Jump to content

Victorian Photographs Of The Departed


RichardB

Recommended Posts

Bizarre was the word that sprung to mind... :wacko:

In the early years of photography the taking of "deathbed images" or "post mortem pictures" as the linked site calls them was common and considered quite normal.

The Victorians were not wierd or bizarre (although the pictures they left us appear to be today) they just had a different attitude and outlook towards death to what we have today.

They were more religious, they mourned their departed relatives more, - they were ruled by a Queen who mourned the loss of her husband at an early age for a large proportion of her life, they lived with death, child mortality and accidental death were common at young ages.

The new "photography" offererd them permenant recording of their memories, - to be looked at forever and whenever they wanted. The photos are merely reminders (memories) of departed loved ones they would otherwise never see again.

Not perhaps the outlook we would have today, - but I can see why they did it and why it would seem quite natural to them to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand using the new photograph technology to preserve a deathbed image, rather like they produced death masks, but what I find bizarre is dressing the corpse and propping it up among the living relatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much of the weekly income would a photograph have cost ? Bet it was very expensive. If that was your one last chance to have an image of a loved one I think the cost was bearable.

I can understand using the new photograph technology to preserve a deathbed image, rather like they produced death masks, but what I find bizarre is dressing the corpse and propping it up among the living relatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can understand using the new photograph technology to preserve a deathbed image, rather like they produced death masks, but what I find bizarre is dressing the corpse and propping it up among the living relatives.

I think it may have been because, as they had very few photographs of themselves, and they had to be taken by professional photographers, and as death often was sudden and unexpected, this may have been the only chance they ever had to get a picture of a family group with that person, but still looking as though they were alive and part of a group. Remember, Victorians didn;t smile much, even on photos, so dead or alive they still have the same facial expression.

Rather than bizarre I find these pictures very sad, as a bereavement and loss of a loved one always is.

There reaction to that loss, and their way of dealing with it, is just a little different from what we would do today, partly because these days we have plenty of photos of all our friends and relatives, taken in happier times while they were still alive, to keep our memories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much of the weekly income would a photograph have cost ? Bet it was very expensive. If that was your one last chance to have an image of a loved one I think the cost was bearable.

Photography was always expensive as it used quality made optical equipment and a chemical process based on silver. Before the Kodak cameras of 1888 practically all photographs were taken by charging professional photographers, so YES, it would have been expensive.

But if someone has suddenly died and you want a "likeness" of them to remember them by, then this may have been your only chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...