In the last decade, research on the previously dormant field of camouflage has advanced rapidly, with numerous studies challenging traditional concepts, investigating previously untested theories and incorporating a greater appreciation of the visual and cognitive systems of the observer. Using studies of both real animals and artificial systems, this book synthesizes the current state of play in camouflage research and understanding. It introduces the different types of camouflage and how they work, including background matching [figure-ground blending], disruptive coloration [dazzle] and obliterative shading [countershading]. It also demonstrates the methodologies used to study them and discusses how camouflage relates to other subjects, particularly with regard to what it can tell us about visual perception. The mixture of primary research and reviews shows students and researchers where the field currently stands and where exciting and important problems remain to be solved, illustrating how the study of camouflage is likely to progress in the future.
Wednesday, September 9, 2026
Stevens and Merilaita book about Animal Camouflage
In the last decade, research on the previously dormant field of camouflage has advanced rapidly, with numerous studies challenging traditional concepts, investigating previously untested theories and incorporating a greater appreciation of the visual and cognitive systems of the observer. Using studies of both real animals and artificial systems, this book synthesizes the current state of play in camouflage research and understanding. It introduces the different types of camouflage and how they work, including background matching [figure-ground blending], disruptive coloration [dazzle] and obliterative shading [countershading]. It also demonstrates the methodologies used to study them and discusses how camouflage relates to other subjects, particularly with regard to what it can tell us about visual perception. The mixture of primary research and reviews shows students and researchers where the field currently stands and where exciting and important problems remain to be solved, illustrating how the study of camouflage is likely to progress in the future.
Wednesday, March 4, 2026
warships resemble chameleons / are nearly invisible
![]() |
| available online |
Persons who have been watching the results of attempts to disguise the outward appearance of warships have become convinced (says the Coast Seaman's Journal) that the destroyer fleet, lately the subject of the ship painter's efforts, has become practically invisible at sea, not only to the naked eye, but to strong binoculars as well. "Battleship gray" has had its day. It was better than the glaring ultra-prominent white that once made the American Navy the marksman's favorite target, but it was far from the last word in invisibility, for it has recently been proved that:
At Newport the destroyers have been painted in numerous ways to test their visibility. Some of them have been painted like checker-boards, in alternate squares of black and white, but the most elusive combination discovered to date consists of horizontal, irregular, serpentine lines of black paint along the sides of the destroyers with a background of battle-gray. The serpentine curves correspond substantially to the waves of the sea, and the mixed colors conform in part to the mottled surface of the water. The funnels, on the other hand, are painted in irregular spirals, and it is said the destroyers painted in this way are more nearly invisible close at hand than at a greater distance.
As soon as the problem is solved to the satisfaction of the naval authorities a scheme for painting the battleships will be worked out for use in time of war. It is already reported in this country that the British Navy has ships painted in all sorts of colors on patrol duty in and around the North Sea, and that the plan has worked with great success. Thayer evolved a plan of covering up funnels and fighting tops with a series of planes intended to reflect the color of the sky, but the plan has not been found entirely practicable, for the reason that the roll of the ship destroyed the reflection intended and at times made the vessels more prominent to the eye than before, and also because the winds frequently made their use impossible altogether.
Another experiment being conducted by the Navy is one intended to make periscopes invisible. While they are practically so now, the wake they leave behind them can always be detected because it runs in a straight line of foam.
Tuesday, March 3, 2026
sausage works / playing wartime havoc with the eye
•••
Roger Pocock, The Art of Concealment: Devices on Land and Sea. The Mercury (Hobart, Tasmania) January 3, 1918, p. 6—
On the permanent staff of the Natural History Museum in London there are two little wooden ducks. They are dressed in gray flannel, and each housed in a glass case, with a grey flannel background. No. 1 duck is dressed in plain gray flannel and you can see her plainly at a hundred yards, because of the dark shadow cast by her neck and body, as well as by the brightness of her back. No. 2 duck to slightly whitened underneath to counteract the shadows, and slightly bronzed on top to counteract the light. Even at six feet the showcase appears to be empty. There is not a sign of duck. No hawk, no fox, no sportsman with a scatter-gun and a small dog could possibly discover or kill the invisible duck unless she moved, or made foolish quacks to guide her enemies. A great many years ago I wrote to the Lords of the Admiralty, imploring them to go and see the invisible duck, who could teach them priceless lessons in the art of concealing battleships and cruisers. They promised faithfully, so l have no doubt they called and left their card.
Am I giving away a secret, or letting cats out of bags? From all I hear the British navy of today can show the invisible duck that she in a mere beginner in the art of camouflage. In the current number of Punch you may see a tramp steamer impersonating a German sausage works. That's a joke, but the British fleet delights in playing practical jokes on the Germans. You may have noticed, for example, that the U-boat campaign is not a complete success, and that the British Lion does not as yet sit up to beg for mercy.
If you would study camouflage by land go look at the wild animals. See how the tawny lion and striped tiger are painted to resemble the tall yellow bunch grass at the jungle. The giraffe is painted with a quaint diamond-pattern exactly like the flickering lights among the acacias trees on which he feeds. The leopard, the jaguar, and all spotted cats, the spotted deer, and the dappled horse are painted to imitate the dappled light under a shady tree. The pig is patched pink and brown like the sunlight, and shadow of the denser woods, The elephant is painted a hazy brown, exactly like the great trees at the deepest forest. So all the wild beasts are colored for concealment in their natural landscape, while many of them change their clothes with the seasons. wearing white for the snowy winters, brown for the torrid summer. In exactly the same way our British armies are clothed in tawny dun for the tropics, and in khaki—a Hindu word for dung color—for warfare in temperate regions.
The khaki blends exactly with the cranes and timbers of North Western Europe. As for the German field-grey, it is a capital imitation of the shadows cast by woods or entrenchments on a sunny day, and blends very nicely either with rain or fog. The horizon blue of the French armies tones well into average landscape. All are useful colors. In the early part of the war the British made one mistake. The service cap was kept taut and smart with a wire hoop inside the rim of its flat top. So stretched, the cloth reflected sunlight, and presented a fine target for enemy marksmen, until we found out what was wrong. Then we moved the wire, and the cap was no longer a target. When, during air raids, our men get the order "to stand fast," the army is almost altogether invisible at 2,500 feet.
In the old days our bell tents made excellent targets for heavy artillery, being visible at a distance of many miles. Now all of them are painted with a special sort of distemper, and the bolder the patches, the stronger the colors, the better. Strong painting breaks the contours of any sheet, and so not only tents, but guns, timbers, wagon covers and huts are made to look just like the patched and broken ground of camps and roadways. Beyond such elementary trifles in camouflage the writer may not go with discretion. But the thing is certainly a wonderful and complete art today.
At the present time Fritz [the German military] is surely puzzled, he even, when we let his airplane observers enjoy a peep at our lines, the things that they see are not really there at all, while the guns, which they can neither see nor photograph, are playing havoc with the fond ambitions of the super-man.
One must own that Fritz is artful himself, but the British army, like the navy, has many a merry jest at the expense of the bewildered enemy.
•••
Friday, December 12, 2025
countershading and disruption in artillery camouflage
RELATED LINKS
Dazzle Camouflage: What is it and how did it work? / Nature, Art, and Camouflage / Art, Women's Rights, and Camouflage / Embedded Figures, Art, and Camouflage / Art, Gestalt, and Camouflage / Optical science meets visual art / Disruption versus dazzle / Chicanery and conspicuousness / Under the big top at Sims' circus
Sunday, September 21, 2025
Gerald Handerson Thayer / an enigmatic life unsolved
![]() |
| Gerald Handerson Thayer |
Over the years, I've written quite a lot about his collaborative work with his father, Abbott Handerson Thayer,
who is sometimes also known as "the father of camouflage." The father
blinds us to the son. Below are portions from a news article, reporting
on a public talk that Gerald presented in Rochester NY two years before
his father died. He is a great unknown. At some point he needs to be
written about.
•••
CAMOUFLAGE AND
PROTECTIVE COLORATION: Man Who Shares with Father Credit for Discovery,
Gives Interesting Lecture at Memorial Gallery in The Post Express (Rochester NY), March 17, 1919—
A lecture on “Camouflage and Protective Coloration” was delivered yesterday afternoon by Gerald H[anderson] Thayer at the Memorial Art Gallery. Dr. [Benjamin] Rush Rhees
introduced the speaker as “the illustrious son of an illustrious
father, to both of whom belongs the credit for the discovery of the
principles of camouflage and protective coloration.”
Excerpts from Thayer’s [slide illustrated] presentation are as follows—
Just how much of the camouflage used in the war is the result of the work of my father, Abbott [Handerson] Thayer,
and myself is not certain. We did not have any influence on the dazzle
system eventually used at sea, which was planned to deceive the man at
the periscope, so much as on the early marine system or the method
employed on land.
•••
Our book published before the war [Concealing Coloration in the Animal Kingdom,
1909] was used in England, France and Germany. At first everything was
fantastically camouflaged, and not very effectively, but later the only
method used was to prop up on poles nets of cord or wire to which were
fastened bits of colored burlap. This was made in great quantities in
factories behind the lines, and at the front was used to cover guns,
earthworks, anything that was to be concealed from airplane cameras.
Sticks and dirt from the vincinity would then be thrown on top, and
whenever possible the result was tested by asking a friendly plane to
take a picture of it.
•••
Darwin’s father was the first to
notice that protective coloration was a wild animal trait. My father
and I found that there were certain well defined principles. The figure
of a pure white duck stands out conspiciously against a pure white
backgound. The shadows about the figure give it away. The same figure,
with a gray back but with a light underneath is invisible against a gray
background. The under parts must be lighter in color to offset the
shadow. That is the first principle, called “countershading.” It is very common in North America.
The second is “concealment.”
Strangely enough the gourgeous plumage of tropical birds is the best
example of this. They are hard to find in their brilliant surroundings.
The third principle is that of “disguise,”
when an animal pretends to be what it is not or not to be what it is.
The pattern of the coat is like the surroundings. A zebra, for instance,
is practically invisible standing against the sky in reeds or a clump
of bushes. The woodcock is another only it is like the ground on which
it builds its nest. Disguise is found all the way from butterflies to
skunks.
Many animals combine two of these principles in their coloration.
RELATED LINKS
Dazzle Camouflage: What is it and how did it work? / Nature, Art, and Camouflage / Art, Women's Rights, and Camouflage / Embedded Figures, Art, and Camouflage / Art, Gestalt, and Camouflage / Optical science meets visual art / Disruption versus dazzle / Chicanery and conspicuousness / Under the big top at Sims' circus
Thursday, November 2, 2023
the cat's pajamas / duplicitious color uses in nature
Thursday, December 23, 2021
Zoologist Hugh B. Cott and WWII camouflaged cannon
•••
OTHER WAYS TO APPLY CAMOUFLAGE in The Des Moines News (Des Moines IA), August 15, 1918, p. 4—
Wouldn’t be a bad idea for gents to camouflage their eyes so they’ll look wide open for Sunday mornings in church.
•••
Try the Camouflage on These
On the piano next door that’s hopped every time you try to rest. Break in some time when they’re away and camouflage it to look like an umbrella stand, or a fireplace.
Too bad, too, there isn’t any way to camouflage the warbling of that oh, ho. ho, ha, ha, hee, hee, damsel who thinks she’s Mrs. Caruso.
And that bugle practicing kid across the street. The best way is to camouflage the bugle with an ax.
The auto that’s always kicking up a fuss and is always being repaired and tried out when you’re trying to get full weight on your sleep at night and in the morning. Sneak out some midnight, drag it in to alley and camouflage it to look like a pile of garbage, then push it next to the ash can so the garbage chauffeur will haul it away with the rest of the rubbish.
Wonders can be worked with the camouflage art.
•••
Camouflage Some More
What a merry bunch of camouflagers we are. The first of the month when bills come and collectors knuckle the front door, some of us are camouflage so that we are out to the collector.
Some camouflage themselves so that the other people just envy their easy sailing and wish they could afford a car and a maid, but most of the time the car isn’t paid for and the house is mortgaged to get it and they just have their head out of the water when it’s calm. Great stuff, this camouflage.
Restaurant hash is another gag that gets camouflaged to a frazzle.
Gristle, leftover meat from uneaten orders, etc., come under the nom de plume of “choice bits.” Water is another article that’s camouflaged muchly, as milk, oyster stew, circus leomade, and many other fine works.
For a video introduction to countershading, see <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLX5YQF-H3k>
Thursday, July 8, 2021
nature, art and camouflage / duplicitous uses of color
Wednesday, April 29, 2020
New England camouflage | An art of Yankee origin
![]() |
| New England Historical Society online article |
Tuesday, April 14, 2020
Harrison S. Morris | His memories of Abbott H. Thayer
![]() |
| Harrison S. Morris |
•••
Harrison S. Morris, Confessions in Art. New York: Sears Publishing, 1930, pp. 142-144—
It was he [Abbott H. Thayer] and George de Forest Brush who, I believe, first thought of camouflage for ships at sea. They had pondered much and experimented much over the scientific problems of light and color, even outside the uses of pigment. They were among those to whom art brings ripened intellect, like Morse and Fulton, inventors who revolutionized the world's methods of contact.
So when we were in the war with Spain, Brush and Thayer disinterestedly went to Washington and offered their services and discoveries to the Secretary of the Navy. Of course, he was skeptical, as official life always is of change. He wanted to know, you know, and all that sort of thing. But while he was deliberating, and telling perhaps why the scheme was no good, one of the painters stuck in the ground a slender stick which he held in his hand, painted after their theory of protective coloration. Then Brush alluded and pointed in the course of conversation to the stick before them. To the Secretary of the Navy, there was no stick in sight. He went on speaking his conventional thought. But quietly and as if accidentally one of the painters turned the slender stick around in its place, so that the sun touched it another way, and, would you believe it, there was the stick which the Secretary could not see.
I rather think nothing came of the offer in the day of the Spanish War. But we know vividly enough what came of it later, and what ships and lives were saved by the wisdom of the two incomparable artists who thus could coordinate their art to the uses of life.
![]() |
| Thayer holding one of his duck decoys upsidedown |
And another time, so Brush tells me, Thayer was invited to lecture on his theories of color before a Royal Institution of Science in London. He had before him on the platform a table on which was visible a decoy duck of wood such as sportsmen use in gunning. In his address, he alluded much to these ducks before him, and as well before the audience. At last, the patience of one of the English pundits could stand this no longer. He got up in some irritation at the offense to his intellect of speaking of ducks when there was only one duck in view. Would the learned gentleman be pleased to explain why he referred to ducks, thus plural, when there was only one duck in sight? He sat down well satisfied with exposing an American impostor who didn't know how to use the English language.
Thayer then gave a quick twist to a wooden duck, made invisible by his coloring, and the second bird was exposed in all its solidity. So was the English skeptic.
Sunday, April 5, 2020
Theatrical special effects | Thayer's disappearing man
![]() |
| Abbott H. Thayer holding one of his duck decoys (upsidedown) |
A Harvard graduate, MacKaye traveled and lived in Europe from 1897 to 1900, then returned to the US to teach at a private school in New York. In 1904, he moved to Cornish NH (ten miles from Plainfield), where he was allied with the Cornish Art Colony, which included such prominent artists as Augustus Saint-Gaudens, Maxfield Parrish, Daniel Chester French, Paul Manship, George de Forest Brush, and Barry Faulkner.
Sixty-five miles southeast of Cornish is Dublin NH, at the foot of Mount Monadnock. At the time, there was considerable contact between the artists in Cornish and Dublin, in part because the latter was the location of the disheveled home and studio of artist-naturalist Abbott Handerson Thayer (the so-called “father of camouflage”). Faulkner was Thayer’s cousin, Brush was his closest friend, and some of the artists mentioned above were his long-time associates.
Only lately have I learned that Thayer and Percy MacKaye were also acquainted, possibly well-acquainted, and, in 1906, they made an attempt to collaborate on the “special effects” for the staging of Edward H. Sothern and Julia Marlowe’s 1907 production of MacKaye’s play about Joan of Arc, titled Jeanne d’Arc. The playscript was dedicated to Augustus Saint-Gaudens.
In the script, Jeanne d’Arc reveals that she has been visited by St Michael the Archangel. In a couple of scenes, “the glorified form of St Michael” appears as an apparition, then disappears. At a certain point, the ghostly form of Charles the Great (aka Charlemagne) appears within a stained glass surface, then speaks with the voice of St Michael. Obviously, anyone producing the play would need to decide how to handle these ethereal appearances (and vanishing acts) of Jeanne's visions of St Michael.
As early as the mid-1890s, Abbott Thayer had been researching, writing about, and devising demonstrations of a natural form of camouflage called countershading (essentially inverse shading). He claimed that it accounted for the prevalence of “white undersides” in the coloration of animals.
![]() |
| Thayer's disappearing duck (as recreated by Fuertes) |
Using wooden duck decoys, as seen in the photographs above (or even raw sweet potatoes), he could make solid forms all but vanish in a natural ground surrounding. (In these two photographs, made by Thayer's student, Louis Agassiz Fuertes, a white sheet of paper has been placed behind the duck decoys to make the counter-shaded one visible, on the right.) Scientific audiences were astonished by his outdoor demonstrations of this. He published articles about countershading in scientific journals, and it led to his being invited to European universities to demonstrate and to install exhibitions of the same phenomenon.
Thayer was inept at managing money. But when his discovery of countershading (sometimes known as Thayer’s law) was received so laudably, he began to imagine practical ways by which he and his family could profit. One of his options had to do with theatrical stage effects. Instead of vanishing duck decoys, could countershading be applied to an actor’s skin-toned leotards, and then, by a simple switch of the lights, might the actor disappear?
We know that Thayer actually carried this out because two photographs of the effect have survived (as reproduced below). They are before-and-after photographs of a male artist’s model (a Boston man named Dutton) wearing counter-shaded tights, in the setting of a lighted box. In one, the light is coming from the bottom (contrary to natural lighting), in which case the figure is easily seen. In the other photograph, the light is coming from the top, and the model all but disappears.
![]() |
| Thayer's vanishing actor in counter-shaded leotards |
In 1906, as Percy MacKaye was preparing for the premiere of Jeanne d’Arc, he may have reached out to Thayer—more likely Thayer appealed to him—about the possibility of using on-stage countershading as a way to bring about the appearance and disappearance of St Michael. We know this in part because MacKaye described it in Percy MacKaye: A Sketch of His Life with Bibliography of His Works (Cambridge MA: Harvard University, 1922). Here is the passage—
Midwinter, in the little town hall of Dublin NH: a man-model against a dusky curtain: Abbott Thayer, the artist-inventor, intent, excited, testing (in 1906!) his new “camouflage” principles to create a stained-glass vision of Charlemagne for the Sothern-Marlowe production of my play Jeanne d’Arc.
But did their collaborative efforts succeed? The answer is no: In the end, their project came to naught. There are letters from Thayer to MacKaye in the Archives of American Art that record his frantic if genuine efforts to locate appropriate lanterns and to photograph the model in tights. On March 26, 1906, he sent photographs to MacKaye (perhaps the same two reproduced here), saying: “When Dutton got his suit on again, and took his place, the effect was almost as perfect as ever, quite enough without a single retouch (but the lantern’s the thing!)” A full month later, on April 26, he assured MacKaye that he has made “progress, but only that,” and is awaiting a shipment of new and better lanterns, which, he hopefully asserts, “will make a true total invisibility.”
There is apparently more to the story, but the details remain rather murky. In the files of the Archives of American Art, there is another letter to MacKaye (dated May 25), written by Emma Thayer, on behalf of Abbott, her husband. She reveals that Thayer is overwhelmed, and instead—
he has got that gifted young man [his student] Rockwell Kent (whom Abbott wanted before and could not) to do the thing. Abbott has had him up here, and Abbott says he will do it superbly. But to make sure Abbott is having him do the only complicated thing, the St Michael, first and if he has any difficulty he is to telegraph Abbott, and Abbott will go down.
Rockwell Kent is swiftness itself—and having more endurance can do the thing quicker than Abbott, and is masterly and precise in the way he does everything.
Despite such good intentions, Thayer and Kent were not able to provide a final prototype for the Sothern and Marlowe production. “Unable to get [it] together in time,” according to Thayer’s biographer, Nelson C. White, the collaborative experiment concluded “in complete failure.”
Soon after, Thayer came to realize the futility of making a fortune by inventing practical things. As he wrote to his patron, Charles L. Freer (as quoted by White)—
My failure to make my cursed invention suit itself to Sothern’s immediate needs was the eye-opener I need. I had gone on thinking the Thayer family must have the thousands I was to scoop so easily so as to set me free to work. My eyes opened for good and all and although the thing got into such perfected shape that it seems both to me and my patent lawyer destined for success, nothing will divert another thought from my own work [as an artist], which envelops me like the arms of a beloved again…
…P.P.S. The theatre invention is all ready for someone to take up, patent applied for and covered already in four foreign lands. If the right man looms up within a year or two he shall have it. Otherwise, it can go to hell. I am safe cured!
•••
Updates
The above was posted only three days ago, but I've just found two updates, including one that's especially surprising: (1) From a news article about a talk that Gerald H. Thayer gave in 1921 in Lowell MA (Lowell Sun, January 20) it appears that he showed the lantern slides of the model who vanished in his leotards. In the article, the space in which the man is posed is described as a "piano box" (a box for shipping pianos), set up in the Dublin NH town hall. (2) Today, I found out that the autobiography of psychologist Michael Wertheimer, the son of Gestalt psychologist Max Wertheimer, has been published in Europe. I couldn't resist buying a digital copy, as expensive as it was. When I paged through it, I was completely aghast to discover that Michael's first wife's grandfather (her mother's father) was—you guessed it—Percy MacKaye. See photo below—I do love these hidden links.
![]() |
| Percy MacKaye |
RELATED LINKS
Dazzle Camouflage: What is it and how did it work? / Nature, Art, and Camouflage / Art, Women's Rights, and Camouflage / Embedded Figures, Art, and Camouflage / Art, Gestalt, and Camouflage / Optical science meets visual art / Disruption versus dazzle / Chicanery and conspicuousness / Under the big top at Sims' circus

SALE book bundle / free shipping
Saturday, March 14, 2020
Two artists recall Paris and the origins of camouflage
![]() |
| American artist J. Alden Weir |
Among the artists listed was Abbott H. Thayer (1849-1921), who would increasingly be known as “the father of camouflage,” largely because of a book co-authored with his son, titled Concealing Coloration in the Animal Kingdom, initially published in 1909. A dozen years in advance of the book, he was already known for his demonstrations of countershading, in which he made wooden ducks less visible (or, short of that, potatoes) by painting their undersides lighter. He said that this accounted for the survival value of “the white undersides of animals.”
Another artist on the list was J. Alden Weir (1852-1919), pictured above, a prominent American painter of the same generation as Thayer. Both had been students of Jean-Léon Gerome at the École des Beaux-Arts in Paris, and both were closely acquainted with John Singer Sargent. Weir was one of the founders of a group of American Impressionist painters known as The Ten, although he was the only one listed among the advocates of camouflage.
In the Norwich Bulletin (Norwich CT), dated July 30, 1917, a brief note was published that said: “Among famous American artists who have volunteered to teach soldiers abroad the new art of war disguise, camouflage, is J. Alden Weir, whose summer home is at Windham [CT].” He also had another home at Wilton CT, which has been preserved as the Weir Farm National Historic Site.
Another, longer news article that mentions Weir’s interest in camouflage was published a year later, on June 18, 1918, in the Press and Sun-Bulletin (Binghamton NY). The headline reads: Hold Camouflage Is Not Entirely Military Service. Visiting Artists Declare Painters’ Craft Is Equally Responsible for Changing Objects to Fool Enemy Successfully; Laud Weir as Pioneer.
The article describes a conversation between a local news reporter and two American artists, who, while passing through Binghamton, were staying at the Arlington Hotel. One of the artists was Alexis Jean Fournier (1865-1948), a painter, originally from St Cloud MN, who had earlier become known as the resident “court painter” at Elbert Hubbard’s Arts and Crafts artists community, called Roycroft, in East Aurora NY. As a twenty-year-old, he had been a student of Douglas Volk, who, in 1886, was among the founders of the Minneapolis College of Art and Design, and, when WWI began, an advocate of camouflage. It is of passing interest to note that Volk was named after his mother’s cousin, Stephen A. Douglas, the presidential campaign rival of Abraham Lincoln, and that, in 1860, the four-year-old Volk was present in the studio when his father, the sculptor Leonard Volk, made plaster casts of the face and hands of Lincoln as a congressman.
![]() |
| Cast of Lincoln's Hands by Leonard Volk (1860) |
The second artist who took part in the newspaper conversation was an artist-photographer from Detroit named Frank Scott Clark (1865-1937). He was originally from Peru IN (as was songwriter Cole Porter) on the Wabash River, which is also, as the article notes, “near the home of General Lew Wallace,” the Civil War Union general who wrote the novel Ben Hur.
The artists in the interview were only somewhat younger than J. Alden Weir, and, in their observations about camouflage, they seem determined to credit him with its adoption during the war. Mr. Fournier, according to the article, “stated that the idea of camouflage was first illustrated to military men in London by the painter J. Alden Weir, who used a potato to show the effect of painting out shadows and changing the appearance of an object.”
In truth, it was Abbott Thayer (not J. Alden Weir) who had been demonstrating countershading to American and European naturalists since the 1890s, as confirmed by publications then. And Thayer had traveled to Europe to share this and other techniques to British scientists and the military before the Americans entered the war. “The military experts laughed at Weir,” Fournier insists (when, in fact, they lampooned Thayer), “but the painter went to France where some of his ideas were successfully carried out, and when he returned to London they were put into use by the English army.”
Like Thayer and Weir, Fournier had studied in Paris, and at some point in the interview, the subject of how American artists survived in the Latin Quarter was brought up. Among the things that artists learned while living in Paris, it was noted, was “the art of going without meals.” The discussion turned to stories about a particular artist named Charles Augustus Lasar (1856-1936), a former blacksmith from Johnstown PA, better known as “Shorty” Lasar. This was not far off-topic, because Lasar’s survival tactics “revealed knowledge of camouflage of a lighter but no less interesting” kind. As proof, they provided these details—
When his [Shorty Lasar’s] shirt sleeves became ragged, he would cut off the edges…After so many cuttings that the sleeves reached the elbows only, Lasar, when it was necessary to make a respectable appearance, would punch a hole in his one pair of celluloid cuffs and attach them with strings to the edge of his shirt sleeves. When his necktie was worn threadbare, this unique artist painted a tie on his shirt front, and when his teeth had cavities he filled them with tinfoil…
Regarding Shorty Lasar, there is a note on The Athenaeum website, in which American artist Cecilia Beaux (who, incidentally, was a friend of Abbott Thayer) describes Lasar as "a funny little man with intensely bright eyes and dark hair, standing around—and his legs about two feet long."
RELATED LINKS
Friday, September 27, 2019
Rockwell Kent | ship camouflage cover reconstructed
![]() |
| Rockwell Kent (1918), magazine cover (restored) |
I had seen all three before, but the one of particular interest to me was the cover of the December 1918 issue of Everybody’s Magazine. Near the lower-right corner is the artist’s printed signature “Kent.” The cover artist was Rockwell Kent (1882-1971), the well-known American artist, illustrator, and author (see his edition of Melville’s Moby Dick, and his illustrated autobiography, It’s Me, O Lord).
I first saw his camouflage-themed magazine cover (as I recall) in the late 1990s, when an art historian named Jake Wien (who has written about Kent and others) shared a small-size, low-resolution photograph of a copy he had found. It appeared to be in poor shape, with major surface damage and tattered edges. I later found that its color was substantially different from the one that Schiller reproduced. The color cast of Wien’s copy (as shown below, on left) is emphatically green, while the one in Schiller’s post (below, right) was blue. The other colors are consistent, which may suggest that the printing ink used for the background was fugitive and that one of the copies had been altered by years of exposure to light. If so, the question remains: Was the original background blue or green? Given the well-worn condition of the one that Jake Wien shared, I would guess the original color was blue.
![]() |
| Rockwell Kent magazine cover (two copies, same issue) |
Whatever it must be a very rare item. It is possible that no other copies have survived. Over the years, I’ve looked for the issue repeatedly on online vintage magazine sites, in searchable archives, and in library holdings. Probably one of the reasons for its scarcity is that university libraries (maybe most of them) tended to discard the covers of magazine issues before they were bound as a volume. So, in the library that I mostly use, the inside pages of Everybody’s Magazine are intact, but the covers of all of the issues are gone. Fortunately, I recently found a black-and-white scan of the cover and was able to use that as a point of departure in an attempt to digitally reconstruct the full-color cover (as shown above). I chose to use blue as the background. Note that the title in the masthead is restored from the original, but the issue date and price (and Kent's signature) have been replaced with a new, if appropriate, typeface.
That Rockwell Kent would have created an illustration of ship camouflage is of particular interest because (as I’ve discussed in earlier posts), he had been a student of Abbott Handerson Thayer, and a close friend of Thayer’s son, artist and naturalist Gerald Handerson Thayer, both of whom are credited with important early findings about protective coloration in nature. In 1909, the Thayers co-produced (with Gerald as the author of record) a major book on the subject, titled Concealing Coloration in the Animal Kingdom. It had an abundance of illustrations, including collaborative paintings by a handful of Thayers’ family members, students, and friends, one of whom was Rockwell Kent.

























