Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;User 67, post: 9484, member: 67&quot;]You see them more often in Tintypes than albumen prints. Seems to have gone out of fashion by the late 1880s.</p><p><br /></p><p>It is hard for us to understand why, and people have given different explanations. Yes, the mother or helper is holding a frightened or fidgety child. I think it mostly came from a naivete in regard to classic portraiture. Only rich folks had family paintings or miniatures. The tin type brought portraits to the masses.</p><p><br /></p><p>Early photographers looked to old painting for a source of inspiration. In very old portraits, the tradition was for the royal to show his wealth and status. A beautiful young wife, expensive gold and silver, jewels, and even his heir was treated as a &#039;possession&#039; or sign of wealth.</p><p><br /></p><p>Thus, the painting of the progeny by themselves was a portrait &#039;form&#039;. It is also possible in these photos that the hidden person wasn&#039;t the child&#039;s mother, a relative or servant, and they didn&#039;t want to confuse the photo with a &#039;Madonna&#039; portrait form, which would suggest the poser was the child&#039;s actual mother. Mortality rates were high for child birth.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in