This blog is generally about family but this post specifically highlights some photos I have purchased.
I think it's sad that snapshots and formal photos are sold online. Presumably when homes are cleaned out after people die their families don't want the old memorabilia. Most of the photos I buy (rescue) are the informal snapshots from the 1900s but some are formal studio photos like those below. I scan the photos, upload them with appropriate tags to
my Flickr page and link them to the
National Library of Australia's Flickr page that is connected to the library's search engine.
I now have a shelf of photos that aren't connected to my own family and, like all collectors, I wonder what will happen to them after I'm gone. But in the meantime they have given me a lot of pleasure.
 |
| Why were babies and young children often photographed naked? |
 |
Judging by the bunched-up clothes it's possible the the mother is
sitting behind this child. |
 |
| Photobomb: I presume mother has just let go of the youngest child. |
This post is in response to the
Sepia Saturday theme this week. The theme photo, below, is of a girl sitting at a desk. You could pop over there to see other responses.
I imagine early photographers were only imitating the putti, cherubs, and cupids depicted in paintings and religious sculpture. Your example certainly fits the typical chubby child with little wings. I've never understood the Christening dress with its yards of embroidered fabric enveloping a baby just for 5 minutes of ritual ceremony.
ReplyDeleteWhat a bunch of cuties! I wonder who they all were. Very hard to identify 'missing' baby photos, I'm sure.
ReplyDeleteThat's an interesting expression on the first baby.
ReplyDeleteI never thought about the nude babies copying cherubs. That makes sense.
ReplyDeleteWell, you could always just dub in some relations names (who are long gone of course) and say this Could Have Been uncle or cousin so and so as a baby. It's just a thought...I made the mistake of posting a "gentleman dressed as 1760 style" under one of my ancestry posts. A relative then supposed it was our ancestor in common.
ReplyDeleteSweet photos, all. It is kind of sad finding old photographs in antique shops with no identification. Who were they? What were they like? Where did they live? Sometimes you can know the latter by the address of the photographer if it's a formal portrait and such information is printed on the reverse side of the print. But often there's no clue and I can't help but feel a bit sorry about that. I buy a few now and then and give them names! They should have a name one way or another. :)
ReplyDeleteWell, I for one, am glad that you did save them. Well done for scanning and linking on Fickr too; that way they will be available for everybody to enjoy.
ReplyDelete