In my sexist opinion, there’s only one woman in thos photo that looks even re motely attractive; the one sitting at the front row at the far right end.
The Wives of Brigham Young
Yikes!
I know theest are only two photos, but I hope they capture the spirit of my question. In late 19th Century photography, iot’s very rare that I’ll see a woman that looks even remotely attractive by today’s standards. I’m not looking this as some Internet male ("Her knees are too sharp!); it just seems that in most photos I see, women look rather homely.
So, what’s the deal? Did women deliberately go out of their way to look homely at one time, or was it just the hair and stern expression that made them look that way? Even then, I try to see beyond it, and … nope, they still look kinda’ like Susan B. Anthony.
The nature of taking photographs at that time, the lighting, the clothes and whatnot would make it hard for Laetitia Casta to look pretty in such a photo. Look at the OP’s first link and look at the two women right in the middle in the front row; they’re both pretty, and have nice racks. But they’re uncomfortable and not posing well, which makes for an unflattering photo. But in real life they were hot.
For the hell of it I googled “nineteenth century photos” and it was trivially easy to find pictures of women who were obviously beautiful, and would have looked beautiful if you’d walked up to them in real life. One thing I notice right away, though, is that nobody ever seemed to smile for photos, which certainly takes away a certain something.
As far as the sorority photo is concerned, I’d imagine that back in the 19th century it was rare enough for a woman to attend university - the ones that did go were the serious scholars, not the socialites.
My boyfriend does wet plate photography, Civil War style. It’s absolutely amazing how having to be absolutely still for fifteen seconds makes you look precisely period to the time. If I gave you the pictures he took of me and told you it was a young miner boy, circa 1870, you’d totally believe me. (A boy because of my short hair and pants, not because I’m that butt ugly.)
I mean, the fact is, those hairstyles and such were stylish and attractive. Of course, the young college ladies were dressed “seriously”, but they don’t look unattractive to me, just dressed and styled in a way we are unaccustomed to. They obviously took great pains with their hair. A lot of them look like they’d be quite attractive in any age - I like the sassy one.
A lot of Young’s wives are older women, so that’s rather unfair - they didn’t have a lot of the advantages that keep women today looking younger longer, like sunblock, office jobs, and nutrition.
ETA - Bertha in the middle of the sorority picture there, however, is just plain homely in any time. Not her fault. I bet she was the funny ugly girl.
I think the biggest thing is that none of them are smiling for the camera. Beyond that, the the technology for personal enhancement has changed. Styles have changed. And we are so glutted with pictures of attractive people, used for marketing purposes, that our estimate of how many attractive people there are around us is skewed.
Not that there aren’t attractive people arounds us, just that most folks aren’t as photogenic as all that. Although even regular folks have more experience with having their picture taken, so that they pose more attractively for the camera. If you met the women in the photos, had seen them walking around, they would probably heve looked better in person.
Don’t discould the power of style. What we’re used to seeing is much more attractive than something ‘out of style’. If we’re not used to faces without makeup, naked faces will look odd. And at the time those photos were taken, ‘painting your face’ was considered to be dishonest and decadent in most social groups.
What was in fashion back then is a lot different from what is considered attractive today. These women were probably considered very pretty in their day. Keep in mind their clothes covered almost all of them, so you’re not seeing any breasts, legs and arms like you’re used to seeing. Also their hairstyles are all upswept with poofy bangs, which was the fashion. That would not look good today, but was the fashion then. These women could use eyebrow-tweezing and some makeup, and some modern clothes and hair, and they would look perfectly lovely.
Also the second photo you posted is all of old Mormon women, so that doesn’t really serve as a good example.
You mean the one with the stake through her throat? yeah, I’ll bet she was the hoot who could win all the staring contests. And I can’t help thinking of the sorority photo as being the jocular precursor to a surprise “dog fight” where ordinarily hot chicks ugly themselves up to surprise their dates.
But yeah, makeup was for “painted ladies” and a smile adds 50 pretty points to just about any face. Hell, Phyllis Diller even. ok, maybe not her…
I’ve seen a lot of photos of women from that era, and the women generally do look pretty plain to modern eyes, but that happens to be an especially unattractive group as a whole. There’s no reason to think that that group is a representative sample of young ladies of the day. Seems like every school with a greek system has an “ugly sorority” and “geek fraternity.” Why should things have been too different back then?
I can’t see the wives of Brigham Young well enough on my monitor to judge.
Oh, and for what it’s worth, Susan B. Anthony was considered quite unattractive by the standards of her day too.
One point that is often made in discussions of the effect of advertising on American discourse is that while previous eras definitely had their standards of beauty, previous eras were not bombarded on such a constant saturation level with those standards of beauty. Television has allowed us to become satiated with the current standard of the beauty to the point where we lose sight of the fact that that standard exists to sell product (mostly) and not to reflect real life.
The women in those photos are real life, and perhaps not the beauty standard of that day, but in that day, society wasn’t being bombarded with billboards, bus-side adverts, TV commercials, glossy print pics, and the like on a 24/7 basis. Therefore, it might not have mattered as much back then that they perhaps did not reflect “perfection.”
The Victorian era (1837-1901) had a great influence on women’s dress and deportment. Also the habit of smiling was not popular, people tended to look more serious and refind for photographs, which were expensive and somewhat rare for the average person.
I asked the exact same question here years ago. I wasn’t satisfied with the responses and I still don’t have an answer.
You have to go up to the 1920’s before you start getting any hotties. It may be because of health issues and dental health in particular. Some of the founding fathers were presumably attractive in their time but look at your paper money and you will see the same thing. If you look at very old photos, it seems like a disproportionate number of them look like the Wicked Witch of the West from the Wizard of Oz.
My answer would be poor dental health and general health issues like gout and goiter. Once you hit the 1920’s, you can find photos of women that are genuinely attractive by modern standards.
Well, here’s some more food for thought: that women started being more appealing when they had the freedom to express themselves more, about the turn of the 19th century. No wonder those gals looked grim, it was still a grim existence for women then. With freedom came expression of femininity, and , surely, more smiles at having a better life.
And I can’t help thinking of the sorority photo as being the jocular precursor to a surprise “dog fight” where ordinarily hot chicks ugly themselves up to surprise their dates.
