| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/26/2013 11:02:09 PM · #1 |
The colored version looks like it could have been taken yesterday. He attempted to kill Secretary Seward the night Lincoln was assassinated.
Link to article |
|
|
|
10/26/2013 11:44:11 PM · #2 |
| A fascinating image, and an even more fascinating piece of writing. Thanks for sharing! |
|
|
|
10/27/2013 01:44:08 AM · #3 |
|
|
|
10/27/2013 02:22:33 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by tnun:
Not convinced. |
what are you? |
|
|
|
10/27/2013 04:13:20 AM · #5 |
"...but death figured only incidentally in the reading I̢۪ve offered here. It is not, however, irrelevant that this foray into modern consciousness was undertaken under the shadow of death. It is death, perhaps, that gave Powell̢۪s performance its urgency. And perhaps it is now death that serves as the last lone anchor of the self."
the photographs were interesting, and certainly strikingly different from others at that time, but I am a little leary of the prosy conclusion. |
|
|
|
10/27/2013 10:04:38 AM · #6 |
| Yes, the conclusion seemed a bit ... Ambitious. Fun to read but I think it was more a change in art than consciousness. And the subject is simply someone with nothing left to lose. The first James dean to be photographed. |
|
|
|
10/27/2013 11:01:10 AM · #7 |
I think one of the commenters pegged it a little better -- There's more shadows and dimensionality to it than other photographs of the day. The lighting is usually pretty flat. That lighting is much more dimensional and dramtic, and is played up even more so in the colorized version.
That, and the clothing is more contemporary in appearance. |
|
|
|
10/27/2013 11:17:35 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
The first James dean to be photographed. |
THAT hits the nail on the head. I knew it reminded me of something. |
|
|
|
10/27/2013 01:36:57 PM · #9 |
| I don't know, Wendy. I don't think it's the lighting so much as his present-day defiance in his attitude. The ennui, "I don't give a s--t" look that seems prevalent in today's "bad boys", and featured prominently in music videos and magazine covers. Or as the article says, "a studied indifference ". Also, his clothing, and the bg are quite unique to the times. The metallic bg is quite modernistic. |
|
|
|
10/27/2013 02:07:34 PM · #10 |
That is true. Actually, most of the portraits of that time have absolutely no attitude at all. Just searching for civil war portraits -- it's amazing how dead the eyes are on so many of the portraits.
But the lighting is also so flat in most.
I think it's a combination of all of it. It is intriguing. |
|
|
|
10/27/2013 04:11:00 PM · #11 |
| Thanks! I googled him. Spent an interesting hour looking a old photos & reading upon the conspirators. Fascinating. |
|
|
|
10/28/2013 07:39:43 PM · #12 |
Ooh! He's cute! :-P
The pics are great, his expression to me is one of someone who, having lost everything and is about to lose his life too, no longer gives a damn. Hence his freedom to stare down the camera. He literally had nothing left to lose.
ETA re flat lighting, staring eyes and frozen poses - people were frightened of the new machine, and its operator probably charged well for his services. (No smiles? Bad teeth, and the stoicism of the Victorian/Edwardian age overall.) Photography was a luxury back then. So if he told them not to move, you bet they didn't! And in the early days of photography long exposures of up to a half-hour were apparently par for the course.
Can't say that frozen poses ended with the advent of the 20th century - all through nmy childhood, my mum trotted out the camera only for special occasions like birthdays, took all of 2-3 frames, then shelved the camera til the next birthday or Christmas. Eventually we would get the film developed; she shot all of 24 frames per year :-/
And to this day unless given direction, she will still pose for pics with arms straight by her side, no smile, staring at the camera...*sigh*
Thank gawd I have yet to tell them that I actually bought a new camera body, they might keel over in shock at the price if I did!!!
Message edited by author 2013-10-28 19:49:35. |
|
|
|
10/28/2013 09:26:00 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by snaffles:
Ooh! He's cute! :-P
Can't say that frozen poses ended with the advent of the 20th century - all through nmy childhood, my mum trotted out the camera only for special occasions like birthdays, took all of 2-3 frames, then shelved the camera til the next birthday or Christmas. Eventually we would get the film developed; she shot all of 24 frames per year :-/
|
Oh, lordy, yes. All those baby pics of I and my brother were taken as we were directed to face into the sun. Not unnaturally, every one of them had us squinting so as not to go blind.
And the long exposures of yore? Try keeping anything other than a 'deadpan' look for longer than a few seconds. Yep, really hard to do, wasn't it! |
|
|
|
10/29/2013 01:06:59 AM · #14 |
I have come back to this several times.
If you want to see some portraits of people with flat, dead eyes just look at any booking mugshot from today.
Powell is interesting to read up on. The OP's article says he did not want to be photographed, he was struck on the arm with the flat of someone's sword to compel his obedience. His hands are blurred, as if they were shaking. He had committed serious mayhem & attempted murder, he knows he is going to die. The expression on his face seems appropriate.
Our faces are in continual motion, emotions flickering in our expression faster than lightening. I think one of the reasons a portrait never seems to 'look like' the subject is that the face is frozen in one expression by the photograph. In a long exposure the subject would have to hold very still, & that would mean to stop thinking, to still the tide of emotions. That is why they have that peculiar, empty look. So do supermodels.
Powell would have been down to his last emotion, had probably already mostly stopped thinking. He wasn't pretending.
I find it a curious custom, the mugshots of people who are under arrest. The ceremonial portrait of the corpse of the executed person. There are so many photographs of dead people. Why? Proof that they are, in fact, dead? |
|
|
|
10/29/2013 02:20:24 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
I have come back to this several times.
If you want to see some portraits of people with flat, dead eyes just look at any booking mugshot from today.
Powell is interesting to read up on. The OP's article says he did not want to be photographed, he was struck on the arm with the flat of someone's sword to compel his obedience. His hands are blurred, as if they were shaking. He had committed serious mayhem & attempted murder, he knows he is going to die. The expression on his face seems appropriate.
Our faces are in continual motion, emotions flickering in our expression faster than lightening. I think one of the reasons a portrait never seems to 'look like' the subject is that the face is frozen in one expression by the photograph. In a long exposure the subject would have to hold very still, & that would mean to stop thinking, to still the tide of emotions. That is why they have that peculiar, empty look. So do supermodels.
Powell would have been down to his last emotion, had probably already mostly stopped thinking. He wasn't pretending.
I find it a curious custom, the mugshots of people who are under arrest. The ceremonial portrait of the corpse of the executed person. There are so many photographs of dead people. Why? Proof that they are, in fact, dead? |
yes, these are interesting thoughts. |
|
|
|
10/29/2013 07:33:11 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
....I find it a curious custom, the mugshots of people who are under arrest. The ceremonial portrait of the corpse of the executed person. There are so many photographs of dead people. Why? Proof that they are, in fact, dead? |
Well, mugshots are kinda sorta necessary so we know what the perps looked like. Maybe their pic will jog the memory of a witness to one of their crimes. Useful too for helping ID them if they re-offend.
I don't know if you mean the morbid Victorian fad of photographing the dead in lifelike positions, children especially, but they were obsessed with death. The pics of the dead in this regard anyway were all part of the memento mori. After all you could only show off a body in the drawing-room for a certain amount of time before it began to pong. |
|
|
|
10/29/2013 08:50:29 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by snaffles:
After all you could only show off a body in the drawing-room for a certain amount of time before it began to pong. |
Bodies in Canada "pong"? Down here, they "ping". Odd... |
|
|
|
10/29/2013 10:02:38 AM · #18 |
Depending on where you live, taking photographs of the dead is something that still exists to this day.
I have personally witnessed this and NO... no matter what someone might think, I am NOT from the Victorian era.
Ray |
|
|
|
10/29/2013 10:05:03 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
...no matter what someone might think, I am NOT from the Victorian era. |
C'mon, Ray! In your HEART you are: admit it! |
|
|
|
10/29/2013 10:44:46 AM · #20 |
| Thx for the link - interesting. Personally - I suspect it's more about the lack of facial hair :-) and the youthful face and clothing and to a point the odd background which is more modern but there is certainly an intimacy in the expression. |
|
|
|
10/29/2013 12:22:26 PM · #21 |
| I found both the picture and the text fascinating, brings the past to the now. |
|
|
|
10/29/2013 12:47:37 PM · #22 |
While I find the text interesting, it strikes me as an academic over-reach. Taking a single interesting image and trying to blow it up into some grand unifying theory of the line between life and death on film misses one simple point. This is probably the oldest image I have ever seen where the subject did not want to be photographed. Look at the classic pose of the era of the long exposure, stiff back, eyes locked on camera, and a laser like focus on the lens. It is not easy to really see someone when they are staring at you as if their eyes where about to pop out of their head. The subjects really want the photograph to work.
Today most of out images of people are candid, or the subject is aware of the camera but not pleased to be photographed. Posed images with eyes locked on the camera with stiff expressions are only adopted in jest, to be intentionally old fashioned. Here we have an old image which has that "James Dean" look because he holds his face away from the camera, his eyes averted, expressing revulsion towards the camera, and not the blank stare, face forward, eyes locked, rigid posture of those who listened too well to the photographer's suggestions. |
|
|
|
10/29/2013 12:58:05 PM · #23 |
Interesting stuff. It gave me my lunchtime reading and research project. : )
Booth's childhood home is about five minutes from my house, and is occasionally open for tours. And you know what? I've never been there. It seems like something I should do. |
|
|
|
10/29/2013 02:10:59 PM · #24 |
The latest theories I have heard concerning Mr. Booth is that he apparently lived some 40 years AFTER committing the assassination.
Ray |
|
|
|
10/29/2013 02:11:39 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
...no matter what someone might think, I am NOT from the Victorian era. |
C'mon, Ray! In your HEART you are: admit it! |
Curses... foiled again. :O)
Ray |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/26/2025 04:59:53 AM EDT.
