 |
| A much sought-after book on the topic of Victorian mourning. |
From the 1830s until the early 1900s, death was very much a part of daily life. High mortality rates combined with the 40-year regal mourning period of Queen Victoria over her beloved Prince Albert set the stage for elaborate rituals and remembrances following the passing of a loved one.
And with the advent of daguerrotype photography in 1839, mourners of the Victorian age had a visual aid by which to honor the death of their spouses and children. It seemed fitting that at a lengthy, nearly 30-minute development process would best suit the dead. And so, post-mortem photography became commonplace for those afforded the luxury of hiring a photographer to capture the likeness of their loved one for the final time. And for many, it was a grim fact: Perhaps the only time in their physical existence in which they were photographed was after their passing.
Since purchasing a copy of Beyond The Dark Veil: Post-Mortem and Mourning Photography From The Thanatos Archive, I've become even more intrigued by the subject than my first initial fascination. Though packed with hauntingly beautiful photographs of the dead, sometimes accompanied by their surviving loved ones---it is the essays within that shed light on a seemingly dark subject.
Since purchasing a copy of Beyond The Dark Veil: Post-Mortem and Mourning Photography From The Thanatos Archive, I've become even more intrigued by the subject than my first initial fascination. Though packed with hauntingly beautiful photographs of the dead, sometimes accompanied by their surviving loved ones---it is the essays within that shed light on a seemingly dark subject.
To briefly summarize: Looking back at post-mortem photography now in the 21st century, we might be tempted into seeing nothing more than a macabre image resulting from a gruesome period of death-obsessed middle class mourners who were as fascinated with the cutting edge technology of the time as they were their own mortality.
But when considering memento mori as their namesake suggests....a remembrance, the meaning becomes suddenly clear. These images, though grim, have an unmistaken beauty...and a forged bond with their surviving family in a very strange time.
And so photographers took care to position the deceased, lying in their beds, or propped on chairs. Often times the bodies were positioned in such a way to suggest sleep. But in some instances, family members commissioned photographers to capture their loved ones as they were in daily life. And this meant posing the body in a standing position, and yes, even photographing them with their family in a group portrait.
Perhaps you've seen this photograph circulation the web? While I cannot speak to its unedited authenticity, I can say that this type of post-mortem portrait was quite commonplace for the time.
And how did the photographer achieve this positioning of the body? Using a stand that anchored the body under the arms, at the base of the neck and head, and counter-weighing with a heavy base, the body could be held in a standing position. It is even suggested that photographers used wires to better pose and bend the arms, so that they weren't draped quite so lifelessly (as they do in the above portrait). The eyes could be tricky---depending on the level of decomposition. Some could be kept open. Some had to remain closed And when this was the case, some photographers took to a crude sort of post-editing fix: drawing pupils on the photographs over the closed lids of the deceased.
Okay... that's a lot to swallow. I know.
So let's take a moment.
And let's consider an opposing theory. Some say that modern day morbid curiosity seekers invented this form of post-mortem posing---that photographers NEVER posed the deceased standing or posing in a lifelike manner. So that then begs the question: Why would a photographer use that body stand? Well, remember as I've said before...the early photographic process could take up to 30 minutes. This meant standing perfectly still for a half-hour, as to not blur the image. It is suggested by some that these stands were used only on the living, and only to ensure that the subject of the photograph would remain completely still during the process.
It sure makes for an interesting debate. Doesn't it? But arguably, post-mortem photography is a fascinating topic for me---one made all the more fascinating by one question.
I'm not trying to be a ghoul. So please hear me out on this one. Ever since coming across this photograph in an album at Goodwill and uploading it to my vintage photo gallery, I've been really entranced by it. There's just...something off-putting about it.
 |
| And what is this peculiar device? |
And so photographers took care to position the deceased, lying in their beds, or propped on chairs. Often times the bodies were positioned in such a way to suggest sleep. But in some instances, family members commissioned photographers to capture their loved ones as they were in daily life. And this meant posing the body in a standing position, and yes, even photographing them with their family in a group portrait.
 |
| Did you notice it? Look there, just behind her legs. |
Perhaps you've seen this photograph circulation the web? While I cannot speak to its unedited authenticity, I can say that this type of post-mortem portrait was quite commonplace for the time.
And how did the photographer achieve this positioning of the body? Using a stand that anchored the body under the arms, at the base of the neck and head, and counter-weighing with a heavy base, the body could be held in a standing position. It is even suggested that photographers used wires to better pose and bend the arms, so that they weren't draped quite so lifelessly (as they do in the above portrait). The eyes could be tricky---depending on the level of decomposition. Some could be kept open. Some had to remain closed And when this was the case, some photographers took to a crude sort of post-editing fix: drawing pupils on the photographs over the closed lids of the deceased.
Okay... that's a lot to swallow. I know.
So let's take a moment.
And let's consider an opposing theory. Some say that modern day morbid curiosity seekers invented this form of post-mortem posing---that photographers NEVER posed the deceased standing or posing in a lifelike manner. So that then begs the question: Why would a photographer use that body stand? Well, remember as I've said before...the early photographic process could take up to 30 minutes. This meant standing perfectly still for a half-hour, as to not blur the image. It is suggested by some that these stands were used only on the living, and only to ensure that the subject of the photograph would remain completely still during the process.
It sure makes for an interesting debate. Doesn't it? But arguably, post-mortem photography is a fascinating topic for me---one made all the more fascinating by one question.
Is this a post-mortem photograph?
 |
| I call this the Haunted Child Of The Abyss. |
And as I became more aware of post-mortem mourning photography in the Victorian age, I began to suspect what that something was.
Let's take a closer look, shall we?
If you focus on the hands, you'll notice how rigidly this little girl is posed. For someone her age, maintaining this distinct posing of her hands would be quite difficult, I'd imagine.
Judging by the specific qualities of the photograph, and the style of dress, I would date this picture to be in the very early 1900s---which fits into the Victorian mourning timeline.
It should also be noted that when photographing children post-mortem, photographers often used props such as a toy or a flower.
Now, if you take a step back and look at the whole picture... you'll notice a dark vignette, especially around the lower extremities. Plain and simply put: You can't see her legs. Do you think this was a conscious decision on the part of the photographer....to perhaps hide the body stand being used?
Judging by the specific qualities of the photograph, and the style of dress, I would date this picture to be in the very early 1900s---which fits into the Victorian mourning timeline.
It should also be noted that when photographing children post-mortem, photographers often used props such as a toy or a flower.
Now, if you take a step back and look at the whole picture... you'll notice a dark vignette, especially around the lower extremities. Plain and simply put: You can't see her legs. Do you think this was a conscious decision on the part of the photographer....to perhaps hide the body stand being used?
Perhaps these factors taken at face value, or considered individually don't add up to very much at all. But when they're considered against the criteria for Victorian mourning photography... Well... could it be?
Is this curious photograph a cleverly crafted post-mortem memento mori? Or is this just a very subdued portrait of a child from the previous century?
I may never know. But I may often wonder...
What are your thoughts? Is this a post-mortem photograph? Is this post just too damn morbid? Are Victorian mourning rituals a touching tribute or taboo?
