Dead people's facial features

[ShrinkingViolet]

Maybe we should make a separate thread about this? Is this too off topic?



Oh, wow, I didn't know that. I googled Jane Morris and found some photos as well. I think there is a slight androgeny to her face, the lip resembles the lips of the male figures of early classical greek sculpture (for example the blonde boy), and the nose is quite greek also, and definitely not today's definition of a perky feminine nose. And of course the almond shaped eyes were a greek ideal also, as you see them on the archaic greek korai and kouroi.

And a sketch:

That nose really is something, I love it. Susie Bick (I know her as Nick Cave's wife, but she's supposed to be a big 80's model), has the same type of profile:

That nose has always fascinated me, too! And her incredible thick wavy hair. I also find her jawline quite striking, it's another androgynous feature.

There was a girl in my high school class who was such a classic pre-raphaelite beauty. She had the melancholy gaze, slender limbs, wavy dark hair and the long aquiline nose but instead of embracing it I think she wanted to be like the blonde cookie-cutter girls. It was such a pity!

Sunny, you really ought to do a pre-raphaelite photo session. You'd make a great Ophelia.

 

[LocktownDog]

Officially nominated as one of the top 10 all-time best Lounge titles.

 

[Paisley]

She looks so peaceful.

 

[MadelienneBlack]

Officially nominated as one of the top 10 all-time best Lounge titles.

I second that!lol

 

[undertaker]

Officially nominated as one of the top 10 all-time best Lounge titles.

I have to say it caught my attention right away!

Regards,
J.S.

 

[Mojito]

Rossetti was remarkable for celebrating women whose looks were not necessarily conventionally beautiful in Victorian society, and doing it in such a way that not only were his ideas adopted by his circle, they achieved wider popularity. Jane Morris (Jane Burden when he "discovered" her) was very different from the blonde, rosy cheeked prettiness popular at the time. And while he did not "discover" Elizabeth Siddal (she was found by another young painter in his circle), the looks that he celebrated in obsessive sketches and paintings were unusual - not least her red hair, which still has an odd stigma attached to it today. His paintings of Jane Morris seem exagerated beyond the usual stylisation of his portraiture - until you see the paintings and the photographs of her that he posed (like those above) side by side, and the striking nature of her profile, nose, dark eyes, thick, wavy (even frizzy) hair and heavy brows becomes apparent. In some photographs, such as an early passport photo and family group shots with the Burne-Joneses, she appears much plainer.

 

[shortbow]

Interesting how beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I find nothing of the androgyne in that woman, have always found her beguiling and somehow she has always in some strange way defined Art Nouveau for me.

 

[Paisley]

She reminds me of one of the Fedora Loungers--I can't think of her name. She has red hair and lives in LA.

ETA: Tourbillion!

 

[Zarniwoop]

In a way the title made me think the thread would be about Victorian post-mortem photography. Scary weird stuff. Wikipedia article here.

 

[Miss Sis]

I thought the same.

The strangest thing is when the dead are photographed with the living - or when the dead have their eyes open! I just had to go have a look at that site, you see.

 

[Laura Chase]

shortbow, for me, the androgyny makes her even more beautiful and interesting looking. But of course androgyny is a very difficult thing to define, which features are truly feminine and which masculine, it would be foolish to try and define this in any absolute way. So when I use the word I mean it in the sense that she has some features that are not the ones usually deemed dainty and feminine, not then and not even today. What Mojito writes about the time and its beauty ideals is very interesting. I would love to see some examples of an ideal victorian beauty, "the blonde, rosy cheeked prettiness". Also, it'd be interesting to see earlier photos of Jane Morris, before she was "discovered".

 

[shortbow]

I get ya now. It's that look of aquiline, melancholy intelligence that I find so attractive, to me thousand times sexier than the Barbi Doll thing.

 

[cherry lips]

What Mojito writes about the time and its beauty ideals is very interesting. I would love to see some examples of an ideal victorian beauty, "the blonde, rosy cheeked prettiness". Also, it'd be interesting to see earlier photos of Jane Morris, before she was "discovered".

Me too, I always imagined the victorian ideal as lily white skin, no make up, dark hair in an up do - very prim and proper and chaste. At the same time a little "goth" (Tim Burton). Maybe I've been wrong?

Not long ago I made an attempt at organizing the 19th century fashion in my head: empire (Jane Austen), mid-century (Civil war), and victorian.
I believe I like the mid-century fashion the best, like in Jezebel and Gone With The Wind.
The Piano, however, shows a less gay version of the dresses and hair. Colorwise (black) I felt it was more victorian. Was I wrong to think so?

 

[Laura Chase]

Me too, I always imagined the victorian ideal as lily white skin, no make up, dark hair in an up do - very prim and proper and chaste. At the same time a little "goth" (Tim Burton). Maybe I've been wrong?

Not long ago I made an attempt at organizing the 1900th century fashion in my head: empire (Jane Austen), mid-century (Civil war), and victorian.
I believe I like the mid-century fashion the best, like in Jezebel and Gone With The Wind.
The Piano, however, shows a less gay version of the dresses and hair. Colorwise (black) I felt it was more victorian. Was I wrong to think so?

Darling, the photo doesn't show.
I don't know much about 19th century fashion, mostly fragmented pieces of knowledge from painters such as Jacques-Louis David, Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres and the impressionist (in particular Manet and Monet, the latter studied fashion meticulously). I think there was a big difference between American and European fashion, and even between French and English, I would guess the latter would be more austere (because of the Victorian morals). But on the other hand, I remember this Manet painting showing the newest and finest fashion in Paris at the time (1874), worn by a very chic parisienne, all in black:

 

[Mojito]

I'll see if I can find some on-line links to the type of early-mid Victorian chocolate box prettiness I'm thinking of - it's not reflected in the specific portraiture of some of more talented painters, pre-Raphaelite and otherwise. You find examples in illustrative works of historial and literary subjects - often large-eyed with a prominant forehead, but with a small chin and mouth...which seems sometimes (at least to me) to reflect an infantalising of the subject.

I don't think there are any identified early photographs of Jane before her entry into the pre-Raphaelite circules and marriage, Laura - she came from a comparatively poor family, and in later years after her marriage to William Morris sought to obscure her origins.

The androgynous quality of Rossetti's interpretation of her becomes more pronounced in his later portraits - take this example, Astarte Syriaca (or his Mnemosyne):

He exaggerated their monumental qualities - they become almost intimidating figures, broad shouldered with large, heavy limbs. A dominating figure. Some of these tendencies (like the full, long throat) were present in earlier works, but they become more pronounced and even distorted towards the end of his life. And yet Rossetti was not a man who was intimidated by women - he admired them and encouraged women with artistic aspirations, like his wife Lizzie. And Janey was more than simply his muse - she was an active collaborator in the works, selecting costumes and offering suggestions.

I tend to think that his full figured, strong limbed women - even though his subjects are often temptresses who possess power (sometimes supernatural power) - are a celebration of females rather than an attempt to evoke fear or a reflection of a fearful response on his part to women, unless the subject is explicitly meant to be dangerous (like his Lilith). I think he genuinely loved women. Take for example his portraits of his mistress, Fanny Cornforth. One acquintance seeing her standing next to a portrait Rossetti had done of her thought that the original was "coarse" and quite unlike the finished work - but I think that was more a moral judgement on the frank sexuality of the portraits, a sexuality that Rossetti celebrated.

 

[Miss Sis]

A friend of mine who is very knowledgable about the Victorian era explained to me that the Victorians generally liked very strong features such as either very blonde or very dark hair, pale skin with rosy cheeks and big eyes.

Moving slightly off facial features, they also liked small waists (obviously) and also sloping shoulders which became fashionable after Queen Victoria came to the throne.

 

[Lillemor]

I have to admit that the title is what put me off checking this thread for a while because I too thought it would be about post mortem shots from bygone eras. Some people collect photos of death Victorian babies. I don't condemn or in any way disapprove of anyone's morbid fascinations but those photos were enough to put me off wanting to view more photos like them.

I'm glad to see that this thead is about something entirely different. In my early youth, my beauty ideals changed many times until I in recent years have realized that what I may generally perceive as beautiful may not be something I recognize as beautiful in nature and vice-versa, something I can't imagine any beauty in, may indeed be very beautiful to my eyes or in some way hold an aestetic fascination I wouldn't have imagined.

Often times I may not think someone is "beautiful" but I can see their aestetic appeal anyway. The Pre-Raphaelite paintings have appealed to me for a long time. Mainly because of the styles of painting, the color themes and the loose, long, hair the models often have. Nothing in the paintings may be beautiful by themselves and I'm not sure I would've found any of those women beautiful if they walked toward me on the street but it's the whole context that's aestetically appealing to me in the prints/paintings.

I don't know as much about art as I did some 20-23 years ago which I regret so I can't give a clearer explanation.

Thanks for the history background, Mojito.

 

[Sunny]

Sunny, you really ought to do a pre-raphaelite photo session. You'd make a great Ophelia.

I've sure got the melancholy look - my eyes make me look half-asleep in pictures when I'm not squinting from smiling or the sun. I might could try... I just need a photographer. I already have the wardrobe for the "contemporary" look. My one and only tintype (and you thought YOUR pictures were bad!)...

My hair's not wavy and crimpy like hers (which incidentally became popular right about the mid-1860s), but it's fluffy/wavy/bushy if I let it.

Here's an interesting setting. I love those ruins.

I may have to see what's in the dress-up trunk.


I would like to point out that the Victorian Era, properly speaking, lasted for many decades, from 1837-1901. That's a lot of time and a lot of fashion under the bridge. There is no such thing as a single all-encompassing Victorian fashion or beauty ideal. I love early- to mid-Victorian fashion the best, so I've studied the years 1860-1865 the most as well as the late 1850s, with a fair amount of knowledge from the early 1850s and 1840s. Physically, the fashion ideal of that period, which the clothing was designed to give the effect, included small waists (hence the big skirts and big sleeves), sloping shoulders (hence the "dropped" armholes), round faces (hence hairstyles flat on top and wide at the sides and rouge applied to give plump cheeks), and small feet. Cosmetics had had widespread use for decades, by the way. Powders and rouge (Don't take GWTW for gospel!) were all over, both bought and homemade, and I've seen recipes for making things to darken lashes and/or brows. The differences between American and European fashion weren't that significant, at least through the 1860s, except for certain "high fashion" elements that just never quite caught on. There was very little time lag, too; between steamships on the ocean and railroads in the country, even rural areas were very well-connected. There were differences between French and English, but I wouldn't say it was because of "Victorian morals"; they'd always been different, at least as far as I can tell. Different cultures, that's all. Fashion definitely came from the French, but the English and the Americans simply didn't adopt everything right away, or to the same extent. I've been learning recently about some variations that were in Germany in the same period, too. (Can you tell I love this subject?)

Mojito has the "conventional prettiness" nailed - high, wide forehead and large eyes are the most important. I'd say that's typical of the 1850s, though - I wouldn't put it later than that. In that respect, Rossetti was not painting women who fit the, by then, slightly old-fashioned ideal. Nor, however, was he in just in step with the new fashion. The early 1860s in France, and 1864-5 in the U.S., began an enormous fashion shift, comparable in scope and significance to the New Look. Big skirts began to change shape, becoming elliptical and long in back; this trend eventually morphed into two distinct bustle periods. Bodices became tighter, with smaller sleeves; armholes moved back up on the shoulder. Everything began to emphasize height, from hats to hairstyles to collars, &c. The picture Laura found is a great example. I can't be sure since I haven't really studied post-1860, but I'd guess this is late 1870s.

Rossetti's ladies, with their flowing crimped hair, in a way fit about 1863 onward fairly well; there was a "fad" for crimped hair that became so popular it hung on for a long time. Like the ringlets look, a fad in the 1840s, hung on for decades among women and girls with curly hair. But I think Rossetti just found an ideal that he liked, and he painted it.

(That Rossetti Archive is a fantastic site, ShrinkingViolet. I love how much detail he put in on the sketches. It's great for getting hairstyle details that are rarely seen in photographs or formal portraits. )

 

[Kitty_Sheridan]

I find those photographs so sad...especially the one of the father holding the baby. Heartbreaking.

K

 

[HungaryTom]

I find those photographs so sad...especially the one of the father holding the baby. Heartbreaking.

K

The Victorian post mortem photos: I learned from their existence here at the forum the first time - a very strange cult of remembering the dead.
For me they were grotesque and unimaginable I must admit.
But not less strange than in my great-grandmothers time on the countryside the dead being mourned at home by professional mourning women, etc...my dad told me he has witnessed this habit even in the 1960's.
The dead childrens photos are especially sad - why the staged family idyll around them? The sole photos of the deceased is more understandable in an age where there were not much photographs taken - but to surround them with their live companions...???

***

As to the real topic of the thread; androgyne features of females - those 'classic' features are shown in the Greek sculptures, Michelangelo's women, etc.
If one wants to depict the divine woman (Goddess/Astarte, Sybilla, Prophets, etc.) not the sensual earthly flesh and blood being (Titian's Venus of Urbino, naked Maya, pin-up girls of Vargas, Elvgreen) than the androgyne is the way to go.