Talk:Ruby Loftus Screwing a Breech-ring

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

File:Ruby Loftus screwing a Breech-ring (1943) (Art. IWM LD 2850).jpg to appear as POTD soon[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Ruby Loftus screwing a Breech-ring (1943) (Art. IWM LD 2850).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 8, 2018. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2018-03-08. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ruby Loftus Screwing a Breech Ring
Ruby Loftus Screwing a Breech Ring is a 1943 painting by the British painter Laura Knight depicting a young woman, Ruby Loftus (1921–2004), working at an industrial lathe as part of the British war effort in World War II. The painting was commissioned by the War Artists' Advisory Committee, and is now part of the Imperial War Museum's art collection. The painting brought instant fame to Loftus, and has been likened to the American figure of "Rosie the Riveter".Painting: Laura Knight
Archive – More featured pictures...

Assorted queries[edit]

  • Was the issue with potential employees perceived factory girls to be "low class, rough, dirty and immoral" that women were reluctant to accept factory jobs for fear of getting a reputation and as a consequence the government was having difficulty recruiting to ordnance factories, or that the government was concerned about us-and-them issues demoralising the population? I appreciate the sources may not go into this, but was the prejudice against fsctory girls any more than the general prejudice against manual labour in general? ("Low class, rough, dirty and immoral" could describe the general perception of unskilled and semi-skilled manual workers at any time since the Norman Conquest.)
    • Sort of a bit of both, according to the source, but with the emphasis more towards the difficulty in recruiting. (The source - an interesting read in it own right - records one person's thoughts that "Wives of serving soldiers, women with little self-control and fewer scruples, act as magnets to silly young men ... Can it be wondered at that nice girls hesitate to enter factories?" - SchroCat (talk) 15:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably a question to which we don't know the answer, but do we have any idea why the War Office were so insistent that Knight paint in the factory rather than a studio? Even if they couldn't spare Loftus (which seems questionable, surely the war effort wasn't so finely balanced that they couldn't have had someone else cover for her for a few days), Knight could presumably have taken a photo and worked from that.
    • Not really covered, just that "she was too important to release" and "the committee wanted her painted in the factory". - SchroCat (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another question to which we possibly don't know the answer, but if Loftus had no prior experience of heavy machinery or the industrial workplace, why did they entrust her with the most complex task in the entire plant, rather than have the experienced workers do the breech rings and post Loftus to something less liable to kill people if done wrong? Has anyone written on whether the backstory to the painting is actually true, or whether it was a piece of wartime propaganda intended to send a "women can do anything" message?
    • Not that I've come across. If there is an angle that could be looked if someone has the right works to hand (or post-lockdown when I can get to the BL), this may be it, but if it was a wartime propaganda thing, the reality may have been buried. - SchroCat (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has 'shop stewards from Woolwich Arsenal, disbelieving the stories of Loftus's prowess in the task, travelled to Newport to check on her skills. They returned satisfied.[32]' 86.145.9.59 (talk) 07:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it's a direct quote rather than in Wikipedia's voice, but "The clothing worn by the women carries a patriotic tone, as reds, whites and blues dominate" sounds like pure bullshit. These are just the colours of standard workwear; equivalent "women, play your part in the war effort!" propaganda from Nazi Germany, the USSR, the Chinese Communists and the USA uses the same red, white & blue colour palette.
Is it a man in the room behind - or something more demonic?!
  • We reflect what the sources say not our own original research, but I don't think there is one man present, probably the foreman, given that he wears a tie is accurate. It appears to me that all the workers in this particular room are women, and that the man in the tie (along with some other shadowy figures whose gender isn't clear but appear to be male from their outlines) are in another room behind a glass partition.
  • Scratch that, looking at the zoomed-in crop he's in front of the glass partition, otherwise the leading of the pane above his head would carry on past his face. ‑ Iridescent 14:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should It became the most well-known and popular works commissioned by the WAAC be "it became one of the most…" or "it became the most popular work"? I haven't fixed this myself as I'm not sure which was intended.
  • The sequence in the Aftermath section seems to have got garbled: she moved to BC, she was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, she got jobs as an apple packer, in the post office, and with the newspaper, she visited London. Did these things really happen in that order? (As an aside, I don't really like "Aftermath" as a header; to me it makes it sound like the clean-up effort following a disaster. I know it's a Wikipedia cliche, but this is probably somewhere where "Legacy" actually would be the best option.)
  • Is it "Ruby Loftus Screwing a Breech Ring" or "Ruby Loftus Screwing a Breech-ring"? The latter is the name the IWM use, so unless there's a strong reason to deviate we probably ought to go with that. ‑ Iridescent 13:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cheers Iri. I did ask, and I'm delighted with the comments - many thanks indeed for them. I'll have a rethink on a few points and go back to the sources on a few others. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As another aside, this is one for the copyright experts but I'm not in the least convinced this painting is actually in the public domain. Crown Copyright applies to material produced by civil servants, ministers and government departments and agencies in the course of their work. Whether the fact that the War Office commissioned the painting makes it "material produced by a government department" is one for the lawyers, but it seems questionable to me. Knight was obviously not an employee of the War Office, but she might conceivably have sold all rights to the Crown to allow the government to reproduce it without having to consult with her each time. ‑ Iridescent 14:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding of copyright law of the time is that if a work was commissioned by a body (be that an individual, business or government dept), then the copyright was automatically assigned to the commissioner). That all changed in the 1989 CDP Act which switched the right to the creator who would have to specifically grant the rights to the commissioner. I work in an allied field to this, but I'm not a legal expert in the matter... - SchroCat (talk)
  • A caveat to that is that it wasn't for all works: copyright was held by the commissioner where the work was a photograph, engraving or portrait. This falls into the portrait category, but I'm still not a legal expert in the matter! There may also have been special circumstances around the copyright - this seems to suggest something along those lines, but provides no clarity. - SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ruby_Loftus_Screwing_a_Breech-ring&oldid=1172409172"