*blink* Wow. I have never seen 19th century photography on this subject :wtf

Victorian era BF

Interesting. My view of the Victorian period dwelled mostly on its architecture. What I knew of the society came from reading Edith Wharton and "...And Ladies of the Club" by Helen Hooven Santmyer. The "a woman's place is in the home" dictate was very strong then, but I never realized the extent of mother-child worship. It must have been extremely hard for a woman to express any dissatisfaction for the limited role to which she was pegged.

Quote

in the mid-1800s, images of breastfeeding mothers became a fad in the U.S. The use of wet nurses had never been as common in the U.S. as in Europe, and it became even less popular by the early 1800s; breastfeeding your own child became a central measure of your worth as a mother. Cultural constructions of femininity became highly centered on motherhood and the special bond between a mother and her children in the Victorian era.

Side note - some of those pictures. OMG

#2 - "just take the damned picture and get it over with. I gotta biter latched on to my tit!"

This was the era of Angel of the House: women (white upper class women only) were expected to adhere to rigid gender roles, with motherhood at the center of their existence.

It reminds me of the odious hurl inducing "Mama Bear" feminism or Gender Essentialist feminism.

Basically it reduces women (once again) to their reproductive organs and breeding habits, no matter how much it's dressed up in liberal speak.

Gender is a social construct. (I don't know about Transgendered concerns on this)

And fuckyouverymuch Queen Victoria for promoting this! :

I don't get why people wanted pictures of that back then, or why they want pictures of it now.

Quote
cfchevygirl
I don't get why people wanted pictures of that back then, or why they want pictures of it now.

Neither can I. Well, outside of certain fetishes, anyway...

--------------

mypersonality.info

"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who haven't got it."
George Bernard Shaw

"An oyster can play catch if u only give it the oprotunity"
Some random YouTube commenter

"hate comments will be deleted!! fuckers!"
Some random YouTube uploader

Quote
cfchevygirl
I don't get why people wanted pictures of that back then, or why they want pictures of it now.

That's an interesting question for such a buttoned-up era in the past. Why were these images deemed worthy of photography? I never would have guessed that breastfeeding would be a subject for Victorian-era photography. Interesting material; thanks, Dorisan!

..........................................................................................................................................................
Established tiling methods are for unlambent nonbreathers filled with tiny rage.--CrabCake

Quote
cfchevygirl
I don't get why people wanted pictures of that back then, or why they want pictures of it now.

Probably because, like the "mourning" photography, it was done as a remembrance object. Sentimentalism was rife among Victorians, as noted by the florid writing and crafts of the era.

These days? I chalk it up to pure narcissism. People want to be the center of attention; moos being at the top of the list of "look at me!" offenders.

Wow, that's very interesting. I guess titfeeding worship goes in and out of fashion.

--------------------
"[GFG's pregnancy is] kind of like at the stables where that one dumb, ugly-ass mare broke out of her corral one day and got herself screwed by the equally fugly colt that was due to be gelded the same afternoon."- Shiny

These kinds of photos were very, very expensive in the Victorian era. People had these done for milestones in their lives: birth, death, marriage. I cannot imagine why some woman would want this photo done. Not to mention that they were exposing their BREAST for the person(s) holding the camera, usually male. I cannot imagine that a Victorian woman's sense of modesty would let her pose like this. Obviously, they did pose for it...but still...makes no sense.

Yeah, I don't get why you'd want to photograph this. Also, I thought it was a common practice throughout history for wealthier women, (not just whites) to get a wet nurse for their spawn.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shrieking babbies are the most effective birth control on earth.

Personally, I wonder if the photos are a hoax. I am not a photography expert, and am only passing on information I learned from a photographer with much more experience than I in antique methods, but his comments are worth noting:

A couple of years ago, hubs and I had photos taken in Civil War era dress when we were visiting Gettysburg. The camera the photographer used was vintage, the metal plates used were indistinguishable from the old ones, and he used the authentic developing process, right down to the traditional lavender varnish sealer. We got to talking with the photog (business was kinda slow that day, and the developing process takes awhile) and he told us that with vintage costuming and props, it would be VERY easy to pass off new photos as old ones, and that several people do sell fakes.

Quote
Tiquer
Personally, I wonder if the photos are a hoax. I am not a photography expert, and am only passing on information I learned from a photographer with much more experience than I in antique methods, but his comments are worth noting:

A couple of years ago, hubs and I had photos taken in Civil War era dress when we were visiting Gettysburg. The camera the photographer used was vintage, the metal plates used were indistinguishable from the old ones, and he used the authentic developing process, right down to the traditional lavender varnish sealer. We got to talking with the photog (business was kinda slow that day, and the developing process takes awhile) and he told us that with vintage costuming and props, it would be VERY easy to pass off new photos as old ones, and that several people do sell fakes.

It seems legit -- LINK

I did some more looking and found that one of the daguerreotypes shown in the original article was part of a lot of 19th century memorabilia listed at an auction house. Starting bid - $5k :goggle

Dh and I had Olde Timey photos done. We brought costumes I had stitched - Civil War for him; Victorian for me. The only available costumes for women were saloon hall dancers --- ummm, nope.



This was when we visited Gatlinburg, TN. January, me posing in almost zero weather in the snow. Dh was fiddling with our little Canon 35mm (the 1990s. I think that was a very small pixel camera) to get a shot of me in my dress as I stood on a bridge over a stream near the log cabin we rented. No wonder I had a puss face. I kept mouthing between shots to just take the damned photo so I could get a coat on, Dh was hollering "gotta get it right dear! this is the only time we'll be here like this!" eyes2 This was before digital cameras so he took like .... a dozen .... pictures to make sure he got a good one. Thank heavens technology has advanced. I would have blown a lot of $$ taking pictures of my dogs, today.

I haven't checked it out, but wonder - in these days of digital photography and Photoshop, if the Olde Timey photos are more easily created. Like I said - ours was done in 1996.

If they just had to have a photo of the baybee back then, why not one with Moo fully dressed? Or with baybee in a cradle or something?

I can understand the idea of documenting milestones; I just don't see the need back then for a tit-feeding picture. As mentioned, surely today it is for attention-whoring more than anything else, but back then?

Quote
cfchevygirl
If they just had to have a photo of the baybee back then, why not one with Moo fully dressed? Or with baybee in a cradle or something?

I can understand the idea of documenting milestones; I just don't see the need back then for a tit-feeding picture. As mentioned, surely today it is for attention-whoring more than anything else, but back then?

You have to remember that the 19th century was when the "cult of motherhood" actually got up a good head of steam. These breastfeeding pictures were an homage to that - "Look at me! I'm a supermom! I breastfeed my own kid!" That kind of thing.

Quote
Dorisan

I haven't checked it out, but wonder - in these days of digital photography and Photoshop, if the Olde Timey photos are more easily created. Like I said - ours was done in 1996.

I think digital makes the process much easier. In Gettysburg, we had digital photos and the traditional daugerrotype plate done. The digitals were done quickly, and look okay, but with the daugerrotype, it was something like an 18 second exposure--and that is a LONG time when you are trying to stand still.

Interesting - I've worked with a decent amount of early photography and never came across anything like this. I wouldn't think it would be possible to keep a baby still for a long exposure time. Most of the pictures I've seen with babies are post morteum.

Old photos really fascinate me, but these ones squick me out. They are squicky, but in a funny sort of way. I've never seen portraits like that before, most of the ones I've seen from Victorian times have all been post mortem photographs.