Misconception in CDV's

[jenna]

I have come across this more then once on eBay, and I know they do it to spark interest, but I have to put this out there. Just because two men are seen in a CDV holding hands does not mean they were gay. I think in our modern society we tend to think that two guys showing any kind of affection is taboo. But that was not the case back then. Yes, there was a considerable gay population. There has been since just about the start of time, but what people forget is that the Victorians were affectionate and charismatic people. They wrote so differntly then what we do now. With a flourish for emotion and without reserve. They wrote with not pretence, but wrote from the heart, mind and soul. Stonewall is such a perfect example, for to read some of his private letters to his wife Anna, they are just dripping with emotion. Too bad we can't all be like that once again, and not hide our emotions or passions like we tend to do now, for fear of retrubution or intoleracne.

Jenna

[jenna]

Another common misconception is people automatically assume that when they see a woman in a cdv, in what looks to be a "black" dress, they think she is in mourning. What people tend to forget is that these pictures are in sepia tone, and that colors do look differently. The color orange, for instance, does show up black in pictures. One can not automatically deduce that a "black" looking dress was a mourning dress. Typically a mourning dress was devoid of all accents or trims, and was often black taffeta or crepe, wool, or cotton. No jewlery was worn, execpt mourning jewlery, and the dress was very plain. Actually, the mourning dress was one of the first mass produced dresses of the Civil War. Go figure hey?

[30th_il]

Jenna, you are so right. I collect cdvs and it drives me crazy when they label two men touching as "gay interest". People just don't understand how times have changed. It's like saying how rude and impolite the man is because he is sitting while his wife is standing in the picture, that's the way it was done at that time. Also, people didn't smile for photos like they do nowadays...does that mean they were all crabby! Argh.

[jenna]

The reason they didn't smile was due to the contraption that held them in place and exposure time. It took about 30 seconds to expose the film, so any movement would have come across as a blur. It was hard to stand still for that long of a time without moving at all. Try it some time.

Jenna

[30th_il]

They also didn't smile because it wasn't proper to do so. The idea was to look serious, perhaps profound. Smiles would have indicated an imature, silly nature which was not the intent of the likeness to show.

[8thvacav]

May I ask what a cdv is?

[jenna]

I know I am going to spell it wrong, but a cdv is a carte de visite. It is french for the type of photography it was. The cards were usually 2"w x 4" L. This was their poloroid so to speak. It was the newest invention, and allowed people like Matthey Bradey to make a killing on pictures. That is also why we have such a pictorial history of the time. The exposure time and developing process allowed for easier portable black rooms and camera's were less combersome. It also was the first time that the same picture could be "mass produced". We would look at some of them as today's baseball cards. Grant actually had his picture taken more then Lincoln, although Lincoln did have his pricture taken allot.

This is a great site for veiwing cdv's: http://www.rogerco.freeserve.co.uk/index.htm
I know I have shared it before, but it's worth putting here on this page as well. Great collection to view.

Hope that helps a bit.
Jenna

[8thvacav]

Thank you very much Jenna.
Martin

[jenna]

Your welcome Martin. Any time.

[30th_il]

Cartes de visite, French for calling cards which was a proper thing to leave at the residence if you visited and they weren't at home. The picture was about the same size as these calling cards and we refered to as the same for whatever reason.