Lewis Carroll's Photographs

[BrianShaw]

...but I am glad to see this thread running as it is a damned sight more interesting than Leitz vs Nikon arguments...

Well, I have been hesitating to mention this because of the potential for a Nikon vs Canon debate, but shouldn't we be referrin to the man by his real name versus his psuedonymn. In real life when talking with real people I'm not sure he was ever called that. Don't we corrupt history by doing so?

 

[BrianShaw]

... but I believe we cannot moralise on victorian values from a 21st century perspective.

True to an extent. Understanding the context in which people behaved within the context of their native environment and times is very important to understanding their beliefes and behaviours. But how does one draw the line on what is or is not moral? Do we excuse racial bigotry (thinking southern US in the 1950s, for example) as acceptable because the majority apparently practiced such beliefs and it was memorialized in the laws? Are bigots and bigotry moral? Were they ever moral, or will they ever be moral? Slavery was and still is socially acceptable in some cultures. Is slavery moral? It seems that every behavior can be rationalized if one constrains the limits of their thinking.

I read in an well-researched book about a 20th century European leader who did soemthing the complete opposite of your story. That behavior was a matter of national policy and accepted (albeit not universally even within that country). Should we not moralize about that too?

p.s. Your story is interesting because it is very much like another I read once 9in a well-researched academic book/journal) where the tribal king de-flowered each girl in the tribe. He even saved a memory by shaving her "personal hair" and kept it in a pillow, upon which he slept every night. I must admit to not being sure wheter to suggest that he was possibley depraved, or possible the luckiest man on the face of the earth.

 

[mr rusty]

True to an extent. Understanding the context in which people behaved within the context of their native environment and times is very important to understanding their beliefes and behaviours

Agreed, and perhaps "moralise" is the wrong word, but I am not an anthropologist, or an "ologist" at anything really. My story was just to suggest that what is anathema to some is, rightly or wrongly, revered by others and we shouldn't judge without the full facts. This does have relevance to us as photographers - even some photos in the gallery that we consider "art" could be considered inappropriate if viewed out of context.

Do we excuse racial bigotry (thinking southern US in the 1950s, for example) as acceptable because the majority apparently practiced such beliefs and it was memorialized in the laws

There is another part to my story - My friend, the agent for our equipment, is not a native of this country he lives in. Even though he was born there and has lived all of his life there, by law he can never become a citizen, or own property in that country. Nor can he be the sole owner of any company (there must always be a native on the board). In some ways this is apartheid (although not bigotry), and yet he accepts it, has no quarrel with it, is quite happy to remain in that country (rather than return to the country for which he has a passport) and he is part of a successful company. At a recent company gathering, we (and some other world agents for our equipment) had a very interesting and long conversation late into the night (over in the end too many beers). I offer no opinion or judgement, but it was enlightening that our (my) "western values" are not universal, and when we seek to impose them on other cultures we may not be doing them any favours.

 

[BrianShaw]

(1)My story was just to suggest that what is anathema to some is, rightly or wrongly, revered by others and we shouldn't judge without the full facts.

(2)I offer no opinion or judgement, but it was enlightening that our (my) "western values" are not universal, and when we seek to impose them on other cultures we may not be doing them any favours.

(1) Yes, indeed. One of the philosophical issues we seem to be grappling with in this thread is what constitutes "full facts". All I can say is that I agree that judging (meaning the declaration of an absolute judgement, not discussing possibilities) should be based on as many facts or information sources as possible to avoid being idle gossip. It is sometimes difficult to tease out the difference between what might be called 'academic gossip' and idle gossip. Several of us seem to draw that line differently.

(2) I can relate. Just last night I was in conversation with a man who is father to a child in my child's class. We were discussing grades and an online tool we use to monitor our children's academic work. That software allows limits to be set for which an information message will be sent to the parent via email. We quickly learned that he and I had vastly different criteria: his being A minus, and mine being quite a bit lower. He thought I was crazy (as did I think of him) until he told me that an A minus is an "Asian F". He is Asian and I am not. We probably still think each other is a bit nuts, but we are friends because neither one of us will judge each other... in fact, neither one of us will give each other advise either. These cultural differences can be hilarious at times!

Bringing it back to photograhy for a moment... we run into the same issue on that topic when we are both photographing our kids at school events. He seems to sneer at me as I reload film, and I must do the same as he chimps his digital camera. But when we share photos it's all good, as the kids say.

 

[Jim Jones]

Well, I have been hesitating to mention this because of the potential for a Nikon vs Canon debate, but shouldn't we be referrin to the man by his real name versus his psuedonymn. In real life when talking with real people I'm not sure he was ever called that. Don't we corrupt history by doing so?

It depends. When talking about Charles Dodgson the person, that name may be appropriate. To some audiences, and when discussing his creative work, Lewis Carroll seems better. Samuel Clemens may have been best known by that name 160 years ago in Hannibal, but not now. In photography we have Brassai, Chim, Man Ray, Eadweard Muybridge, Nadar, Weegee, and others. Psuedonyms are common in literature, not to mention Hollywood. In many of these instances, birth names are often unknown or forgotten. Should not anyone determine the name by which they are to be best known?

 

[Leigh Youdale]

True to an extent. Understanding the context in which people behaved within the context of their native environment and times is very important to understanding their beliefes and behaviours. But how does one draw the line on what is or is not moral? Do we excuse racial bigotry (thinking southern US in the 1950s, for example) as acceptable because the majority apparently practiced such beliefs and it was memorialized in the laws? Are bigots and bigotry moral? Were they ever moral, or will they ever be moral? Slavery was and still is socially acceptable in some cultures. Is slavery moral? It seems that every behavior can be rationalized if one constrains the limits of their thinking.
...........

Good, important, but sometimes unanswerable philosophical questions. At least, unanswerable for all people and at all times.
What was once acceptable, even lawful, at one time in a society or culture may now be quite unacceptable, unlawful, and seen as very wrong indeed at another time when society's norms and values have changed. To change the subject under examination for a moment, I reflect on how the early colonisers treated the indigenous people they encountered. In the majority of cases it seems it was very cruelly and the systemic cruelty was enshrined in law. It seems too, that very often the quite sincere belief and justification for this was that it "was for their own good". Others motivated by self-interest and profit saw the indigenous people as no better (and sometimes worse) than animals.
Today such actions are regarded as reprehensible and totally unacceptable. Laws have changed, reparation made in some cases and, belatedly, even an apology offered for the actions of our forebears who, as a society if not individually, were the perpetrators.

It bothers me somewhat that, on our behalf, our governments and agencies are still making laws, rules and implementing systems of management which by comparison seem relatively enlightened, but how will our own well-meaning interventions be seen by a future generation? How sure are we that we are doing the right thing now and not being blinded by our own hubris?

So getting back on the topic, How sure are we that the high moral ground we occupy in passing judgement on the work of a long dead photographer with some unusual preferences for subject matter, is in fact the foundation of human values and decency? Or is it just that from where we stand at present it looks different and in another hundred years people may be making entirely different assessments? Will Mapplethorpe, Newton, and Henson become tarred with the same brush and pilloried, or regarded universally as brilliant pioneers of the genre?

 

[BrianShaw]

So getting back on the topic, How sure are we that the high moral ground we occupy in passing judgement on the work of a long dead photographer with some unusual preferences for subject matter, is in fact the foundation of human values and decency? Or is it just that from where we stand at present it looks different and in another hundred years people may be making entirely different assessments? Will Mapplethorpe, Newton, and Henson become tarred with the same brush and pilloried, or regarded universally as brilliant pioneers of the genre?

All good discussion. Thanks very much.

But can we explore the phrase "passing judgement" for a moment. That seems to be one of the challenges we've faced in this thread. If anyone ever said, "XYZ is a criminal" then that is passing judgement. If one says, "It seems like certain behaviors of XYZ appear potentially wrong" then I'm not sure that is passing judgement.

I don't know Henson's work, but I feel confident saying that some people have already publically criticized Mapplethorpe, Newton, and Mann too. Same with "Jauque" Sturges. Sturges was investigated by FBI but never charged, tried or convicted. Sure, someone "passed judgement" on him to get the FBI investigation going but I don't know that most photographers particularly agree with that judgement. I surely don't. But how do I (or anyone except perhaps "Jauque" and his models) know for absolutely sure... I don't and can't.

Unfortunately when one embarks on "edgy behavior", whether photographic or otherwise, they will draw a great diversity of opinion. Some may pass judgement absolutely, but most that I know (and I think we have generally experienced in this thread) have opinions and insights but are sufficiently uncertain that the discussion is one of possiblilities rather than absolute condemnation.

If we are not allowed that opportunity, then we have little to discuss except the weather, and maybe in my location the traffic conditions. Nobody, I believe I can fairly say, has sufficient first-hand authoritative information to discuss politics, business practices, or historical events if we are not allowed to use best available information and fill in the gaps with analysis and a certain amount of conjecture.

But less philosopical and more toward photographic technique... does anyone know if Dodgson/Carroll (or others of that era) ever used artificial lighting, or light modifiers?

 

[Roger Cole]

Yes, in the time of Poe, Carroll and many of the others, if the girl's parents consented, it was considered above-board.

The real Alice's parents didn't consent. Nor did the real Annabel Lee's parents.

Annabel Lee's parents went so far as to hide the girl's grave after she died of typhoid. (Or something... I forget, exactly.) Poe wrote the poem "Annabel Lee" to taunt the girl's parents after he found out the location of the grave in Charleston, SC.

As mentioned, we also have Carroll's letters "begging" for permission to see Alice again.

Back in the day, this was considered scandalous but not illegal unless a person violated the parent's wishes.

Today, both Poe and Carroll would probably have to register as sex offenders.

You mention this about Annabel Lee a couple of times, but from what I can find that is no more than a local legend, and not generally accepted by Poe biographers, most of whom think he was referring to his late wife Virginia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annabel_Lee#Inspiration

My aunt was married at age 13, to a man who was 27 years old (I think it was, about that at any rate) at the time, with parental consent. My mother is the youngest of three sisters and was born in 1928. The aunt in question was the oldest, but I'm not sure by how many years, probably 5-6, but was certainly born in the early 1920s, in Appalachian Tennessee. Even in that time and place a girl of 13 marrying a man of 27 was considered kind of creepy, but not criminal with consent. (They consented because both my aunt and uncle said they'd run away together if they didn't - that itself would be quite criminal now.) Had she been, say, 16 instead of 13 it wouldn't have even been considered very abnormal, and wouldn't have even raised an eyebrow had she been 16 and he, say, 23. My aunt and uncle remained married, apparently happily, for the rest of their lives. He lived well into his 90s and she into her upper 80s, dieing a few years ago.

The past is a different country. They do things differently there.

 

[Steve Smith]

I've often envied her because I suspect, like you do, that she engaged in photography purely for fun and had all of her other worldly needs sufficiently taken care of.

There is no speculation involved, it's a fact that the Cameron family were very well off and owned a coffee plantation in Ceylon (Sri Lanka). The camera was initially bought as a gift to give her something to do when they moved to the Isle of Wight. It was a gift from her daughter who probably realised that her mother's life here would be very different to the life she was used to in Ceylon and that she would need something to occupy her time.

I doubt that anyone realised how much enthusiasm she would have for photography.

EDIT: I just saw this on the JMC Trust website: http://www.dimbola.co.uk/news/call-for-entries-26.aspx


Steve.

 

[Aristophanes]

His public personae was Lewis Carroll. This was his design and choice.

 

[BrianShaw]

I believe you, but is that what he was called at work?

 

[Aristophanes]

I believe you, but is that what he was called at work?

Professor. Or Doctor, I would believe.

 

[Curt]

It's interesting that when I saw the name of the thread, "Lewis Carroll's Photographs", I immediately thought; he's was a ********* isn't he? I suppose that history has given me that message. I'm not making any accusations here but somehow I got that idea about his motives.

 

[BrianShaw]

Professor. Or Doctor, I would believe.

Maybe Reverend, too.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Lewis Carroll's photographs through the looking glass seem to have right left [or is it left-right?] reversals. Maybe he flipped the negative to the wrong side.

 

[alexsoleg]

Hi friend, someone know where I can find complete archive of Lewis Carroll photos? Thanks..

 

[BrianShaw]

Yes, on the itnernet. ha ha ha. There are many sites with his works.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

One of the great errors that people make today is to judge people of previous eras by today's mores.

 

[BrianShaw]

Sometimes it is a great error to judge people of TODAY's era by today's mores. Given the differences in cultures and artistic expression who is to really say what is right or wrong.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Well, I don't think there's any culture on earth that considers cold-blooded murder to be an acceptable medium for artistic expression. Nor rape. But what constitutes rape is so divergent as to render the term problematic at best, meaningless at worst. But it is a slippery slope to judge Carroll/Dodgson's photographs of Alice as pedophilic porn - they are very much of a piece with genre art of the time period where it was far more acceptable to show nude or semi-nude children in paintings and photographs. Children were considered innocent, therefore images of them had to represent innocence. Especially if there was a plinth and a column and a laurel wreath in the image or something to make an art-historical reference. And doing post-mortem forensic psychoanalysis of someone like Lewis Carroll is incomplete at best and fictional at worst because we can't ask him questions about his mindset. Certainly his writings leave some clue, but they're one-sided. Trying to draw conclusions about his sexuality from his fictional writing, especially when it is utterly fanciful and not overtly sexual, is getting into a lit-crit exercise. It is entirely possible for someone to write fiction not based in their personal experience, so it is entirely possible that even if Carroll had written an antecedent to Lolita, you couldn't call him a real-life Humbert Humbert. From the evidence we do have (Alice Liddell's mother was sufficiently uncomfortable with SOMETHING about Dodgson's behavior that she denied him access to the child), it is not hard to imagine that he would be classified a pedophile were he alive today.

 

[BrianShaw]

Probably not... he would likely just be considered a "creepy single guy who likes hanging around with and photographing little girls".

 

[Adrian Twiss]

Yes, in the time of Poe, Carroll and many of the others, if the girl's parents consented, it was considered above-board.

The real Alice's parents didn't consent. Nor did the real Annabel Lee's parents.

Annabel Lee's parents went so far as to hide the girl's grave after she died of typhoid. (Or something... I forget, exactly.) Poe wrote the poem "Annabel Lee" to taunt the girl's parents after he found out the location of the grave in Charleston, SC.

As mentioned, we also have Carroll's letters "begging" for permission to see Alice again.

Back in the day, this was considered scandalous but not illegal unless a person violated the parent's wishes.

Today, both Poe and Carroll would probably have to register as sex offenders.

This is a long thread which I have not read right to the end so apologies if this has already been posted. Poes wife, Virgina, was 13 when she married Poe and he was 27. I assume that the marriage service was conducted by a Parson and the licence was issued by a Justice of the Peace (I'm not up on US Marriage Law). I don't recall reading of any parental oppostition to the match. Virginia died of TB at the tragically young age of 24 and is cited as one of the possible inspirations for the poem Annabel Lee. Such a marriage is, rightly, illegal today but obviously not in the Mid 1800s.