I recently acquired this antique photograph and I am about 80% convinced it’s post-mortem, for various reasons – the blank, unfocused eyes, the base of the stand just visible behind his right foot, the lump under the right side of his coat that is probably some kind of support, the swollen, waxy appearance of his left hand – but that 20% doubt consists of me wondering: How did they get his head to stay up straight? It has no visible means of support; could that just be the effect of rigor mortis? If he is in rigor mortis, how can his right hand look so relaxed and natural? And the base of that stand doesn’t look wide enough to support the upright weight of an adult.
Anyone with more knowledge than I have of rigor mortis or memorial photography – what do you think?
Memorial photography was very popular in the 1800’s but I have never seen one that was posed in a standing position like that. I don’t think it is possible to create the pose you have linked to without obvious external supports.
I vote for an odd looking fellow who is very much alive.
If his neck muscles were in full rigor (which they would* need to be in order to hold up the head) then his facial muscles would also be in rigor. When the facial muscles are in rigor, the face has a very distincitve grimace, which this man does* not **have.
You all have just about convinced me to change my mind. The thyroid eye disease is an interesting idea – I had also been wondering if severe cataracts could have something to do with his blank stare.
I knew about the long exposures, and in early photography I’ve seen head supports to help people hold still; I’d just never seen such a large support for a standing subject – but then, if this poor guy had some other condition that made it especially difficult for him to stand upright or still, that might account for it. (Although, in that case, I wonder why he didn’t just pose seated?)
I think one thing that makes this photo look so creepy is the eyes. This is probably an effect created by the long exposures necessary at the time. If the subject blinked during the exposure what you get is a sort of double exposure consisting of the subject’s open eyes superimposed on top of his eyelids. Looks creepy.
Thanks for the zombie schoolchildren pic, NicePete.
Zsofia, I have seen memorial photography of people propped up in chairs, one guy posed to look as if he were holding a newspaper (in Dr. Stanley Burns’ collections of memorial photos), but, true, never standing.
OK, guys, you’ve sold me. It’s a living person who blinked and/or has eye disease and perhaps another (palsy or paralysis?) condition as well.
Something that stands out to me is how the guy is slumping and overly relaxed, as if he has been standing a long time. His shoulders are droopy, and his chin is doubled.
Would it have killed the photographer to tell this man to button his vest? Also, time for a new background screen. This “window” is both wrinkled and ripped.
I don’t think he’s dead. The strange looking eyes are a result of his eyes moving and blinking during a long exposure. In all the post mortem photos from the same era I’ve ever seen, those corpses that have their eyes open have very clear eyes because of the lack of blinking and motion. Some really good examples here.
As for his general air of slovenliness and the rather ratty background, who knows? Maybe the fellow is drunk and on holiday. Perhaps he decided to stop into a cheap (which in this context also means ratty) souvenier photo place and get a picture taken.
The stand is a support for the head, with adjustable caliper thingies so that the head won’t wander during the long exposure. The guy is very much alive, as evidence by him standing. He just ugly.
