor Opera House include Mary Ann Graham-Best, Carl Schaefer, Tammy Taber, as well as many, many other volunteers. Those who I have worked during this month and last February Mary Ann, Carl, Tammy, Kan, Theresa, Ruth, Curt, Janel, Greg, Allie, Derrick, Jen, Mike, Scott, Eric, Theresa “T”, Robin and Donna. My apologies if I missed anyone.

This trip, Michael Powers also traveled with me to volunteer; his work in the attic with Carl helped make lowering the scenery from attic to stage floor safe and secure. Without their support, much of the scenery may be still sitting under a layer of dust, undocumented. The scenery has managed to survive despite a massive renovation (1901-1902), the Great Depression and a series of other financial obstacles. The survival of a historic venue is dependent upon strong leadership leader and community support. A small band of theatre people is not enough, you need the support from those outside of our industry too.

Evelyn E. Livingston Furman was one of the great leaders and scenic stewards for the Tabor Opera House. She also wrote “The Tabor Opera House: A Captivating History.” In the publication, Furman includes some details of the early scenery. Her words leave a legacy.

There are a few things to keep in mind as we explore the nineteenth century scenery delivered to the Tabor Opera House…In 1879 Horace A. W. Tabor purchased wing and shutter scenery for the Tabor Opera House. Some of the earliest scenes included a mountain setting  (Royal Gorge), forest, garden, palace, plain chamber with balcony, and a prison. We know that more scenery was delivered in 1888, and included a horizon (seascape), European street setting, rustic country setting, rocky pass, and Eastern street scene. This is the same time when some of the original stock scenery were repainted and a few new scenes were added to the original wings, shutters and roll drops. Only eight shutters that remain, some double painted. The six surviving settings include a rocky pass, rustic country landscape, cut woods, European street scene, Eastern street scene, and winter scene. These all have flat sheaves that make the settings glide across the stage floor on wheels. In 1890, a series of eight jungle wings were also added to the stock, built by William J. Moon and painted by H. E. Burpey.

The technical specifications for the Tabor Opera House stage paints a pretty picture, including a 6” rake. The 1884 issue of “Harry Miner’s Dramatic Directory” noted that the Leadville’s Tabor Opera House had a seating capacity of 800. H. A. W. Tabor’s second theater, the Tabor Grand of Denver, boasted a seating capacity almost twice that – 1,500. Tabor’s second theater was much larger than that in Leadville. The proscenium opening in Leadville was 23 feet wide  by 17 feet high , whereas the proscenium opening in Denver was 34 feet wide by 33 high.

The size of the Tabor Opera House stage in Leadville measured  34-feet deep by 60-feet wide. The Tabor Grand Opera House stage in Denver measured 45-feet deep by 75-feet wide. The grooves (for wings) measured 16 feet in height at the Tabor Opera House in Leadville and 20 feet in height at the Tabor Grand in Denver.

 “Harry Miner’s Dramatic Directory” also listed that Leadville’s Tabor Opera House boasted 12 sets of scenery, whereas the Tabor Grand had much more, 50 sets of scenery. The two venues were drastically different when examining the types of stage scenery and machinery. In Leadville, the Tabor Opera House used wings, shutters, and roll drops, there was only 19 feet from stage to rigging loft. In Denver, there was a grid 66 feet above the stage floor, accommodating a series of leg drops, cut drops and backdrops., in addition to grand interior setting.

At the current Tabor Opera House, there is a significant amount of used scenery produced for an earlier, and larger, venue.  These pieces likely belonged to the Tabor Grand, and the scenes include borders, interiors settings and at least one set piece (step unit). There also pieces left on site from touring shows.

In short, there is a treasure trove of scenic art and stagecraft, depicting the delightful transition from Nineteenth-century itinerant artists painting stock scenery on site to early twentieth-century studio artists painting scenery at a distant location.

I have about four weeks of work in front of me once I return this week. It will take a while to decipher the information collected on site, compiling historical analyses, conditions reports, appraisals and a collections care and management program. Although I have written about 700 pages pertaining to the 1902 collection delivered by Kansas City Scenic Co. and Sosman & Landis Scene Painting Studio, there is much more to go. I am taking three days off to return home and then will resume “Tales of a Scenic Artist and Scholar,” about the life and times of Thomas Gibbs Moses (1856-1934)

To be continued…

Copyright © 2020 by Wendy Waszut-Barrett

For additional installments, go to www.drypigment.net

Saturday was our last big day to lower scenery from the attic at the Tabor Opera House in Leadville, Colorado. It was the sixth of seven workdays in a row. We did manage to hit our goal of lowering all remaining shutter scenes, plus a few other pieces, to the stage floor. The attic looks positively bare. Only eight borders remain for me to document today. That being said, some scenic pieces still remain in the loft above the attic and on platforms high above stage right and stage left. Documenting the final shutters, wings and borders will have to wait until next time.  The amount and the scope of the scenery at the Tabor Opera House is staggering.

The biggest surprise this week was discovering a marked piece of scenery from the Tabor Grand Opera in Denver. This was Tabor’s second theater. There are some interior set pieces and borders obviously created for another, and much larger.  There are also a few pieces from touring productions that never left the Tabor during the nineteenth century. It will be fun to track down more information in the upcoming weeks.

The majority of the work this week was completed by volunteers without any background in theater. Their careers varied from nursing and teaching to law and public service. Some were born in Leadville and others not; all were passionate about the project.

Painted scenery produced for the stage a century ago continues to have  a broad appeal to the general public. Well painted scenes still cause people to gasp, as did much of the scenery at the Tabor Opera House. It is just magical.

For the next few weeks, I will continue to post images from this week’s documentation, focusing on individual scenes and painting techniques. More tonight.

To be continued…