Lewis Carroll's Photographs

[Worker 11811]

I should hope that you mean purported;because I would otherwise like to see the evidence of a reported behaviour!

You're right. I don't know if there are any newspapers or other journals that "reported" his behavior.
It is PURPORTED behavior, yes.

 

[Poisson Du Jour]

In the absence of solid evidence, I suggest all here just skip the subject and get on with the craft of photography — so far this thread is totally devoid of it, so your point is??
APUG is not about speculating on a long-dead writer's supposed tilt at smut.

 

[Wayne]

OK, so you disagree with Kent. Understood.

No, I disagree with the majority of what passes as psychiatric "diagnosis" even with living patients, let alone deceased ones, and I have the same contempt for unsupported speculative criminal implications. Justso there are no misunderstandings, I think there are few punishments too harsh for proven child molesters. But really, enough of that. I'd rather talk about his photography.

What I've seen of it hasn't impressed me greatly, so I won't defend that.

 

[BrianShaw]

But really, enough of that. I'd rather talk about his photography.

What I've seen of it hasn't impressed me greatly, so I won't defend that.

Well, what can I say?

Go ahead... start the talk about his photography. I'll chime in as appropriate. What exactly hasn't impressed you? Some of it is lousy, and some of it is very nice. I like his images in which the children assume a 'character". Xie in the Chinese outfits are generally well lit and very well outfitted. Very creative!

 

[BrianShaw]

C'mon Gary... join in.

 

[BrianShaw]

Wow... cat got your tongues?

I'm interested in talking photography. If we can't talk philosophy and intent... how about lighting? I assume that his still lifes were shot at the Ashmolean. What a dank place that is. How does one suppose they were lit -- artificial light or natural. Most of his work seems to be natural light and the still lifes may be also. Any insights?

 

[artonpaper]

No one has mentioned Jacques Sturgis.

 

[Worker 11811]

I'm interested in talking photography.

Okay, here you go. One photograph of Alice Liddel, taken by Lewis Carroll:

 

[John Austin]

No one has mentioned Jacques Sturgis.

I wish you lot would get a dictionary between you - Most of the time I can work out what you mean, (reported/purported) - But in this instance I take it that Jock Sturges is being referred to - Yes, I have his book "The Last Day of Summer" here on the desk to check the spelling of his name

So, having mentioned him, what is the point?



Here in Australia in my opinion we have the King of the Creeps defended and lauded by a bunch of purblind arts experts - I refer, of course, to Bill Henson - I was going to scan an image from his 46th Venice Biennale 1995 catalogue, but there is no way a scan from these dark catalogue images would survive the process of scanning and loading and still be readable

I refer to BH as here is a photographer who works with very young models, covering them in stuff and mutilating the images to form a large montage - More recently his work at the Roslyn Oxley gallery 9 was held by the police for a while, although to me these portraits verged on the innocent - BH has actually canvassed for models through a school, but I will have to re-read David Marr's "The Henson Case" 2008 for the exact reference - David Marr was a journalist who I used to respect, but no longer

Yes, nasty pix are alive and well in Australia - This is in my personal and owned opinion

Now to cop the flak, but I am used to it

John

 

[Ross Chambers]

"Creepy Guys"

That's why I read literature from a bookshop or library and not via APUG. I find better descriptive and analytical skills.

John might like to have a crack at the Art Gallery of New South Wales for having a vast retrospective of Henson's work, some from the Venice Biennale, with nary a ripple of whinging from any quarter. The Oxley event was a major beat up
from people that you wouldn't share air with. I believe one of yours is called Sattler?

For anyone still reading: why do you think that Carroll was so sloppy with his surrounds; there's often grotty old bits of carpet on the floor and junk in the backgrounds of some of these "creepy" shots.

I recommend the Princeton album, too. The reproductions are quite small, but so were LC's prints.

 

[John Austin]

Further

I introduced Henson as a current photographer who has had his work and himself criticized for dealing with young people

I have just read bits of Marr's book "The Henson Case" and the school model scouting expedition is referred to on page 108 for those who want detal

I do not consider Henson's work pornography (the term etymologically referring to the depiction of whores) as it is boring - As pornography these days generally means that which will excite the libido and as nothing boring can excite, Hensons pix are by definition not pornographic, but there are those who get off looking at pictures of big trucks

The point that skimming Marr's book has reminded me of is the legion of really weird people who rant and scream about the depiction of naked children and youths, in the Henson case it was the journalist Miranda Devine, the former Australian cabinet minister KRudd, (the one who threw a hissy fit and left USA yesterday) and the utterly revolting Hetty Johnston, that woman is too much of a zealot to be safe

How does this link to the first subject - Part of the "collateral damage" in tis case was a photograph by Melbourne photographer Polixeni Papapetrou, of a young girl child called Olympia posed against a painted backdrop and titled "Olympia as Lewis Carroll's Beatrice Hatch before White Cliffs"

I could continue, but will wait to see if these observations develop the thread or are forgotten as a digression

John, who should be working in the garden

 

[Leigh Youdale]

Isn't it interesting how much volume of traffic this topic attracted in such a short space of time?

Well, a couple of thoughts:
1. Someone said something about "this guy's behaviour seeing off alarm bells". I haven't seen any evidence that anyone has knowledge of his behaviour. Most of what I'm seeing is people here imputing "behaviour" from other information. If you can't/haven't observed it, it isn't behaviour. You might surmise, but you might be wrong, and you have no proof or this debate wouldn't emerge again and again.

2. There seems to be a tipping point for many posters here where evidence suddenly becomes, not just inappropriate but deviant. There is no middle ground with some people. I haven't noticed anyone talking about an obsessive trait in his personality or maybe a "crush" on a pretty young girl. Such things were more common in his day than we usually hear about. The Edwardians were not prudes. The Victorians were. Being obsessive or having a crush is not necessarily the required proof to brand someone as a pedophile.

 

[BrianShaw]

Okay, here you go. One photograph of Alice Liddel, taken by Lewis Carroll:

Yes, it is. That is not my favorite. That "beggar girl" look was popular by many Victorian photographers. A bit cliche if you ask me.

 

[BrianShaw]

For anyone still reading: why do you think that Carroll was so sloppy with his surrounds; there's often grotty old bits of carpet on the floor and junk in the backgrounds of some of these "creepy" shots.

Well, that seems to be an issue that is not unique to him. Some others of the same era were equally inattentive to surrounds. I speculate (my personally owned opinion) that the "sloppiness" was a function of two things: the complexity of photography in those days, and the complexity of orchestrating the allegorical scenes. There was a lot to think about and it is not clear that these images were produced in a manner to be "picture perfect"... meaning publication or award-winning quality. Ohter Victorian photographers were definitely interested in sales. I'm not sure that Carrol/Dodgson was so motivated.

 

[BrianShaw]

Such things were more common in his day than we usually hear about.

Do you have data or behavioural observations to support that statement?

 

[Aristophanes]

BTW, no historical figure and many current day are not available to "defend themselves" so 90% (if not more) of any discussion about anything except the weather involves talking about people not here to defend themselves. Sad, but true.

Photography leaves a legacy, an unavoidable circumstance all photographers should be aware of. In Carroll's case, he wrote some rather disturbing letters exhorting the family to have Alice pose for him. So he left a written record as well as the photos. He didn't need the money, so another motive is clear from the letters themselves.

Did he molest her? Probably not. Did he have a fetish. Certainly. Is this using today's ethical framework to unfairly judge a person who lived a long time ago in an era of different morality? Let's just say that Alice's mother was obviously concerned about Carroll's attentions. It is crystal clear in the letters that his attentions were found objectionable, but the family of Alice was in a dilemma as to how to treat this famous peer without losing face and hard-won prestige in an era where that was the prevailing social currency. Carroll's manipulations to get Alice to pose is largely based on him throwing his fame around, utilizing fear of shame by the family by turning down a famous man. He threw his weight around.

So what if he cannot defend himself? The evidence is quite incriminating as to his objectionable, sexually charged behaviour towards a young girl. He left the evidence in his own hand. It is simple logic that defending yourself is impossible from the grave, so what physical or written record of your life will be the historical testimony. His is a cautionary tale for both subject and photographer alike.

 

[BrianShaw]

Amen.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Well, that seems to be an issue that is not unique to him. Some others of the same era were equally inattentive to surrounds. I speculate (my personally owned opinion) that the "sloppiness" was a function of two things: the complexity of photography in those days, and the complexity of orchestrating the allegorical scenes. There was a lot to think about and it is not clear that these images were produced in a manner to be "picture perfect"... meaning publication or award-winning quality. Ohter Victorian photographers were definitely interested in sales. I'm not sure that Carrol/Dodgson was so motivated.

I've got a number of images in my collection that support this logic. I have a photo from the Tom Thumb wedding, taken by Mathew Brady, where Tom Thumb is squished off to the left side of the image. It's a very odd composition until you think that the goal must have been to show Lavinia Warren's dress in its entirety.

Another odd one is an Alexander Gardner image - WHY did he leave the head clamp sitting in the corner, instead of pulling in a little closer?

It's not like these two gentlemen were random itinerant photographers who learned their craft from a 99 cent correspondence course. They were some of the pre-eminent photographers of the Victorian era.

 

[steven_e007]

In Carroll's case, he wrote some rather disturbing letters exhorting the family to have Alice pose for him. So he left a written record as well as the photos. He didn't need the money, so another motive is clear from the letters themselves.

Let's just say that Alice's mother was obviously concerned about Carroll's attentions. It is crystal clear in the letters that his attentions were found objectionable...

The evidence is quite incriminating as to his objectionable, sexually charged behaviour towards a young girl. He left the evidence in his own hand.

There are now about four references in this thread to these letters. I have never read letter from Dodgson to Mrs. Liddell. Clearly, if I wish to express further opinion on the matter, I must do so.

Please can you (or BrianShaw) post a link to them on the web or tell us where we can access these letters?

I have searched for them but at the moment I haven't found them.

Thanks.

 

[Wayne]

Nobody ever accused him of impropriety when he was alive. This is all quite posthumous and pointless, and despite what those who just cant stand not knowing would have us think, his dead intentions, crimes, impure thoughts, motives and fetishes are not knowable.

 

[BrianShaw]

I have to check my book shelf (at home, where I am not at the moment) to give complete citations, but the two authors who come to mind are Morton Cohen and Collingwood. Both wrote books with examples, exerpts, etc. I also have a half-recollection that Mrs Hatch (Evenlyn??, Beatrice's mother) published some letters too. I thought Cohen was available via Google Books but will leave that to the inquisitive to verify.

Another source is http://books.google.com/books?id=z1...Q6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=dodgson letters&f=false

 

[BrianShaw]

Nobody ever accused him of impropriety when he was alive.

Are you sure of that fact? I didn't hear the conversation myself but that is not my understanding. I believe that it may be true that he was never directly accused of child molestation (or anything similar) but it is apparent from available information that at least one parent became uncomfortable with the adult-child relationship that was formed.

 

[BrianShaw]

This is all quite posthumous and pointless, ...

All of history is posthumous, but obviously not pointless. Are you implying that history has no place in our lives because it is posthumous and relies on piecing together shreds of available information to reach conclusions? That, of course, is quite a rediculous statement. We live in a world where we understand only using the information available to us... and it is rarely first hand or fully authoritative. That is why humans have become so good at reasoning. We humans think, corellate information, assume where necessary, and draw conclusions. In terms of whether this kind of discussion is "nice" or not, let me assure all involved in this thread that Rev Dodgson will not be offended by this discussion, nor will his reputation be impugned in any way.

 

[BrianShaw]

No one has mentioned Jacques Sturgis.

Start a separate thread, please. I will share opinions on him too!

Summary: never arrested, never convicted, never happened... no matter what the other available information may suggest.

 

[Aristophanes]

I have to check my book shelf (at home, where I am not at the moment) to give complete citations, but the two authors who come to mind are Morton Cohen and Collingwood. Both wrote books with examples, exerpts, etc. I also have a half-recollection that Mrs Hatch (Evenlyn??, Beatrice's mother) published some letters too. I thought Cohen was available via Google Books but will leave that to the inquisitive to verify.

Another source is http://books.google.com/books?id=z1...Q6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=dodgson letters&f=false

I reference these:

http://harpers.org/subjects/LewisCarroll

What you want is History Laid Bare: Remarkable Accounts of Love, Sex, and Perversity, edited by Richard Zacks and published by HarperCollins; they were originally published by Oxford University Press in The Letters of Lewis Carroll.

What struck me when I read this book (in Uni quite some time ago) was his substantial persistence in trying to arrange for the girls to visit and pose. He put enormous effort in convincing the parents to make it happen with those girls at that specific time of their development. He rationalizes the mother's excuses for rejection and then cleverly turns the tables on her through rhetoric. They were not "Come over for tea. Bring the kids." They are incredibly detailed exhortations of having these girls in his presence fulfill an emotional need, not just a Victorian fancy for innocent nude children in artistic representation. To him it may have been an exercise in eroticism. To the children it appears they were objectified for his needs; he used them, and the parents as well. The thing that always struck me about the letters to the Liddell's was how manipulative he was of the parents. He tried to make them feel guilty. Even by the standards of Victorian prose, they are over the top.

Sexual fetishes and even deviancy were part of the fabric of Victorian/Edwardian life, even tolerated well into the 21st Century. They crucified Oscar Wilde for his, but Carroll's fetish is clearly more than an attempt to collect porcelain pieces or experiments in photography. I don't think the more recent defenses of his behavior make the case that he did NOT have a young girl erotic fetish. They simply deflect by trying to show him in a more "normal" light. All well to paint a more nuanced picture of an important literary figure, but the letters he wrote to the Liddell parents are too strong evidence to ignore. He was complex, but he also really, really, really liked quite young girls.

My major criticism of the attempts to normalize child nudes in Victoria culture is that it comes across as de-sexualizing the nudes. I think this nonsense. The idea that child nudes back then was to reclaim innocence is far too simple and facile. Just because we have an impression of Victorian times as prudish doesn't mean that under the bustle it was. It was just expressed differently. Carroll manipulates parents to bring him young girls for nude portraiture.

This a good article in summary:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/29/gender.uk