sad

It’s strange to come across a current photo in which no one is smiling. If we see her, we assume that something is happening: either she wants to give a serious image, or something happens that we don’t know about, or the intention is precisely to go against it, not to smile. However, there was a time in which the usual thing was not to do it, not to show the slightest emotion in the photographs. What is the reason for this attitude? Were they so sad in the victorian englandSpain at the beginning of the century and so on? Actually, there is a very simple explanation. The exhibition. We all know that in the early days of photography, that is, between about 1840 and 1880, cameras required people to remain completely still for several seconds, or even, in the most primitive photos, minutes. Maintaining a natural smile for so long was uncomfortable, and fatigue ended up turning a natural smile into a stiff grimace. Furthermore, any movement resulted in a blurry image, which ran the risk of the model appearing in the photo with a blur on his face like a specter from beyond the grave. Hence the much simpler and more accessible custom of remaining with a relaxed gesture. Decent photographs. But there came a time when photographs did not require more than a moment of exposure, and there were still models with long faces. What was it due to? In reality it was not a technical question, but rather a question of how photography was understood. Perhaps with a vision inherited from when a portrait was a canvas that took days to create, required effort for the painter and model, cost money and could not be reproduced, but rather remained a unique piece. For all this, the portrait was clothed with a certain solemnity. It didn’t matter that these new portraits were much simpler and faster to do: They preserved the aura of dignity and special occasion of the oil paintings. Example: the dead. The legendary photos of the deceased or post-mortem photography They are a perfect example to understand how the medium was perceived for a time. They were a surprisingly common practice during the 19th and early 20th centuries and had a very clear purpose: being still a medium that was not widespread, photography was the only opportunity that many families had to preserve a portrait of the deceased, since they had not been able to do it while they were alive (and with the high infant mortality rate of other times, even more so). Furthermore, with this aura of dignity and pomp that the photograph had, it was incorporated into the elaborate mourning process. Victorian. Smile bad. In the 19th century, smiling openly in public or in portraits was often associated with frivolity, lack of seriousness, or even drunkenness. Educated and respectable people maintained a serious composure. If you have ever seen material from the tone period, let’s say, libertineyou will see what contagious smiles. It’s not that in the 19th and early 20th centuries people didn’t know how to smile: it was the circumstance in which photos were taken. That is why photos have been found taken in more familiar settings, at parties with very close relatives or close friends, where some of this rigidity is lost and people smile widely. Smiling badly, part two. And if we started with a reason as prosaic as “it’s easier not to smile than to smile,” we ended up with another equally practical reason: smiles one hundred and fifty years ago were terrible. The dental hygiene It was much worse than today and the dentures were full of holes, at best. When it came to passing on to posterity, it was normal for the models to decide not to show their teeth. Photo of Lia Den in Unsplash In Xataka | A tractor engine and three floors: this is the Victorian steampunk house that is touring the United States