Were you aware of the Victorian practice of memorial photography before reading the book? If so, have you seen any of these photos? What do you think of this practice?
Yes, I was aware of this practice, and I have seen photos online. It seems to have been a natural evolution of photography, which enabled people to have actual images of themselves, others, and places. One would imagine that Wanted posters began printing photos rather than sketches. (My grandfather must have been intrigued by this new technology as he photographed life in Montana in the early 1900s.)
Admittedly, I enjoy visiting cemeteries - lots of history, beauty and serenity. There was a time period when photo portraits of the deceased were embedded into headstones and so remain for all to see. Headstone options as recent as a decade ago included means to access a video about the deceased using a smartphone. Unsure if these used a QR code or other means. Remembering loved ones and reminding others about them seems to continue although the means differ.
Yes, I was aware of this practice. I worked in a public library for many years and books of this type would come across the return desk! I am fascinated by them only because people are touching dead people. I think photography was new and this type of photos would be the only way to remember a loved one. It was something to hold on to. Also, perhaps that’s why they were posed to look somewhat “natural.”
I was not aware of this practice. I think it is a little morbid. I love seeing pictures of my ancestors when they were young older and alive!
I wasn’t aware of the practice either. I looked up some of them on the internet and was surprised how lifelike some of the dead folks looked. I understand why it was comforting at the time - the same reason Kit took a selfie with Hadley - but I still feel it was pretty morbid and I find the images creepy.
I was not aware of such a practice. I must admit It certainly took me on a wild ride down a rabbit’s hole on Goggle By capturing the dead on film, Victorian death photos gave families the illusion of control. Although they had lost a beloved relative, they could still shape the portrait to emphasize a sense of calmness and tranquility. Even though I was able to better understand this practice and many of their other ones, I came away still feeling creepy.
Yes, I was aware of the photographs and wreathes made from dead loved ones hair thanks to my hometown’s museum. I spent a lot of time there.
I had heard of this but never delved into the topic. So this was a great foray into how this practice could be meaningful and lovely. In the author’s notes, they did offer some informaton about this topic so I want to look further into it.
I wasn’t aware of this. I thought the author did a great job of introducing the reader to this practice in a way that wasn’t too shocking.
Yes, I was aware of this practice. I think the movie The Others is the one that introduced me to the practice. Genealogy is one of my hobbies so I have done some research regarding memorial photographs. I definitely wouldn’t want a picture taken of my body after death, but times were different then. Sometimes that was the only photo someone had of their loved one.
I was aware of memorial photography, but I’m more familiar with hair jewelry, in which the hair of the departed was incorporated in jewelry/decorative items as a wearable reminder of the loved one.
No,I was not aware of this practice. It kind of creeps me out now but I want to learn more about it. Anyone no any good books to get me started?
No, I was unaware of this practice but find it somewhat fascinating. The book did a good job of explaining the purposes, and I went down a few rabbit holes searching the topic. I understand that it wasn’t as common in America as in Victorian England, but it was still done. Now I am curious as to whether any of the old photographs in my family’s genealogy records are memorial photos. I have seen some pretty stern poses!
Yes, I was aware. I don’t remember where, but a small historical house I visited even had a few displayed. I do understand the idea of wanting a tangible memory of the deceased, but yikes, it is not for me.
I was familiar with it and have seen some photos. I think it was a great way to preserve the memory of the person after they are gone. In those times, it was not uncommon to go an entire lifetime without a photo or painting of the person. This way, they could remember their face and find comfort in their image. But I am glad we have evolved (with camera technology) to have living images instead. But some of the Victorian memorial photos are beautiful and artful. Others are quite grim. I suppose it depended on the photographer which you would get.
Yes, I have read and seen portrayals of this practice before. The photos are somewhat creepy, but mostly just so very sad. So much loss of life at such early ages. It seems morbid to us, but I think having the memorial of the person they lost was a great comfort to people at that time.
I was aware of it and have always found it a bit sad and morbid. I prefer remembering people full of life and vitality.