Waszut-Barrett Lecture – Drypigment.net

Travels of a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Tyne Theatre & Opera House Conference, 2 August 2024.

My week at the Tyne Theatre & Opera House in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, England, culminated with a conference on Friday, August 2, 2024. “Theatrical Scene Painting in the 19^th Century: The Artist and the Picture Frame” was the second theatre conference held at the venue.

*Photograph by Mike Hume of Historic Theatre Photos*

The first conference occurred less than a year before (Sept. 13-15, 2023), with 120 delegates attending from the UK, Europe, Canada, and the United States.

*Second Annual Conference at the Tyne Theatre & Opera House, 2 Aug. 2024.*

Both events were organized by David Wilmore of Theatresearch and Rachel Snape, Heritage & Development Project Manager at the Tyne Theatre & Opera House. This year, the entire conference took place upon the stage, with delegates facing the auditorium. An Act Drop was hung (in reverse, facing the upstage wall), to set the stage for the delegates. The painting was from the brush of Deborah Mitchell in 1997, replicating an earlier curtain painted by Ernest Howard for the Royal Theatre Opera House, Northampton, 1896.

*Backside of Northampton Act Drop painted by Deborah Mitchell.*

The morning panel featured three papers.

Raymond Walker (left) explored the visual aspects of Victorian scenery and how it evolved during the 20^th century. Dr. David Wilmore (center) explored the original portraits for Gilbert & Sullivan’s “Ruddygore”, now on display at a private theatre (Normansfield). Karen Thompson (right) examined the Normansfield Scenery Collection and its conservation.

After lunch we were invited back to the stage for a stage machinery demonstration. The sloats in the stage cuts supported three of the eight ground rows I painted for the venue. The previous evening David Wilmore and Colin Hopkins (Project Site Manager & Stage Carpenter) led a crew to install the ground rows.

*Colin Hopkins attaching a ground row to a sloat. Photograph by Mike Hume of Historic Theatre Photos*

*Preparing a ground row for attachment to the sloats.* Photograph by Mike Hume of Historic Theatre Photos

The afternoon panel in my presentation, “Scenic Art, Past & Present”, Grit Eckert’s presentation “We are still here!!! Scene Painting – a Historical Study and still a Theatrical Trade”, and Prof. Christina Young’s “19^th Century Scottish Scenic Painters: Paint Frame to Picture Frame”.

As promised to those who could not attend the conference, here is my Powerpoint with text:

My name is Wendy Waszut-Barrett and I come to you as a theatre historian, scenery preservation specialist, scenic designer, and – most importantly – scenic artist. My presentation will look in detail at the paint medium used by 19^th century scenic artists and its capabilities. Then I will explain how I became so passionate about the history of scenic art and how both past and present research has altered my understanding of theatre history.

Each aspect of my career creates a lens through which I view theatre history. For me, the phrase, “Preserving the Past” goes far beyond the conservation of historic artifacts; it also applies to the preserving the theatrical trades.

Although many scene painting techniques remain well-documented in various publications and memoirs, much has been lost from contemporary application – more specifically, the institutional memory in most scenic studios. I am going to shed some light on nineteenth-century scene painting practices. Understanding the nuances of the distemper painting system helps us appreciate the metamorphic nature of stage settings created by 19th- and early-20th-century scenic artists.

Distemper paint solely consists of two ingredients: color (dry pigment paste) and binder (cooked and diluted hide glue). It really is an amazing artistic medium. In dry form, both pigment and glue can be stored for decades, weathering a wide range of temperatures. There is also no waste during the painting process, as dried piles of pigment paste on a can be quickly reconstituted with water.”

In 1903, American scenic artist, Grace Wishaar (pictured on the left) explained “Distemper is a really beautiful medium. You can produce such fine effects with it! But it’s very tricky unless you know JUST how to handle it.”

Over a decade later, her colleague Frank Atkinson wrote the following statement about distemper paint in his scene painting manual “.. distemper colors change greatly in value as they dry out…the student must not let a few failures discourage him. True ‘color deductions’ will come with experience.”

In 1924, Joseph Harker described distemper paint in his publication “Studio and Stage” as ”a peculiarly difficult medium to handle” explaining “In some instances the color, when applied, dries several degrees lighter in tone than it was originally, while in others remains unaltered. Considerable skill, if I may put is so baldly, is therefore needed in the direct painting with this medium and no fixed rules can be laid down for overcoming the characteristics I have mentioned. Long and pain staking experience is alone capable of solving each fresh color problem as it arises.” For over 35 years, I have been challenged with each distemper painting project. That being said, there is no other paint I would rather use for stage settings.

Every time I pick up a brush and paint a backdrop, I become part of the scenic art timeline, continuing the legacy of those who came before me. I still prefer painting stage scenery with distemper paint. Nothing feels quite so pure to handle, or reflects stage lights quite so well.

Let’s look at how the paint was prepared. Pigment arrived at the scenic studio in three forms – dry powder, compressed block, or wet pulp. Blocks of dry color necessitated grinding prior to their transformation into a paste.

Pigment paste was placed on a scenic artists palette and mixed with diluted hide glue, also called “size water” or “working size” or just size – hence some artists referring to this as “size painting.” Both color and binder necessitated careful preparation, the tasks completed by skilled individuals. In larger studios, “Color men” supervised preparation and distribution of colors, as ill-prepared pigment paste (pigment granules that weren’t fully dissolved) could compromise an entire composition.”

Making size from hide glue was also a skilled task, each batch affected by heat and humidity. Water is added to dry hide-glue granules, or a slab, and slowly-cooked to a honey-like consistency, then diluted with water.

Here is an example of a scenic artist’s palette, filled with bowls of pigment paste, and a size warmer below. The pigment paste and size water were mixed together on the large palette, then immediately applied to the fabric. The preparation of pigment paste, cooking of size, and set-up of a palette takes time. However, the actual distemper painting process makes up for any lost time in the set-up.

As presented in my paper last year, there were two prominent scenic art traditions at play in 19^th century; each defined by the viscosity (or thickness) of paint and its application. There was the use of transparent glazes (depicted in the left images) and opaque washes (depicted in the right).

Distemper was applied to scenery in two ways – “up” on a vertical frame or “down” on the floor. Both versions were transported to the United States, and referred to as “English” method (for up) and the “Continental” method (for down). Painting a drop that was tacked to the floor require long handles, or bamboo poles that extended the handle of a brush. Tacking backdrops to vertical frames often meant that either the frame or bridge upon which the artist stood on was movable.

Where do I fall within the framework of scenic art history? I am a hybrid. I was trained in the Midwestern United States using distemper paints (in the form of opaque washes) on a motorized frame at University. However, as a freelance scenic artist, pre-mixed paints and the continental method (floor) were preferred.

This is the motorized paint frame that I use in the States. My past eight shows have featured distemper settings.

Distemper paint and vertical paint frames were made for each other. As distemper paint permeates each underlying layer, drips are not an issue, even when the viscosity looks like milk. Distemper paint permeated the underlying layer, so even a drip will soon reabsorb into the fabric. Some contemporary (pre-mixed) color may reactivate, but not to the same extent as distemper paint – there is more of a layering effect which will cause pre-mixed paints to run.

From a paint process standpoint, a motorized paint frame allows the artists to quickly and accurately lay in vertical lines without a straightedge. It is an extremely quick way to paint lines.

Which means that painting vertical drapery folds is extremely effective, as you can play with the viscosity of paint for translucent effects.

Here is a view from the back of the frame, to show how thinly the paint is applied to the muslin.

Backlit with a simple white light, muslin painted with distemper can take on the appearance of glowing silk.

Here are three of the distemper palettes that I use while painting scenery, all ranging in size for the scale of the project. I have tweaked the traditional methods to use large baking pans – easier clean-up.

Regardless of what type of paint is used for stage settings, scenic art is more. It is a way of seeing and applying color.

That being said, distemper paint is the easiest was to teach color theory and scenic illusion for the stage.

The success of scenic illusion for the stage is understanding the nuance of each color, strategic color combinations, and economy of brush stroke.

I want to get us all on the same page in terms of color, as painted illusion necessitates the alternation of warm and cool colors. The three primary colors are yellow, red, and blue. Each primary and secondary color also has a characteristic – warm or cool.

The easiest example to see warm versus cool is yellow. I don’t want to get caught up in any specific color name – as they are dependent on suppliers. On the left is a warm yellow, and on the right is a cool yellow.

Of supreme importance in painting is the true understanding of value – going from light to dark. The success of painted illusion is based on the contrast of value

Scenic artists paint for a distance. This means that their artwork is intended to be viewed from afar – any careful blending will make a painted composition appear “fuzzy” from a distance. That is why a scenic artist contracts both value and hue. The audience’s eye needs to work, so the scene will appear more dimensional and realistic. When you examine the painting close-up, it all falls apart into dashes and dabs – an economy of brushstroke.

There is a rule of three for value selection – light, medium and dark, to work up any object. This contrast applies to foliage, architecture, drapery painting, etc. making the painted details remain visible at a distance.

Light, medium and dark values also alternate warm and cool colors. For example, the dark base is predominantly cool, the mid-tone warm, and the highlight cool.

Even when applying the same value, some compositions – such as foliage- with place warm and cool colors next to one another. This helps give definition to the shape. This strategic color placement helps reflect stage light and accentuate painted details, providing dimensions.

Here is a drapery example (on your left) of over blending, painting that shows a lack of contrast in both value and color. It can make the subject look fuzzy from a distance. The drapery painting on the right shows the contrast of value and color; draperies that will have definition when viewed from a distance.

And if we take color out of the composition, we can still see the difference and need for contrast with value for an object to remain visible from afar.

Many 19^th-century, and early-20^th-century, scenic artists were visionaries, They fully understood how painted illusion was supported with stage machinery and lighting. Pause – Scenic art is an interactive art form, partnering with various stage lighting systems.

Scenic artists understood the characteristics of various lighting systems, adjusting the color and value accordingly. Here is an example of scenery produced for electric light – blue, red and white, a popular combination from the 1890s to 1920s.

This all goes back to the color selection and application of distemper paint. The use of a warm and cool consistently creates a color that will reflect stage lights. Strategic color combinations increase the opportunities to reflect light – supporting day to night transitions on stage. So if you have a blue sky, you always make sure there is a small amount of warmth added (orange, red, etc.).

It was through documenting and preserving historic scenes that I realized so many backdrops could function as translucencies.

Here is an example from 1902. You can see hoe the view from behind the drop (on your right) reveals how little color was applied to the fabric.

This practice continued into the 1920s, despite stylistic changes.

Here is another comparison with a view from the front and from behind – to show how thin the paint is applied to the fabric. Those white areas on the left are stage lights shining through the fabric.

Here is a distemper detail that I painted for a Haymarket Opera Company production in Chicago, Illinois – L’amant anonyme by the Chevalier de St. George. I firmly believe that the key to distemper painting is how little pigment is used and the body of the paint – whether it is dense or flowing. Very thin paint, or low viscosity, will appear opaque with front lighting, but will remain extremely flexible. That is how I was able to pack eight 27’ ground rows, ranging in high from 30 to 60 inches in a standard suitcase. Although the scene appears quite opaque, there is very little pigment applied to the fabric. When you stand behind the scenes you recognize how thin each layer of paint was applied.

Another painted detail from the same show. In many cases, we have forgotten how much we can do with any ordinary white light source placed behind a distemper drop. And this has to do with the viscosity and layering of colors. The image on the left shows a section of distemper drop under work lights. The image on the right is the same painting, but with a standard white lamp behind the painting. Underlying colors are revealed – transitioning the entire palette without the necessity of colored light. No glass or gels. Again, this is the metamorphic nature of distemper paint that supported 19^th century scenic illusion and spectacle.

Another detail with a gelled incandescent on the right. This is more of what we are used to. But when we combine colored front lights and illumination from the backside – possibilities are endless and the whole scene glows.

Another example of a translucency – one created with distemper paint – not dye; one that we are more familiar with in contemporary effects. This one shows how a sky can transition to sunset without the use of dyes.

Many audiences have never experienced the magical allure and metamorphic nature of distemper settings on stage.

This beauty, however, can instantaneously be destroyed with poor lighting.

When lit poorly, painted legacies from our past resemble dull-colored and thread-bare rags at best. Side light will especially accentuate wrinkles. Front light erases wrinkles in an instant.

In some cases, however, seeing is believing. Here is an 11-second video showing the transition from side light to front light.

This is nothing fancy, just a shift in direction. Keep this in mind the next time you encounter a deteriorated backdrop, because with proper lighting, some of the most damaged scenes can look fresh.

So why am I so passionate about the history of scenic art? It all started in college. As I took one scene painting class after another in college (same distemper painting class, different levels), I repeatedly queried my professor about early women scenic artists. His response – “They were all boys, get over it.” This was not a subjective statement, or one intending to put me in my place. My teacher was teaching what he had been taught. His statement, however, really lit a flame inside me. I decided to learn everything I could about scenic art, the people, and the processes.

Part of this quest involved extracurricular studies and museum exhibits. In 1989, I received an Undergraduate Research Opportunities Program (UROP) grant to process an historic scenery collection – the Great Western Stage Equipment Company, established in Kansas City, Missouri, ca. 1920s. I worked in the Performing Arts Archives, part of the University of Minnesota archives. This UROP grant was followed by another – Holak Collection. The second collection contained designs from two primary firms – the Chicago-based studio of Sosman & Landis Studio and their affiliate studio New York Studios.

The acquisition of these collections, spearheaded by my mentor, Prof. Emeritus Lance Brockman, was contingent upon their open access and use by students. Copy work was critical to his scenic art program. This meant that University students could request a design, set up their watercolor palette, and replicate the composition in the reading room. In addition to copying historic designs, I enlarged them on 5’ x 5’ flats – using traditional materials and exploring painting techniques. His future hope was to digitize the collection so that theatre students, academic colleagues, and professionals would have free access to all of these materials.

From 1999-2000, I worked with these two collections, and a previous, the Twin City Scenic Co. Collection, Minneapolis, MN, to create an online digital database. I was in charge of layout, contents, text, content and assigning metadata to over 3000 artifacts.

I still return to the collection, examining details of many designs. This project has continued to inform my own research.

Assigning meta data, replicating designs, and preserving historic stage scenes have all helped me make a series of immediate connections while working on site. It is my continued work with these collections over 35 years has allowed me to immediately locate many original designs for extant curtains. For example, when I unrolled a drop curtain at the Theatre Museum of Repertoire Americana in Mount Pleasant, Iowa, last January I remembered that the design was part of the Twin City Scenic Collection in the database, and quickly located the file in the scenery database.

For me, the past continues to informed my present, as a theatre historian, scenic designer, and artist. I still have that fire burning, a drive to learn all I can, while I can.

Such was the case when I catalogued and repaired the scenery collection at a 1912 Theatre in Santa Fe, New Mexico. From 2002-2005, I led a crew of eighteen local hires to preserve this 74 drops over the course of three years. I was also leading the preservation of a sister collection in St. Paul, Minnesota – same design, same scenic studio, but installed in 1911.

From 2016-2018, I worked with photographer and one-time scenic artist, Jo Whaley, on the publication “The Santa Fe Scottish Rite Temple: Freemasonry, Architecture and Theatre.” Jo and I were the volume editors; I was also one of three contributing authors.

We were granted permission to photograph all of the scenes with original costumes and properties. Again, these were scenic designs that I first encountered in 1990 while processing the Holak collection. The descriptions, installations, sizes, signatures were all engrained in my memory.

This is one of the reasons that I am so adamant to share my research, to help jog the memories of others, whether they be theaters owners, back stage crews, or the descendants of scenic artists and designers; many historic theaters do not understand that they are part of a much larger network. It also re-frames our understanding about scenic artists, painting process, and liberties taken from design to installation.

I am going to conclude with a topic that I introduced last year during the conference, English Scenic artist Harley Merry, aka Ebeneezer Brittain. He worked as a performer and scenic artist, emigrating to the United States in the late 1860s. I bring Merry to your attention, as it brings another aspect of the scenic art trade into focus. After moving to America, Merry was integral in organizing serval groups, including the Protective Alliance of Scene Painters in America.

This organization became the current scenic art union known as United Scenic Artists. Recently, the Union produced a video about their history, still listing these men as…

There is no doubt that each was skilled, but this group does not comprise the best that America had to offer at the time.

They only represent a small number of scenic artists working in a few specific regions. The picture is very telling, especially when you start realize those nationally-renowned scenic artists missing from the picture.

For me, these men represent those who had…

…the most to lose without establishing a protective alliance and keeping OTHER scenic artists out.

Artists like Mabel Buell. It was not until 1918 that women were allowed to join the Union – 2 years before women were able to vote. Mabel A. Buell’s late entry makes it appear that women were just beginning to enter the scenic art field; few and far between. This perpetuated misconceptions that the scenic artists were primarily white men.

It’s important to understand that when Mabel joined the Union, she was not only a scenic artist, but also was a scenic studio owner. Both she and her mother worked as scenic artists, as did her father and brother. As in many cases, it was a family affair.

By the way, this is Mable directing her employees (center picture). At times her staff numbered over twenty people.

When Mabel joined the Union, she was described as the “only girl in the profession.” Buell continued to be listed as such in the early 1920s. By this time GENERATIONS of women had worked as scenic artists. Some were wives, some were daughters, some were sisters, and some entered the profession all on their own.

Here are three examples of women scenic artists identified as the “Only” over the course of two decades. On the left is Grace Wishaar, listed as the only woman scenic artist by 1901 She had been painting for over a decade at this point. On the right is Irene Kendrick, listed as the FIRST and ONLY scenic artist in 1909. In the center is Mable Buell – pictured in the 1921; still listed as the only woman scenic artist in America throughout that decade.

Well, that wasn’t necessarily the case – Here are a few names women scenic artists from the mid-19^th to early 20^th century.

Although there are many, many more. These were women who painted stage settings and were listed as such in census reports, city directories, and newspaper accounts. Not all scenic artists were listed as such.

I believe historians try their best to represent the world as it was. However, at some point, the contributions of generations of artists were left out of theatre history. Aesthetic shifts, new design movements, and innovative technology continue to be credited to a select few.

The use of “ONLY” to describe a female scenic artist in newspapers, sends an underlying message – they are not a threat. After all, there is only one. The same language was used to describe scenic artists who were people of color.

Over the past few years, I have identified women, indigenous people, and people of color who worked as scenic artists in the 19^th century. Many of these discoveries occurred while writing the 120 biographies of Soman & Landis studios). This research is for my upcoming book, “Sosman & Landis: Shaping the Landscape of American Theatre.”

Today, online databases provide massive amounts of information about individuals who worked as scenic artists. We are now able to identify thousands of individuals whose contributions to theatre history were either forgotten or ignored. This means that we are responsible for reframing the history of scenic art and theatre history.

Women and people of color who were often not counted, but they were present, they contributed to our shared theatre industry.

WE can no longer solely teach theatre history from the same books that have been used by generations of students.

WE are completely in control when choosing the lens through which we depict our industry’s past, present, and future of our industry.

To be continued…

Travels of a Scenic Artist and Scholar: England and Wales, 2024.

You may have noticed that it has been a while since my last post.

When I’m not on the road for work, my life consists of scenery preservation, presentations, master classes, writing, scenic design, art, and caretaking (people, places and things). I wrote a similar statement last year, about the same time.

I just returned from a trip to England and Wales. The impetus for my travel began last fall at the Tyne Theatre & Opera House.

View of Newcastle-Upon-Tyne from my hotel window on July 29, 2024.

The Tyne Theatre & Opera House on July 30, 2024.

The Tyne Theatre & Opera House. Photograph by Mike Hume, August 2, 2024.

Last year, on Sept. 15, 2023, I presented a paper at an international theatre conference. 120 delegates attended the event, representing the UK, Europe, Canada and the United States.

My presentation, Stage Craft and Spectacle: Immigrant Contributions to North American Theatre, was part of the Tyne Theatre & Opera House Conference: Victorian and Edwardian Theatre in Performance, Music & Machinery – Stagecraft & Spectacle. Here is a link to my 2023 presentation from last year:

Travels of a Scenic Artist and Scholar: The Tyne Theatre & Opera House Conference, England, Sept. 13-15, 2023.

I was part of a session entitled Beyond Great Britain, one that included Mike Hume and Rick Boychuk. They discussed the Booth Theatre and Auditorium Theatre, respectively. Here is a link to more information about the conferences and individual sessions: https://www.tynetheatreandoperahouse.uk/international-conference/

The 2023 event was organized by David Wilmore of Theatresearch. On the final day of the conference delegates were able to watch the functioning stage machinery from both above and below stage.

David Wilmore explaining the stage machinery to delegates. September 15, 2023.

The 2023 conference was a truly a celebratory event, unveiling almost two decades of hard work to rebuild the entire stage house after a 1985 fire.

The theater’s website explains:

Our machinery is one of the only surviving examples of Victorian wooden modular stage machinery in the UK and is of huge historic importance. Prior to the theatre fire in 1985, the machinery was used regularly by fully trained volunteers in productions. Now however there is a real risk of losing historic knowledge from previous years. We are therefore developing a team of committed volunteers who will be trained in the operation and restoration of this machinery.

For more information about the Tyne’s Historic Stage Machinery, visit: https://www.tynetheatreandoperahouse.uk/historic-stage-machinery/

At both conference’s Wilmore provided context for the machinery, giving a full explanation of the bridges, cuts, and sloats during various demonstrations.

Sloats emerging from the cuts at the Tyne Theatre & Opera House. Sept. 15, 2023.

During the 2023 demonstration, Wilmore commented that they were ready to install new scenery. Before my departure, the following plan was hatched over a pint of beer.

Our plan: I would design and paint eight ground rows with historic pigments in the US, then hand-carry them in my suitcase.

In addition to delivering the scenery, I would teach a three-day distemper painting class while the scenery was being installed. The project would culminate at the end of the week with another international conference, featuring 19^th-century scenic art. The conference would also include a demonstration of the stage machinery, now complete with my scenery attached to frames on the sloats. Less than a year later, we were attaching frames to the sloats, just prior to the conference.

Attaching frames to the sloats on August 1, 2024.

So how did this all come to be?

In the fall of 2023, a survey was sent out to various organizations, inquiring about potential interest in a three-day distemper painting class. There was an overwhelming response, prompting the entire project to move forward.

As dates were finalized for the summer of 2024, a secondary “travel trip” was hatched with Mike Hume (https://www.historictheatrephotos.com/). In 2023, Hume, Boychuk, and I visited fifteen theaters, both before and after the conference. Our travels brought us to historic venues in London, York, Glasgow, Bristol, Bath, and the Isle of Man. In the end, we documented fifteen theaters.

Wendy Waszut-Barrett, Rick Boychuk and Mike Hume at the Theatre Royal in Bath, 2023.

Hume and I planned a similar trip this year, but by car. Our plan was to drive from Newcastle-Upon-Tyne to Craig Y Nos, Wales. The primary focus was historic scenery collections.

Mike’s map for our proposed 2024 theatre tour.

When all was said and done, I visited:

Georgian Theatre Royal, Richmond

Victoria Hall, Settle

The Plaza, Stockport

Buxton Opera House

Chatsworth House Theatre

Theatre Royal, Nottingham

Nottingham Concert Hall

Nottingham Playhouse

Everyman Theatre, Cheltenham

Adelina Patti Theatre, Craig y Nos

Normansfield Theatre, London

Richmond Theatre, London

The Palladium, London

My next several posts will be about the design and painting of the ground rows, my distemper scene painting class at the Tyne, the scenic art conference, and the historic scenery at various venues.

To be continued…

Travels of a Scenic Artist and Scholar: Lies and Misrepresentation Behind the Curtain, March 22, 2024.

As promised, here is my powerpoint for “Lies and Misrepresentation Behind the Curtain.” This session was sponsored by the Scene Design and Technology Commission for the United States Institute for Theatre Technology’s annual conference in Seattle, Washington.

USITT PRESENTATION (March 22, 2024):

Welcome to “Lies and Misrepresentation Behind the Curtain.” I am Wendy Waszut-Barrett and this is my colleague Ruben Arana.

Before we begin…

This session is divided into two sections. For the first 20 minutes, I will provide historic context and discuss women scenic artists. There will be a 10-minute break to answer questions. Then I will turn it over to Ruben Arana for the second half.

My quest for women scenic artists began in the 1989. In the midst, of learning about theatre history and scene painting techniques, I inquired about the nineteenth-century women scenic artists and was told, “They were all boys, get over it.”

Although our profession is more about what we can do, rather than who we are; this statement made me feel like I was not part of scenic art history. So, I threw myself into learning everything I could about historic scenic art, the people and process.

Who knew that I would discover the name of a woman scenic artist while indexing the diary and scrap book of Thomas Gibbs Moses, a scenic artist whose career spanned from 1873-1934. The project was assigned to me by Lance Brockman, now Professor Emertitis at the University of Minnesota.

My main task was to print up all the pages (feeding quarter after quarter into a microfilm machine), summarize the content of each page, and then create both subject and author indexes.

One of the articles in Moses’ scrap book mentioned “Little Theresa Sparks,” a scenic artist who was employed at a Chicago studio.

You can imagine my delight when I brought this to Lance’s attention. This began the a debate about when women actually entered the field of scenic art.

I tracked down the life and career of Theresa Sparks, posting her story to my blog drypigment.net in 2020. I knew by the 1920s, there was a growing workforce of women scenic artists gaining attention in various publications.

In fact, a 1927 article in The Scenic Artist mentioned the work of twelve women scenic artists, including Lillian Gaertner, Gretl Urbahn, and Vyvyan Donner.

The article included a very subjective analysis, stating:

“For many years women felt themselves barred from taking a part in the painting of scenery, because it involved extreme physical stamina, which, excepting in rare cases, women do not possess. However, being more or less tenacious, it is a foregone conclusion that women will work out their own salvation, and this will perhaps lie in the line of designing or art directing, rather than the actual painting of scenes.”

And thus continued the myth that women scenic artists were few and far between, having not really contributed before the 1920s.

Here are a few names women scenic artists who worked between the 1860s and 1940s. These were women who painted stage settings and were listed as such in census reports, city directories, and newspaper accounts.

I believe historians try their best to represent the world as it was. However, at some point, the contributions of generations of American theatre artists were left out of theatre history. Aesthetic shifts, new design movements, and innovative technology continue to be credited to a select few.

There is a popular image of twenty-four scenic artists who were early officers and charter members for the Protective Alliance of Scene Painters in America.

This group has been constantly referred to as “the foremost scenic artists and designers” in America at the time. That is simply not the case. There is no doubt that each was a skilled and a relatively successful scenic artist, but this group does not comprise the best that America had to offer at the time. They only represent a small number of scenic artists working in a few specific regions. The picture is very telling, especially when you start realize those nationally-renowned scenic artists missing from the picture.

For me, these men represent those who had the most to lose without establishing a protective alliance and keeping OTHER scenic artists out.

I say this having carefully tracked the lives and careers of these gentlemen, including the Thomas G. Moses.

It was not until 1918 that women were allowed to join the Union. Mabel A. Buell’s late entry makes it appear that women were just beginning to enter the scenic art field.

It’s important to understand that when Mabel joined the Union, she was not only a scenic artist, but also a scenic studio owner. Both she and her mother worked as scenic artists, as did her father and brother. In many cases, it was a family affair.

By the way, this is Mable directing her employees. At times her staff numbered twenty people.

When Mabel joined the Union, she was described as the “only girl in the profession.” Buell continued to be listed as such in the early 1920s.

By this time GENERATIONS of women had worked as scenic artists. Some were wives, some were daughters, some were sisters, and some entered the profession all on their own.

The use of “ONLY” to describe a female scenic artist in newspapers, sends an underlying message – they are not a threat. After all, there is only one.

Here are examples of three women scenic artists identified as the “Only” in America over the course of two decades; On the left is Grace Wishaar (pronounced Wee-shar), listed as the only woman theatrical scene painter by 1901. On the right is Irene Kendrick, listed as the FIRST woman scene painter in 1909. In the center is Mable Buell – pictured in the 1921.

I am going to focus on Seattle Scenic artist – Grace Norton Wishaar- she is pictures on the left.

Born in 1876, she worked at both the Cordray Theatre and the Seattle Theatre in the early 1890s. An accomplished pianist, singer, and chess player, she was the eldest of 6 children born to Emile Bernard and Marie Ida Smith. When Grace was ten years old, she sailed with her family from New York to California.

Her career as an artist began at the San José Art School, with her first drawing instructor being Lee Lash. Lash was eight years older than Grace, and moved to New York where he established a scenic studio. Ironically, when Grace moved to New York looking for work, Lash turned her down, explaining: “scene painting was no work for a woman; her sex would make her unwelcome among the workmen’ and that women were too ‘finicky’ for work that demands broad effects.”

In 1894, The Washington Standard reported, “Seattle has a young lady scene painter in Miss Grace Wishaar. A new drop curtain at Cordray’s, which is universally admired, is from her brush.”

Grace had painted scenery for almost two years by this point.

In fact, the same year that Grace entered the scenic art profession, Sosman & Landis sent Thomas G. Moses to Seattle for several months to deliver a massive stock scenery collection. The studio frequently hired local artists to help with on-site work.

In 1901 Grace described her early career in an interview with a Buffalo Express reporter. She said:

“It was like this, I left school out in Seattle and went into society. But my sister cared for music, and I cared for art, and we tired of other things and decided to study. She began training her voice for grand opera. I fitted up a studio – a beautiful room it was, 80 feet long, in the Seattle business block – I kept at portrait work. My mother writes – she lately copyrighted a play on the Philippine war – so she understood how we felt. Then one day the Seattle Theater needed a drop. My father, E. B. Wishaar, is dramatic editor of the Post-Intelligence -sir. He heard about it and mentioned it to me. I thought I could do the drop. Mr. Russell – the manager – laughed at me, but he let me try it. I painted the scene and they said it was just what they wanted. After that, I had all I could do for the Seattle and Cordray theaters and for two years I worked as a professional…”

In the midst of all of this, Grace married her first husband in 1897, celebrated the birth of a son in 1898, and continued her artistic training at the William M. Chase School of Art – moving east in 1900.

When Grace headed to New York in search of scenic work at the beginning of 1901 -it was scenic studio owner D. Frank Dodge who provided an opportunity. Soon, she was painting for him at the Fifth Avenue Theatre, Manhattan Theatre, and Herald Square Theatre.

During the next few years, Grace became Dodge’s right-hand person – meeting with newspapers and explaining both the design and painting process. She continued with Dodge until 1904 when he sent to a project in Seattle. She remained there, painting at theaters in Portland, Seattle, Tacoma, San Francisco, and Oakland. While working for Dodge she married her second husband.

When Grace returned to the West Coast, she worked with Seattle scenic artist, Sheridan L. Jenkins. Photographs of the two working together in 1905 are priceless.

Sheridan was originally from Fairbury, Nebraska. He moved to Seattle by the late 1880s and began working as a scenic artist. In 1892 when, about the time Grace entered the profession, he moved to Chicago, working with Thomas G. Moses’ former business partner, Walter Burridge.

Here is another photograph of Grace and Sheridan on the paint bridge. From a quality standpoint, these are some of the best scenic art process photographs that I have ever encountered.

Here is another of the two in Grace’s studio. We are able to see – in detail – so many of her designs and models.

All of their stage scenery was painted with distemper paint, the mixture of pigment paste with diluted hide glue. By the way, I have solely used distemper paint for the last seven shows I that designed and painted for Haymarket Opera Company (Chicago) and the Gilbert & Sullivan Very Light Opera Company (Minneapolis). It reflects light so much better than any premixed product in a can. In 1903, Grace explained “Distemper is a really beautiful medium. You can produce such fine effects with it! But it’s very tricky unless you know JUST how to handle it.”

In 1904, Harry W. Bishop hired Grace as his scenic artist for Ye Liberty Playhouse in Oakland, California. The theater’s studio measured 100 by 35 feet, and included a machine shop and three paint frames. One frame was movable, and the other two were stationary with adjustable bridges. It was a remarkable stage, with a 75-foot revolve – purportedly the first in the west. Grace was working at a state-of-the-art theater.

Her scenic art at Ye Liberty immediately made the news and was described as “one of the strong points of the theater.” Grace’s gender was looked upon as an asset. On Jan. 12, 1905, The Berkley Gazette reported, “The Liberty is particularly fortunate in this [meaning her being female], for that is the secret of the delicate touches, artistic settings and finished details always present at their performances.”

In 1907, another article about Grace announced, “Ye Liberty’s Scene Painted, the only woman in the world of the profession – does amount of work which men scene painters find impossible to do.” Remember that two decades later, the 1927 article in The Scenic Artist reported, “For many years women felt themselves barred from taking a part in the painting of scenery because it involved extreme physical stamina.”

Progress made by one generation of women, can instantaneously evaporate with the next.

Wishaar’s scenery for Barbara Freitchie at Ye Liberty Playhouse was regarded “as proof of Miss Grace Wishaar’s uniformly good scene painting.” Here is an image of her Frederick Street setting for the show.

While working for Bishop, three major disasters struck: earthquake, divorce, and fire. In 1906, an earthquake damaged Ye Liberty Playhouse. This was the same year that she married her third husband. The next year, Grace filed for divorce, citing desertion.

In 1909, Grace and her family narrowly escaped a house fire. Evidence suggested that a faulty grate was to blame, but the fire destroyed everything, including her prized collection of paintings. This was a turning point for Grace. She collapsed at work. Her doctor advised a “rest cure.” This was the medical order for “go on a world tour.”

Enter Marian Smith Oliver, former ward of multimillionaire F. M. Smith, also known as the Borax King. In 1910, Grace and Marian journeyed around the world, ending up in Paris where Grace set up a studio and Marian began performing. Scandal ensued, with Marian returning home to her husband. Their marriage did not last. In 1912 Seattle newspapers reported that Grace was in the midst of a three-years art course in Paris and “At present she is on a summer sketching tour through Spain and Italy.” She participated in several art exhibitions, and in 1914 exhibited three portraits at the Salon des Beaux Arts.

Grace had played chess since a child and used it to relax during paint breaks at the theater. In Paris, Grace began competing in chess tournaments. In 1931, she won the French Woman’s Championship, the same year that her fifth husband completed suicide in Ceylon (Sri Lanka).

Grace’s sixth and final marriage was to world-chess champion, Alexander Alekhine (1892-1946). She was playing one of the boards in his simultaneous blindfold chess game. They were in Tokyo. They married the next year. Sixteen years her junior, Alekhine was a notorious alcoholic, The two traveled, played chess, and won awards, yet she continued to paint and maintain a studio in Paris.

When Grace passed away in 1956, she was buried next to her husband. Their gravestone even includes a chess board at its base. There is much, much, more to this story that is posted to www.drypigment.net.

The chess world has recently become fascinated with Grace Wishaar. Last year, Alan McGowan, historian at Chess Scotland, contacted me about my posts concerning her early life and painting career. In January 2024, McGowan published his article, “Amazing Grace,” for the English periodical Chess.

Grace left a treasure trove of photographs, newspaper articles and other historic records, yet, she still faded from theatre history by the 1920s. There are still hundreds who remain nameless; their contributions to the development of theatre history have yet to be counted.

Over the past few years, I have identified dozens of women scenic artists while writing the 120 biographies of Soman & Landis studios, including Grace Wishaar. This research is for my upcoming book Sosman & Landis: Shaping the Landscape of American Theatre. The Sosman & Landis staff was quite diverse, including women, African-Americans, and immigrants.

Which brings me to Lara Levero. She represents the thousands who did not make headlines, appearing as a brief spark at a particular moment. In 1920, Levero was counted in the US Federal Census, living in Los Angeles and working as a scenery painter. She listed her birthplace as Mexico and Spanish for her “mother tongue.” Levero emigrated in 1918 and was currently living with fellow scenery painter Felix Garcia.

I have managed to track the scenic art career of Felix Garcia, who settled in El Paso, Texas, and was listed in city directories by 1922. At this time, I have yet to determine if the two married, or went their separate ways. It is so very difficult to trace the lives and careers of women, especially after they marry.

Today, online databases provide massive amounts of information. We are now able to identify thousands of individuals whose contributions to theatre history were either forgotten or ignored.

Although women scenic artists are not currently included in the history books, they were present and contributed to our industry.

WE can no longer solely teach theatre history from the same books that have been used for generations of students. Teachers cannot teach what they do not learn.

WE are completely in control when choosing the lens through which we depict our industry’s past, present, and future of our industry.

Travels of a Scenic Artists and Scholar. USITT Seattle, March 20-23, 2024.

The United States Institute for Theatre Technology is a membership organization, established in 1960 to advance both knowledge and skills in the areas of design, technology, and production. There are several commissions within USITT that focus on specific areas of the industry, such as scene design and technology, costumes, lighting, sound design, education, engineering, and management. Each commission meets at the annual conference to propose sessions and workshops for the next year. The Scene Design and Technology Commission includes scenic art, properties, safety and health, heritage and more.

A few years back, I was appointed Vice-Commissioner of Heritage in the Scene Design Commission, replacing Arden Weaver when he stepped down from the position.

The 2024 conference is in Seattle, Washington (March 20-23). I am one of two presenters for Lies and Misrepresentation Behind the Curtain, a 60-minute session sponsored by the Scene Design and Technology Commission.

Our session is in room 608 at the Seattle Convention Center on Friday, March 22, 2024 (10:00 AM – 11:00 AM). My co-presenter is Ruben Arana of Florida A&M University. We proposed this session last year after meeting meeting for the first time; sitting next to one another at the the Commission meeting.

Our session looks at the history of underrepresented people of color and women in the 19^th and early 20^th century, sharing the stories of four specific individuals. If you are attending the conference this year, please consider joining us!

For more information about the United States Institute for Theatre Technology, visit www.usitt.org

Travels of a Scenic Artist and Scholar: The Tyne Theatre & Opera House Conference, England, Sept. 13-15, 2023.

You may have noticed that it has been a while since my last blog post.

I was bombarded with a series of projects this summer. When I wasn’t on the road, my life consisted of scenic design, scenic art, restoration, paperwork, and caretaking (people, places, and things). My theme for 2023 continues to be “Damage Control.” If only each day could last more than 24 hours….

August and September became especially busy as my out-of-town trips included: CITT/ICTS (Canadian Institute of Theatre Technology) in Toronto, Ontario, Canada; The Western Minnesota Steam Threshers Reunion in Rollag, Minnesota; the Tyne Theatre & Opera House Conference in England; and Haymarket Opera Company’s fall production in Chicago, Illinois.

All of this travel could not have been possible without the support of my husband, Andrew Barrett, and children, Aaron Barrett, Isa Marceau, and Anna Marceau. In the midst of everything, Andrew and I celebrated 30 years of marriage on Sept. 11. Sadly, our celebration occurred 4,000 miles apart.

I finally have a moment to share a presentation from two weeks ago. My presentation was for the Tyne Theatre & Opera House Conference: Victorian and Edwardian Theatre in Performance, Music & Machinery – Stagecraft & Spectacle.

[Dr. Wendy Waszut-Barrett presenting Stage Craft & Spectacle: Immigrant Contributions to North American Theatre at the Tyne Theatre & Opera House conference on Sept. 15, 2023].

I have a “window of opportunity” to write today; one that stems from opening night of La liberazione di Ruggero dall-isola a’Alcina; all of my stage notes are done! Here is a link to the show: http://www.haymarketopera.org/caccini

I sit in a hotel room, extremely grateful for not only an exceptional group of colleagues, but also an extraordinary network of support; one that has never faltered over the years.

My journey to the UK began last fall when I opened an email from Mike Hume. Hume is an amazing theatre photographer and historian. His website showcases theaters from around the world. Here is his website: https://www.historictheatrephotos.com/

On Oct. 5, 2022, Rick Boychuk and I received an email from Hume proposing that we submit a presentation proposal for an upcoming theatre conference. He attached the following call for papers:

For context, Boychuk specializes in historic rigging systems and is the author of Nobody Looks Up: The History of Counterweight rigging History, 1500-1925.

In Hume’s October email, he described the Tyne Theatre and Opera House: “It’s one of the few UK theatres with early-stage machinery, albeit much of it rebuilt following a devastating fire in the stagehouse in 1985. The stage machinery at the Tyne Theatre is really very comprehensive. David Wilmore led the reconstruction project and is continuing with further projects at the theatre.” I first met David Wilmore in Stockholm at another conference in 2016. We managed to stay in touch over the years.

In mid-November 2023, Hume, Boychuk, and I scheduled a virtual meeting with Alan Butland, Trustee and Secretary at the Tyne Theatre & Opera House Preservation Trust. We wanted to see if there would be any interest in topics that examined stage technology and painted spectacle beyond Britain. In the end, we submitted a joint proposal for three topics under the heading “The Development of North American Stagecraft and Spectacle During the Victorian Period.”

Boychuk’s paper explored Booth’s Theatre in New York, Mike’s paper explored the Auditorium Theatre in Chicago, and my paper provided context for both, each built during a time when the demand for painted illusion was greater than the supply of manufacturers.

We received a response to our proposals almost three months later. On Feb. 17, 2023, Mike emailed, “Pack your bags, folks, we’re going to Newcastle!”

Locations of Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, England

As we looked at tentative travel dates, our discussion began to include other historic venue; nearby opera houses that would be of interest. When all was said and done, we visited a total of fifteen theaters between Sept. 10 and Sept. 19, 2023. In the upcoming weeks, I will post a series of blogs about our stops in London, York, Newcastle-Upon-Tyne, Glasgow, Isle of Man, Bristol, and Bath.

In regard to the Tyne Theatre’s auditorium and stage, here is a link to Hume’s photos and research: https://www.historictheatrephotos.com/Theatre/Tyne-Newcastle.aspx

We presented our papers on September 15, 2023. The chair for our panel was Iain Mackintosh.

Here is my full paper with PowerPoint images. It includes all of the original text, as some sentences were cut to stay within the 20-min. time limit.

Stage Craft & Spectacle: Immigrant Contributions to North American Theatre by Dr. Wendy Waszut-Barrett for the Tyne Theatre and Opera House conference.

[Slide 1]

I am going to “set the stage” for stage craft and painted spectacle between 1860 and 1890 in North America, touching on four major contributing factors – the Gold Rush, the Transcontinental Railroad, the Great Chicago Fire, and Immigration. Then, I will then explore the dissemination of two scenic art traditions, introduced by immigrants during the rise of the North American scenic studio system. These traditions merged to create a hybrid form of scenic art in North America that dominated popular entertainment for decades.

[Slide 2]

The discovery of gold in the American River during the winter of 1848 prompted what is now known as the California Gold rush of 1849, an event that drew people from all over the world. Exorbitant salaries were offered to theatre professionals, those willing to brave the journey and perform in very rough settings. Even the young scenic artist Phillip Goatcher left Sydney for San Francisco (invitation by Henry E. Abby of the Park Theater), and assisted William Porter. It was a series of gold strikes that fueled a national desire to complete the first transcontinental railroad, uniting east and west coasts.

[Slide 3]

The transcontinental railroad was completed on May 10, 1869, with the final golden spike driven at Promontory Summit in Utah.

[Slide 4]

The arduous cross-country from New York to San Francisco was reduced to 7 days by 1870. Thousands of communities were now connected, with Chicago centrally located and situated along the western shore of Lake Michigan, one of the five Great Lakes in a freshwater chain that connected the interior of North America to the Atlantic ocean.

[Slide 5]

A variety of entertainment venues were constructed in the railway’s wake, including the Tabor Opera House. Located in the heart of the Rocky Mountains, the mining town of Leadville, Colorado was approximately 3050 meters above sea-level. Horace Tabor, nationally known as the “Silver King,” constructed his flagship opera house in 1879, only a month before the railway arrived in town. Ample land, abundant funds, and an ever-expanding network of transportation offered seemingly endless opportunities for theater manufacturers and suppliers. Demand for painted front curtains, stock scenery collections, stage machinery and lighting systems outweighed the supply of craftsmen to manufacture them. An abundance of work with high profits drew people from across the country and around the world.

[Slide 6]

Hundreds of theaters were now connected by rail, prompting Chicago Illustrator and printer, John B. Jeffrey, to publish his first guide and directory to operas houses, theaters, and public halls across the country in 1878. Jeffrey provided practical information for touring groups with detailed information about stage houses, writing: “We realized the necessity for a book which would be a guide to agents and managers of all amusement enterprises.”

Jeffrey’s preface stated:

“Since 1860, the Amusement Professions have shared in the extraordinary developments visible in every material interest…Intellectual foreigners have been astounded at the rapidity with which a vast wilderness has been transformed into a Nation thickly dotted with centers of industry, commerce, and art…The full extent of this marvelous progress has not been recognized generally as it deserved…The American Stage ranks in importance with that of England and France…”

Jno. B. Jeffrey’s Guide and Directory was one of many innovations to come out of Chicago during the 1870s. At the time Chicago was in the process of rebuilding itself, reconstructing the downtown area after the Great Fire.

[Slide 7]

In 1871, disaster struck when fire ravaged 8.55 km2 of the downtown area, destroying 17,500 buildings and displacing 100,000 residents.

[Slide 8]

Two decades later the City later hosted the 1893 World Fair. In addition to recognizing the 400^th anniversary of Christopher Columbus’ arrival, the Columbian Exposition showed the world that Chicago has risen from the ashes victorious.

[Slide 9]

The rebuilding of the Chicago drew hundreds of thousands of tradesmen to the Midwest. 10,000 building permits were issued between 1872 to 1879. Chicago quickly became an American Hub of Economic and Industrial Innovation.

[Slide 10]

The rebuilding of Chicago coincided with shifts in immigration. There were three waves of immigration during the 19^th century. The first wave primarily consisted of people England, Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Europe. The second wave included an increased number of people from western and central Europe. The third wave lasted from the end of the 19^th century into the early 20^th century, and mainly consisted of people from Eastern Europe and Russia. With access to western lands and opportunities, immigrants arrived in Chicago by droves.

[Slide 11]

The distribution of immigrants also radically changed as the country’s transportation network shifted to include railroads.

[Slide 12]

There was a demographic shift by the mid 19^th-century from an earlier immigration wave primarily composed of those from the British Isles and northern Europe to western and central Europe by the mid-19^th-century. This shift, occurred as the railroad network exponentially increased, distributing new groups of immigrants into the interior of North America.

[Slide 13]

By the mid-nineteenth century there was a dramatic increase in German immigrants. An 1874 Harper’s Weekly illustration featured Germans boarding a steamer for the United States. German emigration peaked between 1881 and 1885, when a million Germans arrived, many settling in the Midwestern United States.

[Slide 14]

Even today, we can trace the second wave German immigrants through the lives of their descendants. Here is a 2010 tracing the largest ancestry by county in the United States. There remains a large red swath that cuts across the country, known as the German Belt.

[Slide 15]

By 1890, 80% of all Chicago’s citizens were either foreign born or children of immigrants. From a Theatre History perspective, this made Chicago a melting pot of stage craft.

[Slide 16]

Two distinct scene painting traditions dominated the production of painted illusion in Chicago at this time – The English method of transparent glazing (left-side image) and the Continental Method of opaque washes (right-side image).

[Slide 17]

On the left, is an example of the English Method; a painted detail by William Thompson Russell Smith (1812-1896) for the Thalian Hall in Wilmington, North Carolina, in 1858. This was the stylistic approach employed by many scenic artists in eastern theaters, including Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, and along the eastern seaboard.

On the right, is an example of the Continental Method; a painted detail by James E. Lamphere for the Tabor Opera House in Leadville, Colorado, in 1879. Note that the shape in the left image is defined by a successive layer of dark glazes, while the image on the left uses light on dark to define the shape.

[Slide 18]

These two “schools of scenic art” – translucent glazes and opaque washes – were publicly argued for, and against, in nineteenth-century newspapers and periodicals. In 1881, the British periodical, The Building News and Engineering Journal, published an article entitled “Secrets of the Scene Painter.” It simply stated, “The English school in which the greatest advances have been made, use thin glazes” and “The German, French and Americans use opaque washes, or, as it is usually expressed work in “body colour.” This 1881 article suggests that the adoption of the Continental method by many American scenic artists had already taken place by this time. In 1889, another article published in The Theatre Magazine (W. J. Lawrence, July 13, 1889) lamented the loss of the English tradition, “the days of glazing and second painting are gone forever. What matters is that the adoption of the broadest system of treatment possible – working slapdash fashion in full body colors.” In 1891, the San Francisco Call “English scenic artists as a class possess a breadth and freedom of style that are unequaled by those of any other nationality. These qualities, which are the highest excellences in scene painting, are especially noticeable in their landscapes, which are simply unapproachable, possessing, as they do at once a beauty, a realism and a fidelity to nature which we look for in vain in the work of the scenic artists of any other land” (A. Palmer, Feb 22, 1891).

[Slide 19]

Interestingly, the English tradition of frame painting remained the preferred method in the United States until the 1920s. Here is an illustration of American scenic artists for Harper’s Weekly in 1878; this was the first year that he started working for the publication. At the time, Graham was a well-known in Chicago as a scenic artist. He was later named the official artist for Chicago’s 1893 World Fair.

[Slide 20]

Here are two examples that illustrate the differences between the English method of painting on a vertical frame and the Continental method of painting on the floor. The Nineteenth-century American scenic artists favored the use of vertical frames. Much had to do with the design of the theaters allowing scenic artists to only access their work from the stage, there was simply not enough floor space, even after scenic studios built their own structures. The scenic artists worked on fixed or movable bridges above the stage.

[Slide 21]

I always include images of women painting in my presentations, as they were often left of the history books. As with people of color, they were present, just not counted. The left image shows Grace Wishaar painting in America, ca. 1902. The right image is from the 1927 publication The Continental Method of Scene Painting.

[Slide 22]

It is important to understand that both floor and frame painting necessitated a It is important to understand that both floor and frame painting necessitated a different approach. Although both used distemper paint and similar brushes, each approach determined the economy of brushwork. Here is an example of floor painting in the Continental Method, featuring French scenographer Auguste Rubè (1815-1899).

[Slide 23]

Here is an example of the English Method featuring American scenic artist Thomas Gibbs Moses (1856-1934). I paint both up and down, recognizing that each tradition has its strengths. That being said, as an aging artist, I recognize that I will be able to paint on a frame far longer than I will be able to paint on the floor.

[Slide 24]

Distemper paint was the traditional artistic medium for the stage, solely consisting of only two ingredients: pure color (dry pigment) and binder (diluted hide glue).

[Slide 25]

Dry pigment powder was transformed into wet pulp prior to mixing it with a binder.

[Slide 26]

Hide glue requires cooking and is diluted with water to create size. Strong size was applied to the fabric, preparing the fibers for paint. Strong size was further diluted to create working size, also known as size water, for the distemper painting process.

[Slide 27]

Here is an example of an American scenic artist’s palette, filled with bowls of pigment paste. The paste and size water were mixed together on the artist’s palette, then immediately applied to the fabric. This remained the standard methodology for North American scenic art until the mid-twentieth century.

[Slide 28]

The scenic artist had to intimately know each color, as the wet paint applied to a backdrop would dry several shades lighter. In a sense, the artist worked solely from memory. Here is an example of wet distemper paint placed next to the same color once dried.

[Slide 29]

A strategic combination of colors applied by a skilled hand resulted in stunning compositions, that transported generations of theatre audiences to distant locations. Distemper paint is quite different from the pre-mixed paints used by Contemporary scenic artists as it fully permeates each underlying later; there is not a continued build-up with each successive layer paint.

[Slide 30]

Very little pigment is needed for the distemper painting process. This means that many distemper backdrops could function as translucencies. The image on the right is the same urn viewed from the backside of the drop. The original paint layer was quite thin, creating opportunities for backlighting. This also means that distemper scenes could be easily folded and packed in touring trunks.

[Slide 31]

Here is a detail from a distemper drop that I painted for the Haymarkt Opera Co. for L’amant anonyme (Chicago, 2022). When lit from behind, an entirely new range of colors is revealed, affecting the atmosphere of the scene without the necessity of colored lights.

[Slide 32]

To date, have written hundreds of biographies about American scenic artists, tracing their lineage to various countries. For today’s presentation, I am briefly going to touch on Harley Merry who painted in the English tradition in New York.

[Slide 33]

Harley Merry was the stage name for Ebenezer Brittain (1844-1914). Brittain began his theatrical career as both an actor and scenic artist. He worked in the theaters of London, Norfolk, Edinburgh, and Glasgow. It is relatively easy to trace his early career in newspapers from the time. In 1864, he married Louisa Maria Raven Rowe (1843-1915), who went by the stage name Adelaide Russell or Roselle.

[Slide 34]

After emigrating in 1869, the Merry’s worked all over the country, with Harley Merry painting scenery for theaters in New Orleans, St. Louis, Memphis, Chicago, Philadelphia, and New York.

[Slide 35]

Merry permanently settled in New York, where he operated an extremely successful studio until his passing in 1914. He was also a major influence in amusement park attractions, especially those on Coney Island in New York, as well as producing scenery for early Edison films. He was extremely influential in the development of American Theatre from both a performance and production perspective.

[Slide 36]

In America, Merry helped establish the Actor’s Order of friendship, joining Edwin Booth and Lawrence Barrett in 1888 to lobby congress against the importation of foreign productions.

[Slide 37]

He was also instrumental in the establishment of the American Society of Scene Painters in 1892. It was organized in Albany, New York, with the executive staff including Richard Marston (Palmer’s Theatre), Henry E, Hoyt (Metropolitan Opera House), Homer F. Emens (Fourteenth Street Theatre), Sydney Chidley (Union Square Theatre), Harley Merry (Brooklyn Studio) Brooklyn and Ernest Albert (Albert, Grover & Burridge). This group truly represents the English Tradition in American scenic art.

Three years later, the American Society of Scene Painters gave rise to the Protective Alliance of Scene Painters of America. In 1895, Merry was elected the organization’s first president and members included scenic artists from all over the country, representing both the English and Continental traditions. In short, it prevented stage employees from handling any scenery except that painted by members of the Alliance, stirring up excitement among English managers.

In 1896 when members gathered in their lodge rooms to install officers, the following statement was recorded: “If George Edwards brings a shipload of scenery from England to America, he will not be able to get a scene shifter or carpenter in New York to handle it, and the orchestra will not even play slow music. For that matter, no piece of scenery painted by a non-union man will be handled in any of the large cities in this country. We have to protect ourselves against the hordes of fresco men who dabble for a farthing, and some of the managers who care nothing for the art, but only for making money.”

Members included George Becker, Moses Bloom, Harry Byrnes, Sydney Chidley, James Fox, W. Crosbie Gill, Frank King, Richard Marston, Harley Merry, John A. Merry, Thomas G. Moses, Arthur Palmer, Seymour D. Parker, Frank Platzer, W. T. Porter, Adolf T. Reinhold, John Rettig, John W. Rough, Horace N. Smith, Orville L. Story, Howard Tuttle, A. G. Volz, Harry Weed, and David W. Weil were just a few of the participants actively involved in the establishment of the alliance.

This organization truly bridged the gap between the two schools of scene painting. Scenic artists across the country united for a common cause.

[Slide 38]

In addition to Merry’s legislative legacy, his artistic legacy continued from one generation to the next. One brief example was the studio established by two of his students – Walter Burridge and Ernest Albert, who partnered with Oliver Dennet Grover in 1890 to construct an astonishing scenic studio by 1891 measuring almost 4500 square meters. Brochures noted, “After a scene is painted, it can be hung, set and lighted in an open space – [the space, measuring] the full size of any stage in the country, so that a manager can not only inspect it as an entirety, and thus suggest alterations, but he can bring his company to the studio and rehearse with the new scenery.” They went bankrupt in two years.

[Slide 39]

This was a period in American Theatre History denoting a distinct shift in the manufacture and distribution of painted scenery. There was a transition from scenery being painted by itinerant scenic artists on site to scenic studio artists mass-producing and shipping scenery by rail.

[Slide 40]

No American scenic studio better exemplifies this shift that Sosman & Landis. Joseph S. Sosman and Perry Landis met and began working as itinerant artists in 1876. By 1879, they saved enough money to open a scenic studio in Chicago. Between the summers of 1881 and 1882, the firm delivered scenery to 74 theaters across the country, then established regional offices New York, Detroit, Kansas City, and St. Louis.

The success of Sosman & Landis was based on a stream of highly skilled scenic artists with national reputations coming in to do what they did best, and then leaving. This cut down on the studio’s overhead, while securing name-recognition from the beginning. Early on, the reputation of the firm was linked to the individual reputations of their scenic artists and stage mechanics.

Over time, the studio became a factory, with a main studio staff, annex studio staffs during times of high productivity, and road crews that painted some installation on site. By 1894 they had delivered scenery to 4,000 stages. Their catalogue that year announced, “Our Artists are selected with reference to their special abilities. Some excel in designing and painting drop curtains, others in landscapes, and other in interior scenes; so, we divide our work that each is given what he can do.”

[Slide 41]

In 1902, Sosman & Landis advertised that they had delivered scenery to more than 6,000 stages in the United States, Canada, Mexico, the Carribean, and South Africa. The firm produced painted spectacle for a variety of popular entertainment, including moving panoramas, cycloramas, grand circus spectacles Wild West shows, amusement park attractions, industrial exhibits, charity events, and more. They knew stage craft and how to produce painted spectacle well.

[Slide 42]

During their reign, Chicago became the largest theatrical manufacturer and supplier in the country. They also diversified their business interests. In the 1890s, Sosman and Landis established the American Reflector & Lighting Company, as well as the theatrical management firm of Sosman, Landis & Hunt; the ran theaters and stock companies. Sosman and Landis even purchased manufacturing firms, such as the Tennessee Pottery Co., to directly source materials for lighting equipment.

[Slide 43]

Over the past few decades, I have identified 113 Sosman & Landis employees, tracing their lives and careers. Although this is only a small fraction of their total employees, it exhibits an unprecedented diversity in the American Theatre industry. The Sosman & Landis scenic studio was the proverbial melting pot of stage craft, a successful blend of old-world traditions and new world innovation. Here is a list of nineteen Sosman & Landis scenic artists who were born overseas in England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, Denmark, Sweden, and the Germany Empire (Prussia and Bavaria).

[Slide 44]

Here is a list of thirteen 1^st-generation scenic artists, the children of emigrants who were Bavarian, Polish, Czech, Dutch, English, French, and German. Again, these are the artistic who are confirmed, representing a small fraction of the complete employee total.

[Slide 45]

With a corresponding map, so you can see the specific region.

[Slide 46]

Seventeen employees came from families who had been in the country for quite some time, but they had been raised in the east; in the states of Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and New York. These scenic artists trained in the English Method.

[Slide 47]

With a corresponding map, so you can see the specific region.

[Slide 48]

Thirty-five scenic artists were born and raised in the Midwestern States of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska; a hodge podge collection of descendants representing the United Kingdom and Europe; many raised on a farm, or the children of local merchants. These individuals became scenic artists, trained in both the English and Continental methods. Many were trained in the hybrid method, using opaque washes on a vertical paint frame.

[Slide 49]

With a corresponding map, so you can see the specific region. Please keep in mind that these slides of lists do not include the dozens of stage carpenters, seamstresses, salesmen, or office staff who worked at Sosman & Landis in Chicago or many of the branch offices. The slides also failed to include those who never make the news; underrepresented communities, and those people of color who were passing for white.

[Slide 50]

Statistically, thousands of scenes painted by nineteenth-century scenic artists remain scattered across North America, with many now tucked away in storerooms, under stages, or above auditorium rafters. They are primary sources for future generations of theatre scholars and practitioners to study. These historic artifacts not only represent the legacy of American scenic artists, but also the legacy of immigrant artists and their homelands.

[Slide 51]

The End

Here is a link to the Tyne Theatre & Opera House conference web page: https://www.tynetheatreandoperahouse.uk/international-conference/

Maintaining and Restoring Historic Drops: How to Plan and What NOT to Do

I am frequently asked about historic scenery maintenance and restoration techniques, with many suggesting I publish some form of manual. Unfortunately, there is no standard way to restore all historic backdrops, cut drops, leg drops, roll drops, wings or shutters. Each one is different, demanding a custom approach based upon a unique set of criteria identified during the preliminary research phase.

A stage artifact’s artistic provenance is the main factor in determining the appropriate process for a continued care program, maintenance or any restoration.

Extensive research must be completed prior to proposing a plan for the handling, cleaning, or repair of a large-scale artwork. Certain questions need to be answered in advance too; who manufactured the scenery, when was the scenery manufactured, and where was the scenery manufactured? The answers to these questions are key in determining the preservation strategy for a specific stage artifact or scenery collection. These answers also prompt a subsequent series of questions regarding appropriate materials, techniques, processes, timelines, future display and use. Is this historic scene intended for display in a theater, or will it simply hang on the wall of an art gallery, commercial establishment, or private residence? How often will the scenery be used, if at all? The answers to these basic questions help formulate a plan.

In addition to understanding an artifact’s artistic provenance, all stakeholders must understand that certain materials and techniques could destroy the artifact. I will explain what not to do, based on examples of poor repairs that I have encountered in the past. There are specific materials and techniques that should never be used on historic scenery or fragile fabric, as they cause irreparable harm and could destroy a significant piece of theatre history.

Contemporary scene painting is a dramatic departure from historic scene painting, in terms of fabrics, painting products and artistic techniques. So much has changed over the past two centuries. Historic scenic art is foreign ground to many contemporary scene painters, especially as certain types of training and materials have vanished from most college curricula and theatre apprenticeships. Just because you are a scenic artist does not make you qualified to restore historic paintings; the two are worlds apart. In other words, an ability to paint historic scenes doesn’t mean you should repair historic scenery. Similarly, a fine art conservator is not necessarily qualified to assess and repair historic settings for the stage.

1. ESTABLISHING ARTISTIC PROVENANCE

The first step to any historic scenery project starts with research. You need to establish the artistic provenance of a stage artifact or scenery collection, and here are the questions that you need to ask, and why you need to ask them:

WHO made it? Is it a backdrop painted on cotton sheeting by a student for a class play in the 1920s, or is it a drop curtain constructed of Russian linen and painted by an internationally recognized artist in the 1890s? The manufacturer of a scenic piece matters, as it is integrally tied to the painting process and materials.

Many nineteenth-century and early-twentieth-century American scenic artists attended art institutes, at home and abroad. In many cases, fine art studies were completed in addition to a lengthy apprenticeship at a professional scenic studio before striking out on one’s own. American scenic artists at this time were members of fine art organizations across the country, and much of their work continues to be treasured in the fine art world. For example, some scenic artists in the east belonged to the Salmagundi Club and/or Rochester Art Club. In the midwestern states, scenic artists studied at the Chicago Institute of Art, joining unique groups, such as the Palette & Chisel Club. In the west, scenic artists belonged to a variety of fine art organizations established in the Pacific North West, California, New Mexico and elsewhere. Theatrical scenery created by scenic artists should not be considered any less significant than their smaller fine art pieces. Large scale works provided generations of artists with opportunities to explore color theory, painting techniques, compositional lay outs and lighting conditions. That being said, there were many amateur artists producing scenery too, and their work is easily identifiable, but also culturally significant.

Regardless of skill level and/or final product, the terms “old backdrops,” “old backings for the stage,” and “old scenery” devalues stage art. Instead, refer to historic scenery as “large-scale artworks” painted by local, regional, national, or internationally recognized fine artists. Public perception is crucial when preserving theatrical heritage. Your terminology could save a piece of American theatre history, or world history.

WHEN was the artifact manufactured? The year, decade, and/or century that the theatrical scene was produced helps identify the type of fabric, paint, and painting process. Knowing the age of a scene helps identify various materials, especially the fabric and basic construction techniques. Fabric seams, whether vertical or horizontal, can also identify a particular era and studio. How the drop is suspended and operated also matters. Are there sandwich battens, rollers, jute webbing, or something else at the top and bottom of the scene? Is there a counterweight system with arbors or a pin rail with sandbags? Keep in mind that the overall suspension affects the deterioration of both the fabric and painted composition. Understanding the original materials and display are crucial in identifying and locating appropriate and compatible materials for any repair.

WHERE was the artifact manufactured? Location can help identify a specific construction and painting process. Certain regions adopted unique approaches to scenic art, often based upon the influx of immigrants. Scenic art in the United States began as a large melting pot of languages, traditions and techniques, with two dominant approaches emerging between 1850 and 1900. At this time American scenic artists primarily worked with opaque washes, thin glazes, and later a combination of the two. These artistic influences are still recognizable today across the country. For more information, read my recent article, “American Scenic Art: The Immigrant Contribution,” in TheatreInitiative Berlin’s Die Vierte Wand #110. Itavailable for free online https://archive.org/details/itheam_d4w-010_202009,

or downloadable as a pdf https://issuu.com/itheam/docs/itheam_d4w-010.

Throughout the twentieth century the American scenic art world continued to change, incorporating new products and methods into the painting process. As an industry many American scenic artists shifted from painting on vertical frames to painting on the floor. A backdrop painted in 1929 and another painted in 1940 may seem light years apart when examining construction, materials, painting techniques and operation.

2. MATERIALS AND PRODUCTS TO AVOID DURING RESTORATION

Restoration is for the long term. Unlike the ephemeral nature of scenery for a short-run show, certain materials and techniques to repair historic scenery should be avoided. Use common sense and think of the big picture; one beyond a quick repair. Select techniques that are reversible and will not permanently alter the artifact. Some methods to patch and repair contemporary drops are not always an option for historic ones. Below is a list of specific materials and techniques that should never be used on historic scenery or fragile fabric:

Metal: Sheet metal is never an option to patch fabric. The weight and sharp edges pose a threat and the rivets puncture the fabric.

Plaster: Plaster on fabric adds too much weight and the painted composition will stretch an irreparable amount.

Hot Melt Glue: This product embeds itself in the fibers and is irreversible, while adding unnecessary weight to the area. Hot melt glue should never be considered when repairing fragile fabrics or historic scenery. It is also an accelerant, posing a fire hazard.

Wood Glue: This product is too brittle to use on soft goods. It was also never intended for fabric; it’s for wood.

Wood Putty: This product was never intended for use on fabric. Again, it is for wood and too rigid for repairs.

Masonite: The weight of any wood or composite material glued to the back of drop or flat causes stress and will irreparably stretch the surrounding area.

Contact Cement: This is an irreversible and a solvent-based product that should not be used on historic scenery. It poses a fire hazard.

Flexible Foam: This product should not be glued to historic scenery at all.

Plastic and plastic netting: Plastic should never pair with historic or fragile fabric for many reasons. In regard to plastic netting, the rigidity will harm the fabric. Look for all-natural cotton fabrics and nettings.

Do not replace wooden battens with pipe pockets: Replacing wood battens with pipe pockets always fails. Piercing the fragile fabric creates a weakness; adding weight on that weak area works like a perforated page. It will eventually tear off.

Do not patch the front and sewn fabric patches: Sewn patches are seldom a solution, as piercing the fabric introduces additional weakness to damaged areas. Also, all patches should be applied to the back of pieces, never the painted front.

Do not consolidate paint with a reflective product: Dusting pigment is a problem with historic scenery, as the original binder begins to break down over time. Humid environments and water damage can accelerate this process. Consolidating loose pigment is the only option to minimize airborne particles, especially those that may be dangerous. The original binder for the paint was an all-natural, water-based product with a completely matte finish (hide glue). If you substitute a contemporary product, it should never leave any type of sheen to the surface or darken the original color. Even when the label says “matte” or “flat” it may still reflect stage lights.

Do not a different artistic medium on historic scenery: A new paint product should never be introduced for in-painting or overpainting on a historic drop. The color and finish will not match the original paint product, especially under the glare of stage lights. Oil pastels, markers, hobby paints, crayons and even contemporary scenic paint should not be used when restoring scenery that was originally painted with dry pigment and diluted hide glue.

Do not use flame-retardants on historic scenery:

Fire retardant chemicals irreparably damage historic scenery, harming both the fabric substrate and the painted composition. The original fabric discolors over time and becomes brittle. The painted surface will also crack, eventually flaking off.

The following was created by the director of Curtains Without Borders, Chris Hadsel:

“The attached amendment was passed by the National Fire Protection Association Technical Committee on Cultural Resources in September 2007. The amendment is to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 101 Life Safety Code, NFPA 909: Code for the Protection of Cultural Resources Properties – Museums, Libraries, and Places of Worship. The revised code was approved in 2009. You should be aware of the following standards and you should work with your local fire marshal to be sure that you are in compliance.

There are two aspects of this amendment that you should be aware of:

As historic artifacts, a destructive burn test and/or the application of fire-retardant chemicals are not recommended by accepted preservation practice.

2. However, in order to qualify for an exemption to Life Safety Code #101, the following safeguards must be implemented. These include, but are not limited to:

Prohibition of open flames (i.e. candles, lamps, and smoking)

Avoiding the use of heat producing appliances such as food and beverage preparation equipment within the room

Adding a fire watch during events when there are large groups of people

A recommendation to replace light bulbs on stage with cool burning lamps such as a fluorescent or LED, with no lights, electrical devices or cables located with 1 meter of the historic artifact.

Appendix 11.2.4

11.2.4: Fire-retardant treatment of historically significant fabric shall not be required where such treatment will cause damage to the fabric. This provision shall apply only on an object-by-object basis and where alternative protection measures are approved.

Where historically significant artifacts such as painted stage drops, tapestries and antique flags are displayed in public gathering places there is a need to balance fire and life safety requirements with the preservation needs of the artifacts. Life Safety Standards including NFPA #101 Life Safety Code mandate fire retardant treatments for fabrics that are used in gathering places, with NFPA 701 Standard Method of Fire Tests for Flame Resistant Textiles and Films referenced as a test protocol. NFPA 701 requires a destructive burn test of a fabric sample to verify compliance with the standard however this action will cause permanent damage to the material and is not recommended by accepted preservation practice. Additionally, specific chemical treatments that may be applied to reduce combustibility may also result in irreversible harm fabrics. None-the-less there is a need to protect artifacts and the locations in which they are housed from fire, and safeguards must be implemented for situations where artifacts are displayed in assembly spaces. These should include but not be limited to: prohibiting open flames (i.e. candles, lamps, and smoking), avoiding the use of heat producing appliances such as food and beverage preparation equipment within the room, or adding a fire watch where the artifact is located. The use of cool burning lamps such as a fluorescent or LED within the space is recommended with no lights, electrical devices or cables located within 1 meter (3 ft) distance of the artifact. The placement of a combustible artifact within an assembly space should be approved by the authority having jurisdiction. The AHJ should consult with disciplines that have expertise in preservation and protection of artifacts.”

Understanding Painted Illusion for Historic Theaters

It is crucial to understand painted illusion for nineteenth-century and twentieth-century stages when planning the preservation of historic scenery. Painted illusion was used in a variety of venues, including theaters, opera houses, cinemas, music academies, city halls, schools, lodge rooms, armories, coliseums, and hippodromes. None of it was intended to be viewed up close, or on a museum wall.

Leg drop, cut drop and backdrop by Sosman & Landis Scene Painting Studio for the Scottish Rite Theatre in Santa Fe, New Mexico, 192.

Many extant backdrops were produced as part of a set. There would be a combination of backdrops, cut drop, leg drops, and borders, or wings, shutters, roll drops and borders. Flat profile pieces were added for painted dimension. A proscenium opening with painted grand teasers and tormentors were often permanently positioned to frame the onstage setting. The level of detail for each painted piece shifted as the scenes were positioned from upstage to downstage.

Before you decide to formulate a maintenance plan or the restoration of any historic scenery, understand the past; past materials, past techniques, past stage systems and past venues. All provide much needed information. Choosing an appropriate path for any scenery maintenance or restoration is akin to the saying, “measure twice, cut once.” In almost every case you have only one opportunity to do this right.

Here is a link to my youtube video about the topic:

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 774 – The League of Historic American Theatres National Conference, Philadelphia, 2019

I leave town this morning for the League of Historic American Theatre’s National conference in Philadelphia. The life and times of Thomas G. Moses will be put on hold until my return around July 20. As with past travels, my blog will shift to “Travels of a Scenic Artist and Scholar.”

On June 17, 2019, I present a session as part of the Tools & Techniques Segment on Wednesday, July 17– “Uncovering the History of Your Theatre or Cinema: Knowing Where to Look.” Here is the link to the conference schedule: http://www.lhat.org/conferences/national-conference/schedule

Here is the LHAT session description: “Tracking down information pertaining to any historic theater is a challenge. Important records are lost and significant artifacts disappear over time. Those with institutional memory depart before sharing their knowledge. The search for your theater’s history may seem impossible. Fortunately, we live at a time when access to historical information is just waiting to be discovered online – one just has to know how and where to look for it. Uncovering little gems connected to your theater’s past not only draws a community together, but also helps market your theater, generate community support, and secure grant funding. This session will help you track down information about your historic theater, its original construction, ornamentation, painted settings, past productions, and performers that graced your stage. Whether you are a theatre manager, board member, professional, or enthusiastic novice, this session will help you discover lost information that is much needed whether you are starting a renovation, applying for a historical register, or submitting a grant application. After attending this session, you will be better enabled to successfully locate valuable information about your venue. Whether you represent a cinema, historic theater, or are a theatre professional, you will leave with a better understanding of our shared theatrical past.”

The topic for this session was prompted by my daily research pertaining to the life and times of Thomas G. Moses. Like many, when I first started researching historic theaters and scenic artists I paged through a card catalogue and wandered the stacks. Hundreds of hours were send carefully paging through various publications and bound journals in rare book rooms. As technology and Internet resources continue to expand, I encounter more information that I could have conceived as an undergraduate. The problem now is that there can be too much information, unless you know how to refine the parameters of your search. Over the years, I have developed a few tricks that help direct the search; where to look and what to look for in regard to historic performance venues. Simply typing in a question will often lead to too much information, therefore complicating the task.

As with many business trips, I have decided to drive to Philadelphia. Time on the road often results in the opportunity to visit at historic sites, small-town opera houses, and abandoned theaters. This factor always transforms a long drive into a treasure hunt.

To be continued…

Travels of a Scenic Artists and Scholar: Wilmington, North Carolina, and Scenic Artist Russell Smith

My daily blog follows the life and times of Thomas G. Moses (1856-1934), a prolific scenic artist who worked for sixty years behind the curtain line. In 1931, he compiled a typed manuscript that recorded many of his projects over the years. In the early 1990s when I compiled an index for both this typed manuscript and Moses’ scrapbook, I vowed that one day I would go though his writing, line by line, and expand on each specific event and project mentioned by the artist. I am on year 1909.

I have examined not only his work and that of his contemporaries, but also Moses’ predecessors; scenic artists from previous generations who paved the way for the painting techniques employed not only by the artist, but also at the Sosman & Landis studio. One of Moses’ scenic art predecessors was William Thompson Russell Smith (1812-1896).

Smith was integral in the training of Moses’ one time business partner and life-long friend, Walter Burridge. At one time, Burridge worked at various Philadelphia theaters, many the old stomping grounds of Smith. It was the strong recommendation of Smith who supported Burridge’s employment at the Academy of Music, in Baltimore. Burridge was hired to paint some of the scenery for that venue during his early career.

Smith was mentioned in numerous publications over the years, including the article “Curtain and Scene Painting,” published in the “St. Louis Post-Dispatch,” 21 Jan. 1884, page 8. The article reported, “The other first-class curtain painters of the country do not number more than half-dozen. All enjoy national reputations, and their services are in demand to the other.” The article listed those they held in highest regard, including “Russell Smith, formerly of the Academy of Music, Philadelphia, makes a specialty of landscapes.”

Like Moses, Smith left a legacy that extended far beyond examples of his art for the stage or fine art galleries. Smith left a detailed written account of his life, family and projects. In 1856, Virginia E. Lewis wrote “Russell Smith, Romantic Realist.” She does a wonderful job chronicling Smith’s life while incorporating segments of his words. About a year ago, I decided that it was Smith’s scenic art career that I would explore after completing the life and times of Moses. Smith’s generation of scenic artist defined American scenic art techniques, infusing old world artistry with a new spirit. Moses’ generation further developed and shaped the field of subsequent schools of American scenic art.

I am in Wilmington, North Carolina, to give a presentation on 19^th century scenic art and historical painting techniques. My trip began after a conversation with D. Anthony “Tony” Rivenbark at the League of Historic American Theater’s national conference last July. He is a nationally recognized theatre historian and Executive Director of Wilmington’s Thalian Hall. Tony shared an image of their extant drop curtain painted by Smith in 1858. Although it is no longer used during performance, the painted curtain has been conserved and is prominently displayed at the Thalian Hall Center for the Performing Arts. Here is a link to the theater: http://www.thalianhall.org/#map

I am looking forward to seeing it in person today.

To be continued…

Travels of a Scenic Artists and Scholar: The Fifth Annual American Fraternalism Event at Boston University, April 10, 2019

Last summer, William D. Moore invited me to be the guest speaker at fifth annual American Fraternalism event at Boston University during spring 2019. Will is the Director of the American & New England Studies Program and an Associate Professor of Material Culture. Two of his past publications include “Masonic Temples: Freemasonry, Ritual Architecture, and Masculine Archetypes” (University of Tennessee Press, 2006) and “Secret Societies in America: Foundational Studies of Fraternalism,” co-authored with Mark Tabbert (Cornerstone Book Publishers, 2011). Will had been following my blog for some time, purchased “The Santa Fe Scottish Rite Temple: Freemasonry, Architecture and Theatre” book, and was intrigued with my current research posted to my blog.

Wendy Waszut-Barrett and William D. Moore after the 2019 American Fraternalism event at Boston University.

Several incidents shaped my topic, “A Masonic Legacy: Bestor G. Brown and Brown’s Special system,” and other articles that I was working on at the time.

Poster for the fifth American Fraternalism event at Boston University, 2019

Between November 2018 and February 2019, I wrote three articles: “Setting the Stage” (Theatre Historical Society of America’s fourth quarter issue of “Marquee”); “Brown’s Special System for Scottish Rite Theaters in North America” (TheatreInitiative Museum Berlin’s “Die Vierte Wand 009); and “Brown’s Special System: A Masonic Legacy,” (Scottish Rite Research Society’s spring newsletter “The Plumbline).” At the same time, I was still writing my blog and starting to make contact with the Valley of Portland in regard to Brown’s special system; they have the earliest example as originally installed in 1903, being manufactured in 1902. Then toss in work projects, conferences, family, the holidays, and other obligations; busy time at our house.

In regard to Boston, I was most excited to see Will. We first met during the planning stage for Lance Brockman’s touring museum exhibit, “Theatre of the Fraternity: Staging the Ritual Space of Freemasonry, 1896-1929.” The last time I saw Will and his wife was the Weisman Museum in 1996 when the exhibit opened. By the way, Lance’s catalogue still is available for sale on Amazon, here is the link: https://www.amazon.com/Theatre-Fraternity-Scottish-Freemasonry-1896-1929/dp/0878059474

I arrived in Boston on Tuesday, April 9, and spent a lovely afternoon chatting with Will about numerous fraternal subjects. We continued the conversation over dinner, adding his wife Charlotte to the mix. What a delightful arrival and evening spent with two extremely fun people. My presentation was not until 7:30PM the next day, so I was able to spend some time relaxing and writing in Brookline, New York. I am currently working on my next book about Sosman & Landis studio, so I treasure anytime that is devoid of distractions. Before my presentation, there was a group of us that went out to dinner, including friend and colleague Diane Fargo who teaches scene painting at BU; she is a remarkable artist in her own right.

Wendy Waszut-Barrett presenting at the fifth annual American Fraternalism event at Boston University

My presentation went extremely well, lasting 45 minutes with a 15-minute Q&A that followed. In attendance BU staff and students, as well as visiting Masons from Boston University Lodge, Harvard Lodge, the Lodge of St. Andrew and the Boston Scottish Rite. That evening, I was invited to tour the Scottish Rite stage before I left town the next day. On April 12, I visited the Boston Scottish Rite and the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts. I knew that there would very little scenery, as the hemp system was replaced and an LED wall added to the mix. I was very curious to see how well new technology replaced historic scenery.

The Grand Lodge of Massachusetts and the Boston Scottish Rite are in the same building.

To be continued…

Tales from a Scenic Artist and Scholar. Part 275 – Memories of Milwaukee

Lance Brockman and Wendy Waszut-Barrett as co-presenters for the 2013 USITT session, “Theatre of the Fraternity: Creating the World of Freemasonry” held at the Humphrey Scottish Rite Masonic Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

In 2013, I attended the United States Institute of Theatre Technology (USITT) Conference in Milwaukee. I was scheduled with Lance Brockman to present a session in a nearby Masonic venue- “Theatre of the Fraternity: Creating the World of Freemasonry.” On March 21, 2013, we each gave a presentation about historical scenic art and degree productions. Then we invited participants onto the stage to examine early-twentieth-century dry pigment painting techniques. At the beginning of the week, I spent two days cataloguing and evaluating the Milwaukee Scottish Rite scenery collection at the Humphrey Center so that we would know the best scenes to lower during the USITT session. I always try to visit a Scottish Rite theater during a USITT conference if there is one in the same city.

Wendy Waszut-Barrett as a presenters for the 2013 USITT session, “Theatre of the Fraternity: Creating the World of Freemasonry” held at the Humphrey Scottish Rite Masonic Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Group photo of attendees for the 2013 USITT session, “Theatre of the Fraternity: Creating the World of Freemasonry” held at the Humphrey Scottish Rite Masonic Center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

I was also working on another theater project during the 2013 USITT conference at the Milwaukee Historical Society. It was a personal academic adventure to see a display about the Milwaukee panorama painters. The small exhibit was recommended by several of my colleagues. Over the course of two days I did much more that take a sneak peak at a display case. I examined the handwritten diaries of Friedrich W. Heine (1845-1921). It was in the day before my iPhone, but there was a copier and I left with a 1” pile of reproductions. My intention was that have my husband translate many of the entries that accompanied little drawings in the margin, especially pertaining to Masonic subject matter. Heine popped back up on my radar when Gene Meier forwarded on some of his own research about the Milwaukee panorama artists this past summer.

My 2013 photocopies of the F. W. Heine diaries.

A detail from one page of my photocopies purchased during my visit to Milwaukee in 2013.

For many theater technicians and historians, their academic education fails to include details about the incredibly complex stage machinery and scenic illusion from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. We receive minimal instruction pertaining to a variety of popular entertainments, including moving panoramas and cycloramas. In the classroom, it was occasionally referred to as a “low-brow” form of entertainment, not the work of the masters. As I have persisted in my research over the years, I have come to realize that many of the scenic artists and stage machinists who produced spectacles were the actual masters.

I might have a PhD in theatre, but all of my education pertaining to visual spectacle happened outside of my doctoral program, specifically in classes with MFA designers. It was one particular professor’s research interest and enthusiasm that provided me with an incentive to study historical scenic art and design. Lance Brockman at the University of Minnesota forever altered my perception as a theater historian and practitioner. Scenic illusion remained a vibrant art form with a beauty that would guide my career as an artist. Without his enthusiasm for the subject matter or his support of my own academic interests, I would not be writing this blog today or restoring historical scenery collections.

Now for those without years spent in a theater department or a performing arts archive, let’s start with the term panorama, specifically a moving panorama. These long canvases were advertised in feet, and sometimes miles. Visitor’s sat stationery in a theater while a very long canvas scrolled from one vertical roll to another. The painted landscape would pass by as if looking out the window of a train. This type of exhibit could easily travel to a variety of venues as the two rolls would be positioned within any proscenium.

Illustration depicting John Banvard’s 1848 moving panorama.

The appeal of moving panoramas extended to children’s toys. Here is a toy moving panorama from the Bill Douglas Cinema Museum. Here is the link to the artifact: http://www.bdcmuseum.org.uk/explore/item/69085/

Cycloramas were panoramic in nature and created for a specific type of building with a unique form of rigging. A rotunda building, octagonal or polygonal in shape, was necessary for this visual spectacle. Narrow passages brought visitors into the building where they emerged into the center of a scene. Some included impressive lighting and sound effects. Others included educational lectures. Whether it was a city on fire, a horrific scene at a battle, or bubbling volcanic crater in Hawaii, a realistic scene transported visitors to another time and place. A diorama began near the viewing platform and transitioned into a two-dimensional vista.

Section of the Rotunda, Leicester Square, 1801. Burford’s Panorama, Leicester Square: cross section(acquatint from Robert Mitchell’s Plans and Views in Perspective of Buildings Erected in England and Scotland, 1901). Stephen Oetermann, The Panorama History of Mass Media, N.Y. : Zone Books, 1997, p. 104. Digital image posted with a great article at: https://www.baruch.cuny.edu/library/alumni/online_exhibits/digital/2003/panorama/new_001.htm

The rise of the cyclorama studio occurred in the 1880s and coincided with the rise of the scenic studio. Utilizing an ever-expanding network of transportation, painted scenery was easily shipped from town to town. Tomorrow, I will begin a series on the stories of the artists who created these massive paintings. They were contemporaries of Thomas G. Moses.

To be continued…