Tuesday, September 24, 2019

Illusions in Motion

From the 1820's through to the 1890's, a new form of visual spectacle swept the world: the "moving" panorama. Unlike its circular and static namesake, the moving panorama actually did move, with new scenes emerging one by one from the right-hand side of the painting, while old scenes scrolled away. It was, above all, a narrative form, perfectly suited for journeys from one place to another, as well a for representing current events or familiar stories, ranging from Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress (a panel from a panorama of which is shown above) to the military campaigns of Garibaldi (this panorama is preserved at Brown University) to journeys up (or down) the Mississippi River.

Unlike great-circle panoramas, these scrolling painting required a narrator, typically a man in a top hat and tails who used a pointer to direct attention to specific parts of the canvas, and who served as a sort of conductor for this virtual journey. Most were professional showmen, but sometimes the attempt was made to have someone actually involved with the scenes depicted appear at, or even narrate, the painting. The pre-eminent Scottish firm of Messrs. Marshall & Co. hired a survivor from the wreck of the Medusa to appear with their depiction of the subject; the combined effect was so dramatic that it forced the exhibition of GĂ©ricault's great painting of "The Raft of the Medusa" -- then exhibiting in the same town -- out of business. Similarly, exhibitors of panoramas about Arctic exploration often hired the explorers themselves to narrate the scenes.

And it was not just the canvas the moved. Most had music, and employed a variety of special effects: lantern images were projected from behind the canvas; smoke was blown through holes in the cloth when the painted "cannons" were meant to fire; colored lights and sometimes even the shaking of the fabric were also used. Moving panoramas also had the advantage that they were far more portable than their fixed cousins, and could travel from town to town via horse-drawn carriage or train; in this manner they criss-crossed the UK, the US, and many other countries, sometimes being shown for more than a decade, until the paint began to chip off.  They were also easily copied, and at times there might be half-a-dozen of the same subject appearing at multiple venues. Lastly, as a portable medium, the size of its public was limited only by the endurance of the panoramist and his or her ability to find fresh audiences; some of the most widespread and durable ones may well have had audiences in the millions.

6 comments:

  1. I just watched the Garibaldi Panorama (with and without the narrator who is a bit of a bore), and it's interesting how different the two types of panorama are from each other. I would go as far as saying that a moving panorama is a completely different medium. As we've learned, panoramas were all about making the viewer feel like they were somewhere else. They were transported by the panorama.

    But the moving panorama is really a narrative device. It tells a story, with each scene acting as a page. The narrator is vital to its purpose otherwise the story telling is a bit light.

    I was initially not as impressed by the moving panorama because it's not as immersive as the panorama but as the scenes went on and on and on, I was impressed by the sheer length of the piece. I liked how it flowed organically into each successive scene. I was less impressed by the indoor scenes because it took me out of the illusion. I'd prefer just the landscapes and outdoor scenes.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The moving panorama has a circus-like feel for me. It makes me think of the ring leader coming out and introducing the show, both of which are nothing short of a "spectacle" here. This is something that begins to remind me of a real moving picture...

    Like Matt, I also really enjoyed the length and magnitude of the piece. It seems to go on forever, in all the best ways!

    Every week I become more impressed by the creations of the victorian era!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It seems from our readings that the "ringleader" of the moving panorama was the key to its success, at least later on. As they got smaller, the presenter became crucial, which make sense as a narrative device.

      I wonder if the original panorama ever added a speaker, and how that might change the feeling. It would be kind of cool to be transported to the arctic, while a voice dramatically describes the conditions that you're in.

      Delete
    2. Given that the panorama was initially marketed as an alternative to a vacation, that it was static (and could be studied at leisure, rather than having a time limit as in the case of moving panoramas) and that key cards were made available for visitors, I'm guessing that a narrator was deliberately excluded for the first panoramas. Maybe they thought a narrator would detract from the "free view" experience they were trying to offer.

      Delete
    3. Matt, yes there were some "great circle" panoramas that included a narrator. These were mostly what were called "Cycloramas"; they included false scenery that blended with the canvas, after often were illuminated only in certain sections as the narrator described the action. The Gettysburg Cyclorama was one such, and is still narrated in a similar manner.

      Delete
  3. I enjoyed how long the moving panorama was, it seemed like a good enough length to really keep an audience captivated. Coupled with music takes it a long way and still allows viewers to talk about the panorama as it comes. It's a neat take on the panorama and I can understand why it would put other modes of entertainment out of business.

    ReplyDelete