Comments on: History and How to Pose for a Picture

By: Leasimne

Leasimne — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 19:22:00 +0000

I don’t know that I’d say smiling didn’t come naturally, but along with the point many have made about the long exposure times, pictures didn’t have the same purpose as they do now. they were formal (think “glamour shots” or family portraits today), and like Tusconian mentioned below about the beach-girl pictures, people have changed attitudes about how they want themselves portrayed (which is sociological).

as a wedding cinematographer, I struggle with this constantly. we use the same cameras as the photographers, but we’re trying to capture candid action. and yet, when we walk into a room and start shooting, we invariably get someone who notices the camera and a. primps, b. freezes up and sometimes stares directly at the camera, and/or c. grabs their nearby family/friends and grins in that casual group “CHEESE!” pose. there are specific reactions to the camera itself, and their impressions about what the photographer is capturing, what they will do with those images, and what those images will ultimately mean for their social image, ESPECIALLY with the public conscience of Facebook. one groom was perfectly happy to read his bride’s heartfelt note to him on camera, but was adamant it not be included in any public viewing of the film.

By: Gynomite’s Reading Room! « Gynomite!

Gynomite’s Reading Room! « Gynomite! — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 17:51:05 +0000

[…] really interesting post from Sociological Images about how posing for pictures has changed over time. Like this:LikeBe the first to like this […]

By: finette

finette — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 15:28:00 +0000

This is just anecdotal evidence, but I find that vintage college photos are a good place to look for the transformation from stoic to goofy. My alma mater had its 150th anniversary last year and posted photos from its entire history on Facebook. In the very early photos, everyone is very stiffly posed with perfect hair and clothes, looking much older than they are. But by about the 1910s-'20s, they begin to be recognizable as college students. I know that type of clowning around was going on back in the 19th century, but I assume it was only captured on film once photography became cheaper and quicker, and cameras more portable.

By: zando

zando — Wed, 22 Feb 2012 12:47:00 +0000

This was my experience in Haiti about 10 years ago before a lot of phones had cameras. Perhaps because photography there was a serious thing for the rural poor – if people wanted photos they had to go to the local photographer and pose and it was taken very seriously since it cost quite a bit. This was 10-11 years ago. I’m not sure if mobile phones with cameras have exploded enough to make photo taking more of an everyday experience now.

By: Anastasia

Anastasia — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 04:39:00 +0000

Certainly what to do when faced with a camera today is learned, however early technology required poses to be held for awhile so for that time period, culture was not as much of a factor as being able to stay in position. Children are in fact happy with their toys, and today we can capture such candid shots quickly. Back then, every shot was a formal, posed shot, whereas now there is a wide variety of possible photos, from formal poses for weddings, family pictures, and school yearbooks, semi-posed where everyone is told to “smile for the camera!” while quickly forming culturally accepted positions, to totally candid shots with minimal regard to the subjects’ awareness of the camera.

Here in Japan, a fun point-and-shoot picture is not complete without a peace sign, however nearly 100% of formal pictures like wedding or faculty/yearbook photos are taken without smiles. In the US, your age, social status, gender, and level of formality determine how you act; peruse Facebook for awhile and you’ll easily understand the cultural tropes acting in photos today.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 23:41:00 +0000

That’s an example of a cultural difference, yes. But while I can’t explain that, it’s worth noting that these pictures were taken in cultures where the only thing constant since instant photography is a “say cheese” attitude. A better comparison to modern Bangladesh might me young men in other cultures. I notice that while children, older adults, and young women in the US almost universally tend to smile or make silly/cute faces, young men seem just as likely to make serious or threatening faces in casual photography. I’m more willing to believe that Bangladesh has a different culture in regards to expressing emotion than I am to believe that the American and European attitudes in expressing emotion suddenly changed once photography became easier.

By: Cielo

Cielo — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 10:09:00 +0000

Reminds me of an inside joke that my husband and I have. He’s from Mexico originally, where stoic portraits are still common. If one of us is taking a picture and wants the other to smile, instead of “cheese” we say “BIG AMERICAN SMILE!” Also, in Latin America you’ll also hear the word “WHISKEY!” where you might say “cheese” to induce a smile. That caught me by surprise the first time seeing/hearing an all-ages crowd say “WHISKEY!”

By: The Grand Narrative

The Grand Narrative — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 07:32:00 +0000

It is the same in Korea. In my own wedding photos, my (Korean) wife and her family almost look like they’re at a funeral, making my own family and I stand out in more ways than one. In hindsight, they’re really quite surreal.

In contrast, Koreans smile just as much as any Westerner in less formal photos, so the explanation is almost certainly cultural.

By: Emma

Emma — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 06:26:00 +0000

Ah but we can’t forget the series of photos also posted on Retronaut of smiling Victorians:

http://www.retronaut.co/2010/06/smiling-victorians/

By: Rsfpp9

Rsfpp9 — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 03:13:00 +0000

I am still amazed that people can argue that smiling in front of a camera is NOT cultural. If I point a square-shared device at you, your reaction is not to smile. You had to learn that it is a camera, what it does, what it *means* culturally, and how you should react to it. If the technological change is a sufficient cause of smiling then the shift to smiling would be as widespread as the digital camera. Yet it is not.
Perhaps the proponents of the “materialist” explanation should travel more? (Although it is beside my point, I think you are using materialism incorrectly.)

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 18 Feb 2012 00:39:00 +0000

I was recently in Cambodia, where my brother lives. He had attended a traditional wedding with some friends recently and showed me the pictures. There was him and his partner smiling and all the other guests around them had neutral or even morose looks on their faces. The wedding was a happy event, everyone was glad to be there, but my brother explained that locals very rarely smile in photos.
This makes me wonder if this phenomena of smiling in photos isn’t more of a cultural thing, than simply the photo took a long time.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 23:57:00 +0000

*LOVE* that photo-booth-style strip, so sweet.

By: Elena

Elena — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 23:31:00 +0000

...Sorry. Bad link for Mme. Monet in an unfortunately arranged kimono.

By: Elena

Elena — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 23:29:00 +0000

The thing is, painted portraits took forever to make, but a good painter could keep facial gestures and interesting poses in their head and sketchbook, and there is no shortage of smiling portraits and goofy poses in XIXth and early XXth century art. See for example Monet's wife (posing with their weeaboo collection) or this posh lady playing an odalisque by Sargent.

By: Elena

Elena — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 23:18:00 +0000

On that vein: the origins of the "peace" sign as a pose in Japan. Winston Churchill and hippies were relevant.