I believe that this is much simpler than some of the suggestions. If someone cheated, committed infidelity, or otherwise committed a moral offense ending in divorce and destruction of the family, would you want them in your family portrait? I doubt it. An individual photo of that person can be destroyed, but to destroy a family photo would also eliminate the historic record of loved ones. So, scratching them out was a reasonable alternative that did not affect the images of the other family members (remember, photography was rather expensive back then). I have personally been in such a situation and can attest to the emotions involved. They are very powerful. If you add to this the fact that women had many less rights and much less power and were held to much higher standards in the historic past, it is reasonable that they were "more" guilty for similar offenses and were scratched out more often than men. Men frequently got a free pass for their behavior. Some things have changed since then, but not entirely. Hopefully, we will eventually get where we should have been all along - the same treatment for everyone.
Marc
----- Original Message -----
From: Judith Parker
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: [MUSEUM-L] 19th c. photographs; Women with faces scratched out
Unfortunately it does not apply. The ambrotypes are single photograph on a glass-backing and can't be used to make multiples. ( Ie. They are not glass-plate negatives which were used to make multiple prints.)
Images of dead people in their beds ( looking as if they were asleep or even alive) appear in many Victorian photographs and are known as post-mortem photos and were a Victorian form of visual bereavement that expressed a wish to keep the deceased's presence in the home.
Judith.
From: Museum discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Yearous, Jenny Dee
Sent: Tuesday, July 10, 2012 9:18 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [MUSEUM-L] 19th c. photographs; Women with faces scratched out
I passed this thread on to our photo archivist since she is not on the list, I thought her reply was very interesting. It will not account for a photo being defaced, but if the scratches are in the negative, her explanation makes sense.
Very interesting that they are attributing the scratched out faces to some sort of hatred of the object when it probably was as simple as the fact that the photographer didn't want their plates printed and "destroyed" them with a scratches in the emulsion that when printed was black on the resulting photograph. The Welch Collection (2011-P-002 Margaret Wilder Welch Naylor Photograph Collection-Nancy Hendrickson) is a very good example of this. I believe most of the early photographs were taken by Charles, her husband and before he abandoned her he may have scratched through the faces on the plates to make sure she couldn't make any money from reprints of the images.. The New Orleans photographer Bellocq's work is one collection where the scratched out and removed faces have spawned much debate.
This kind of reminds me of my Communications class that I took in my bachelor's college where the instructor insisted that when a fashion photographer chopped off the head, hands and face of a model in a fashion photograph the intention was to de-humanize the model. In many cases the photographer was, instead, trying to bring attention to the fashion, not the beauty of the model.
Sharon Silengo, MA, IRLS; CA; CASARA
Photo Archivist
North Dakota Heritage Center
State Historical Society of North Dakota
From: Museum discussion list [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Judith Parker
Sent: Monday, July 09, 2012 4:00 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [MUSEUM-L] 19th c. photographs; Women with faces scratched out
Hi Cindy, and other interested readers,
I do not have a definitive answer to my question yet. It seems that scratching out faces on photographs was an occasional occurrence in the mid to late 19th c. The photographs do not seem to have come from any specific community (for example Catholic or Protestant) , most are young women, but someone sent a reference to a man who was given the same treatment;
MOMCC Magazine. (Midwest Open-Air Museums Coordinating Council. USA.) Summer/Fall 1996, Vol. XVII, Nos 2, 3. p. 30. Wedding couple (?), (standing women and seated man scratched out). Eighth plate tintype, c. 1885. Photographer unknown.
And one to an African-American nanny and a white infant; Curator: The Museum Journal. Volume 44, Issue 4, pages 370-377, October 2001. "Artifact Questions: Exhibiting Thought Provoking Objects", article by Adrienne Berney. A photograph in the Louisiana State Museum collection raises many questions. The image compels viewers to ponder the circumstances associated with the creation of the portrait circa 1860, and its subsequent defacement. The piece inspired staff members to conduct a survey to assess the photograph's potential for exhibition. Survey participants interpreted the image in a variety of ways. While the majority assumed a filial relationship between the portrait's two subjects, a significant minority concluded that the picture showed a slave nanny with her white infant charge, a history that the piece's fragmented provenance supports. Most participants found the cut out face of the adult subject intriguing, and their responses suggested the power the photograph could have in an exhibition and the value of artifact questions.
The Bytown Museum, a museum about the history of Canada's capital - Ottawa-, covers the period 1810-1918. So far we have found two such photographs in our collection;
Alan Gilmour Ferguson and Mother, 1864, ambrotype hand-tinted, 8.3 x 9.3 x 1.8 cm. Bytown Museum, P134. Original owner unknown. Donated 1976. ( Mother's face is scratched out)
Edey Family, 1880s-1890s, albumen print or silver gelatin print. Bytown Museum P3001. Depicts 33 family members, 13 of whom are adults. (One young woman has her face defaced.)
That's all so far, as well as many comments about Bellocq's early 20th c. photos of prostitutes, which I don't think apply to the 19th c. examples I'm researching.
Perhaps I should post my question on a photo-history listserv.
Judith.
Facebook
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 13:51:05 -0400
From: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [MUSEUM-L] 19th c. photographs; Women with faces scratched out
To: [log in to unmask]
Dear readers,
I am researching the phenomena of 19th century photographs of women, in family portraits (large group or with a child), who have had their faces scratched out, usually with black lines (at some later time). These mid 19th century photographs, usually ambrotypes (mid 1850s-1860s), or stereoscope views, or other family portrait photographs are a mystery!
What did these young women do to have their faces are scratched out in this way? Did they disgrace themselves regarding a religious matter? What was their shameful behaviour? Moreover, I have never seen a man's face scratched out.
Any assistance with reference material or information about why this phenomena occurred would be greatly appreciated.
Judith.
Judith Parker
Curator | Conservatrice
Bytown Museum | Musée Bytown
[log in to unmask]
Tel: 613.234.4570 ext | poste 228
www.bytownmuseum.ca | www.museebytown.ca
1 Canal Lane, P.O Box 523, Station B, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1P 5P6
1 ruelle Canal, C.P. 523, succursale B, Ottawa (Ontario), Canada K1P 5P6
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the MUSEUM-L list, click the following link:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-HOME.exe?SUBED1=MUSEUM-L&A=1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the MUSEUM-L list, click the following link:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-HOME.exe?SUBED1=MUSEUM-L&A=1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the MUSEUM-L list, click the following link:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-HOME.exe?SUBED1=MUSEUM-L&A=1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the MUSEUM-L list, click the following link:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-HOME.exe?SUBED1=MUSEUM-L&A=1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the MUSEUM-L list, click the following link:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-HOME.exe?SUBED1=MUSEUM-L&A=1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the MUSEUM-L list, click the following link:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/scripts/wa-HOME.exe?SUBED1=MUSEUM-L&A=1
=========================================================
Important Subscriber Information:
The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).
If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).
|
