Eye Glasses

[FROGSMILE]

1 hour ago, GreyC said:

After WW2 a drama written by Wolfgang Borchert (*1921) called "Draußen vor der Tür" (The Man Outside), which he wrote as a veteran of the war soon after the end of World War II. His works are uncompromising on the issues of humanity and humanism. He is one of the most popular authors of the German postwar period; his work continues to be studied in German schools. It was staged one day after his untimely death in 1947, almost exactly 75 years ago. The main protagonist wore a pair of gasmask-glasses which through photographs became an iconic image in post war Germany quite like the glasses worn by Dustin Hoffmann in Papillon.

GreyC

I think I know the photograph you describe GreyC.  Is it one of these two?  The soldier with the Feldmutze is WW2 the other WW1 (as I know you will realise).

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

18 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

Yes it doesn’t seem that she would have missed something like that, but I think that exposure lengths were still quite long at the time and I suppose it’s possible that he might have moved his head at just the wrong moment. 

Frogsmile, do you know how the photograph came into the public domain? Like you I had assumed that John Kipling must have moved his head so as to make his glasses reflect the light  after the photographer had committed to taking the photograph, and that she may not have been aware of the defect until it was developed some time after it was taken, when the subjects were no longer present. Having said that, perhaps she might have been expected to take more than one exposure, given the number of subjects, unless that was prohibited by cost. If she only took one, she would have had no choice but to offer this one for sale. If she took more than one, she presumably might still have offered it for sale on the basis that the images of some of the other officers are better in this one that the other(s) (much like a school photo - if you have more than one child you can always be sure that there will be no one proof in which both or all are looking angelic!). Alternatively, she - or someone else - might have found it amongst her negatives after the subject of John Kipling's myopia became topical, and it may have been published at that stage.

Given that she was making her living from photographing officers of Irish Guards etc., then, unless John Kipling was very unpopular with his peers, the taking or publishing of the photograph was surely not a deliberate targeted act at the time it was taken.

8 hours ago, Moonraker said:

Previous threads on eyesight:

Thank you for providing these additional links, Moonraker, and for the links within those links.

 

Edited 23 November , 2022 by A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy

[GreyC]

22 minutes ago, A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy said:

Like you I had assumed that John Kipling must have moved his head so as to make his glasses reflect the light  after the photographer had committed to taking the photograph, and that she may not have been aware of the defect until it was developed some time after it was taken

Given the camera probably used (dryplate camera on tripod), she did not have control over the image while activating the shutter. She stood next to the camera not with an eye on/behind the viewfinder, but with a slightly different angle towards their subjects which also explains why she did not realize the ackward result in the making.

And with regards to one or multiple shots of the same view: yes, it was much costlier than today to take a photo and yes, there were some photographers who relied on just one take. But then as now it is a truism that the costliest photo is the one not taken although you had the opportunity to do so, as wittnessed by this example.

GreyC

Edited 23 November , 2022 by GreyC

[FROGSMILE]

1 hour ago, A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy said:

Frogsmile, do you know how the photograph came into the public domain? Like you I had assumed that John Kipling must have moved his head so as to make his glasses reflect the light  after the photographer had committed to taking the photograph, and that she may not have been aware of the defect until it was developed some time after it was taken, when the subjects were no longer present. Having said that, perhaps she might have been expected to take more than one exposure, given the number of subjects, unless that was prohibited by cost. If she only took one, she would have had no choice to offer this one for sale. If she took more than one, she presumably might still have offered it for sale on the basis that the images of some of the other officers are better in this one that the other(s) (much like a school photo - if you have more than one chaild you can always be sure that there will be no one proof in which both are looking angelic!). Alternatively, she - or someone else - might have found it amongst her negatives after the subject of John Kipling's myopia became topical, and it may have been published at that stage.

Given that she was making her living from photographing officers of Irish Guards etc., then, unless John Kipling was very unpopular with his peers, the taking or publishing of the photograph was surely not a deliberate targeted act at the time it was taken.

Thank you for providing these additional links, Moonraker, and for the links within those links.

 

My understanding is that the photo came from the “Christina Broom Collection” which was used as the theme for a WW1 Centenary exhibition somewhere in London, I’m not sure where (Museum of London?).  Most of the photos were taken over a short period in London, at Knightsbridge Barracks and a principal railway terminal, just before the troops embarked for France.  Either, separately, or together (I suspect the former), the Daily Mail also ran a print and online focus piece on the same subject that they knew would go down well with their usual ‘Disgusted from Cheltenham’ readership.

I agree that the photo is intriguing, and I don’t know if it was ever in the public domain before that, or whether Mrs Broom excluded it from publication previously because of that reflection, but retained it in her collection.

Edited 23 November , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

4 hours ago, GreyC said:

She stood next to the camera not with an eye on/behind the viewfinder, but with a slightly different angle towards their subjects

Yes, of course, standing beside the camera rather than looking through a viewfinder - as often shown in old films featuring photography. Given that, it is perhaps surprising that there aren't more examples of light being reflected off spectacles in the many photographs of men wearing glasses that have been martialled in this thread and the others cross-referred to in it.

 

3 hours ago, FROGSMILE said:

My understanding is that the photo came from the “Christina Broom Collection” which was used as the theme for a WW1 Centenary exhibition somewhere in London,

Thank you Frogsmile - as you say, it begs the question as to whether this was when a previously unknown photograph saw the light of day. No doubt the information which accompanied the photograph in the exhibition would have told the story of John Kipling's myopia, his father pulling strings to have him admitted into the army, and his subsequent demise.

[FROGSMILE]

45 minutes ago, A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy said:

Yes, of course, standing beside the camera rather than looking through a viewfinder - as often shown in old films featuring photography. Given that, it is perhaps surprising that there aren't more examples of light being reflected off spectacles in the many photographs of men wearing glasses that have been martialled in this thread and the others cross-referred to in it.

 

Thank you Frogsmile - as you say, it begs the question as to whether this was when a previously unknown photograph saw the light of day. No doubt the information which accompanied the photograph in the exhibition would have told the story of John Kipling's myopia, his father pulling strings to have him admitted into the army, and his subsequent demise.

Yes, given the relatively recent television drama and the media interest that followed I’d be surprised if the Christina Broom image of the young John Kipling looking so carefree, but with his eyes blanked out by reflection from his glasses, wasn’t focused on at the exhibition.

Incidentally, I don’t know if you’ve read the thread here in the forum about identifying John Kipling’s body within recent memory, you will I think find it fascinating.

Edited 23 November , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

On 23/11/2022 at 18:22, FROGSMILE said:

Incidentally, I don’t know if you’ve read the thread here in the forum about identifying John Kipling’s body within recent memory, you will I think find it fascinating.

I think that I have found the thread referred to – extending over 31 pages. I am finding it interesting but still have 20 pages to read – I will have to do it in instalments!

I visited Batemans, the Kiplings’ family home in Sussex, some years ago, and the story of the loss of John was told there, including the fact that Kipling senior had pulled strings to enable his son to obtain a commission in the Irish Guards, leading to his presence on the Loos battlefield at the too-young age of 18 years 6 weeks.

As you go round the house it is hard not to be conscious of how grief and guilt would have cast a shadow over this previously happy household (imagine having a father who could tell you the Just So Stories, and who, according to his autobiography, specifically requested to be given the front gate bell pull from his aunt’s house because as a child he had felt such joy when ringing it, knowing that it would gain him admittance to happiness, that he wanted some other child to be able to feel that joy).

Ironic, therefore, that Rudyard Kipling, describing in The Very Own House the occasion when he and his wife first viewed Batemans in the early 1900s and fell in love with it, comments specifically, that they “went through every room and found no shadow of ancient regrets [nor] stifled miseries”…   

But I digress from the subject of this thread.

 

[FROGSMILE]

15 hours ago, A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy said:

I think that I have found the thread referred to – extending over 31 pages. I am finding it interesting but still have 20 pages to read – I will have to do it in instalments!

I visited Batemans, the Kiplings’ family home in Sussex, some years ago, and the story of the loss of John was told there, including the fact that Kipling senior had pulled strings to enable his son to obtain a commission in the Irish Guards, leading to his presence on the Loos battlefield at the too-young age of 18 years 6 weeks.

As you go round the house it is hard not to be conscious of how grief and guilt would have cast a shadow over this previously happy household (imagine having a father who could tell you the Just So Stories, and who, according to his autobiography, specifically requested to be given the front gate bell pull from his aunt’s house because as a child he had felt such joy when ringing it, knowing that it would gain him admittance to happiness, that he wanted some other child to be able to feel that joy).

Ironic, therefore, that Rudyard Kipling, describing in The Very Own House the occasion when he and his wife first viewed Batemans in the early 1900s and fell in love with it, comments specifically, that they “went through every room and found no shadow of ancient regrets [nor] stifled miseries”…   

But I digress from the subject of this thread.

 

I understand what you mean, it’s like a tragic storyboard studded with emotional nuance.  You have definitely found the right thread.  It can be a labour at times, but it does reach a tantalising conclusion if I remember correctly.  Whilst recognising conflicting contemporary emotions regarding the character of Kipling senior, it would be wrong I think to reject his wonderful writing just because he was an Imperialist whose then common attitudes might be uncomfortable for us today.  That he experienced such personal tragedy is yet another layer to his complex life story.  He’s the sort of character that I imagine I’d invite to an across the ages dinner party.  I’d place him in between Marilyn Monro and Genghis Khan (it would probably have to be seated on the floor, where I suspect all three would be entirely comfortable).

Edited 27 November , 2022 by FROGSMILE

[Resurgam13]

Just came across this frontispiece of Lt.-Col. L. L. C. Reynolds, D.S.O., T.D.  (The First Buckinghamshire Battalion) wearing pince-nez

[A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy]

It may not be of great interest, as I am aware that in this thread and others it has already been acknowledged that spectacles were more common in the German than the British army, but I am reading Robert Graves' Goodbye to All That at the moment, in which he describes a dead German whose body he passed a couple of times in Mametz Wood:

He had a green face, spectacles, close-shaven hair ...

[GWF1967]

Bombardier Davis. Egypt. Xmas day 1914.

[GWF1967]

A quick trawl on ebob turned up these two chaps. 
 Cropped as they are not my images. 

[EastSurrey]

My great uncle, Reg Howship's officer's file at TNA (WO374/35203 shows he had 6/60 eyesight-i.e. he had to be within 6 feet without glasses, to see what someone with ordinary vision could see at 60 feet. (John Kipling's file ( WO339/53917) shows his eyesight without glasses as 6/36, which sounds rather better!) Nevertheless, after 12 months service in France in the ranks of the infantry, Reg was commissioned in 1918 into the East Surrey Regiment, and won an MC with 12th East Surrey at Knokke in October 1918, including for a 'most daring reconnaissance.' Sadly, I don't have a photo of him.

Michael

[FROGSMILE]

On 07/01/2023 at 11:41, A Lancashire Fusilier by Proxy said:

It may not be of great interest, as I am aware that in this thread and others it has already been acknowledged that spectacles were more common in the German than the British army, but I am reading Robert Graves' Goodbye to All That at the moment, in which he describes a dead German whose body he passed a couple of times in Mametz Wood:

He had a green face, spectacles, close-shaven hair ...

Concerning the Germans and their very pragmatic attitude to spectacles, there’s an interesting Blog on the subject here: http://theeyewearblog.com/to-see-or-to-breathe-the-dilemma-of-eyewear-at-the-front-wwi-part-2/

NB.  “Cry havoc, and let loose the dogs of war”.

Edited 9 January , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[Madmeg]

In the first shot those look more like sunglasses? 

Second shot is a fine specimen.

Third, i see from the blog hes a prisoner of war and im guessing its was one of those propaganda shots with a denigrating caption?

[FROGSMILE]

14 minutes ago, Madmeg said:

In the first shot those look more like sunglasses? 

Second shot is a fine specimen.

Third, i see from the blog hes a prisoner of war and im guessing its was one of those propaganda shots with a denigrating caption?

Yes, yes and no.  There was no derogatory commentary.  The only description I could find was emphasising the obvious shock the soldier had undergone after he was captured following the demolition of huge mines under the German lines.

Edited 9 January , 2023 by FROGSMILE

[Madmeg]

Makes a pleasant change , ive seen quite a few pictures of pows with  comments of a propaganda nature.