Pages

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

Old photographs and the questions they provoke

As most of you know I'm a bit of an old photograph nut. I collect them. I paint from them. My stock in trade is to put them up online and digitally preserve them. I torture my family with them.  I torture all of you with them. Seriously! There should be a 12 step program for my problem.

The following is one that I found entertaining and thought provoking. Old photos tell of a time gone by. If looked at closely they speak to social history in a way that history textbooks cannot. They are more personal than facts and figures. They can convey information about a moment in time. I find them infinitely fascinating.


This photograph was supposedly taken at Galveston Beach. JR and I were there this past weekend. It did not look like this but I was dressed just like the woman in front...Not! I was really dressed more like the guy but let's not go there. Let's take a good look at the background. If you look very closely you will see a sailing ship on the left and a steamship on the right. It is hard to tell but I sort of suspect that this photo was taken in a studio and not at the beach. Why do I think this? Check out the sand. It seems awfully smooth to me. The clothing doesn't seem to be windblown though I've never been on this beach without a little wind. It is not like the shutter speeds back then were fast enough to stop the motion. Also, check out where the sand and water meet. I looks a little like a drape. The composition seems just a bit contrived. I, of course, could be totally wrong about this.

If it is a draped studio photo it leads me to ask questions like:
  • Why go to a studio to take a picture of a beach just over an hour away?
  • Did they also have other photographs taken on the same day with different backgrounds and clothes?
  • What prompted them to have this particular photo taken?
 If they were really at the beach, and they very well could have been, the questions change:
  • Did the women actually go in the water? 
  • Did they take off their stockings first?
  • Was that considered forward?
  • Were their camps/tents set up to get out of the sun like there is today?
  • Where did that big piece of driftwood come from?
  • Was there a special occasion to go to the beach that day?
  • Where are the seaweed and other stuff that tends to wash up?
  • Was the sailboat in the background used for pleasure or trade?
  • How did they get to the beach? Did they drive one of those new automobiles? Did they take the Interurban train?
  • Was this before or after the great 1900 hurricane?

These aren't even half the questions I have about this one photograph. It is little wonder I get distracted when looking at a box full old photographs.

I do know a bit about this photograph. The gentleman was a famous judge in Houston that was instrumental in starting/expanding the Ship Channel. The opening of the Ship Channel changed the face of Houston. His wife (seated next to him) was a leading suffragette in Texas. She was also an inventor. She invented and patented a street sweeper and garbage cans. She tried to get elected to the school board but of course that wasn't going to happen. Their daughters were debutantes and married well. Which I'm fairly sure was expected of them. 

And, I have, once again, proven that I'm an old photograph/history freak but these are the things that I think about.
What are ya'll thinking about today?

Love,
M

19 comments:

  1. I was wondering about the driftwood too! That's a huge piece! Very interesting questions you ask, my dear!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. pretty big piece of driftwood for the Gulf coast.

      Delete
  2. It's a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schooner see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_%28yacht%29
    Used for pleasure, smuggling and gun-running. But on that coast of yours with shelving sands she had a shallow draft so could come within yards of the beach.

    What's the one in the back got in her hand. Betya tiz mucho importante. An engagement gift, like a pendant ?. Is there a photo of her engagement. She is separate from, but of the group. And not yet in her own clutch as it were.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure what that is. I tried enlarging the photo but it wasn't clear. No photo of her engagement. I noticed she was off on her own. Could be relevant than again it might not. Depends on the photographers sense of what looks right.

      Delete
    2. No, I don't think so.
      When I looked first what struck me about her was the Arnolfini Portrait feel that she might have been dead and was 'photoshoped in'. Then I thought servant.
      She is totally separated for the other three, vertically and linearly being the other side of the log.
      There was space on the mothers side which would have been her natural position for a framed shot what with the 'Z' of travel for the eye. As it stands now you instantly scan the three, then her. And that's not an error a pro would make especially then.

      Delete
    3. Nope, she wasn't photoshopped in. I was the one who scanned the original photograph and this is an exact surrogate.

      Delete
    4. Not now, then. But I dismissed that idea. A photo merge back then would have blurred the seat on the log and the loop; whatever that thing is.
      And then, and then, she isn't looking out like the others, but across the frame.

      Delete
  3. Nope, I don't think you're wrong at all - that is definitely a backdrop. It appears to be a painting, to boot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought it looked like a painting. I think it was the waves that gave it away.

      Delete
  4. Totally a studio print but then I too would ask all the questions you did - why a studio? My guess, not many photographers were willing to take all that heavy equipment out on a location for a shoot AND I'd bet that sand and wind and salt air would not be beneficial to the said equipment. Interesting that they chose their beach clothes for a "formal" photo tho.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Isn't it? Made me think that they wanted to portray something for their "East Coast" family. Something Like "wish you were here. Life is always a day at the beach" kind of thing.

      Delete
  5. Definitely looks staged to me. It all looks too staged.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think studio also, but if you have enough money you can stage anything you want. Great photo! Thanks for sharing and for sharing a peek into who the people are/were.


    Linda
    http://coloradofarmlife.wordpress.com
    http://deltacountyhistoricalsociety.wordpress.com

    ReplyDelete
  7. The whole right side of the backdrop looks wavy. The curators at HFM could probably walk us through all the symbolism!

    ReplyDelete
  8. The whole right side of the backdrop looks wavy. The curators at HFM could probably walk us through all the symbolism!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I thought so too. it sort of gave it away. I'm sure that the curators could tell us all about it. If I had taken a little more time I could have provided more info but I wanted to get something posted.

      Delete
  9. Thoughts from different people tells different stories.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It's definitely a studio shot. But it's fascinating to me that they would get dressed up in their swim stuff for a studio portrait. It must have been a fad or something. Somewhere I have a GREAT shot of Daddy and one of his old girlfriends dressed up like old west people in a studio shot. It's like it was a "gag shot". You should start poking around and see if you can find other shots on a beach set. Cool.

    ReplyDelete