Retronaut recently posted a fun collection of vintage photographs of children posing with toys. What makes them interesting is how unhappy they look from a contemporary point of view: confused, bored, even morose. Thinking through the vintage photographs you have in your mind’s eye, though, you’ll recall that almost all vintage photographs include blank faces. No smiling, no bunny ears… just people.
The contrast between then and now reveals that how-to-act-when-someone’s-taking-your-picture is a social construction. Smiling didn’t come naturally, it had to evolve socially. Today parents teach their children how to smile for photographs and, perhaps, even to act gleeful with toys.
More at Retronaut.
UPDATE: There’s a great conversation going on in the comments. Some have pointed out that early photograph technology required a long exposure time, making smiling impractical. Others are sharing their experiences in other countries, where it is still the norm to stop smiling when the camera comes out, even if everyone is having a jolly time. Lots of stuff to think about…
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 30
Katymacg — February 17, 2012
Perhaps the reason they look bored/annoyed is that they're waiting several minutes for the picture to take.
Bjmassie — February 17, 2012
Yes, primitive photography did take a number of minutes for the photo to take and required the photo subject to be relatively still the whole time.
Anonymous — February 17, 2012
This isn't really societal difference; prior to a certain point, pictures took several seconds to a few minutes to capture the image. I'm sure you've had your picture taken with a digital camera wielded by someone who didn't understand how to use the technology. It's hard to hold a fabricated smile during the ten seconds it takes to go "ok smile....wait, why didn't it take? Let me try again....OH, it's on video, sorry, let's try one more time..." Once cameras in general started taking a few seconds or less to capture, people started making more dynamic poses or faces in photographs.
I think a better examination of the shifting history of poses in photos might be made after more instant photography became commonplace. For example, the "bunny ears" pose is something that was ridiculously popular when I was a kid, yet seems to have all but completely disappeared; I don't think I've seen a bunny-ears photo taken within the last decade. Or, the different ways groups of women are often posed in photos. It seems like every "beach" photo I've seen from the first half of the 20th century that includes more than 2 women has the same pose: straddle a bench, arms on the shoulders or around the waist of the girl in front of you, turn your head to the camera and smile. To compare that to the modern day "sorority girl" pose (chest out, tummy in, hands on hips, turn slightly, one knee bent) seems like a more relevant comparison of shifting values in photos, than one born out of necessity.
Anonymous — February 17, 2012
A smile held for five minutes looks like a rictus. A calm/bored face held for five minutes just looks like a calm/bored face. BTW, the first and third children are posed with props they can lean on, so they wouldn't wobble and blur during the extended time it took to take a photo. In some old photos you can see wire armatures similar to ones used to display dolls behind people, holding them up.
jon — February 17, 2012
“The contrast between then and now reveals that
how-to-act-when-someone’s-taking-your-picture is a social construction. Smiling
didn’t come naturally, it had to evolve socially.”
I agree with this to some extent, although I would make two
additional points:
1.
As others
have already pointed out, the technology in early photography was different enough
such that rigid and unfamiliar poses and facial expressions might simply also
reflect the time required to take a photograph.
2.
There is a also a substantial difference between
studio portrait photography in the late nineteenth century and the candid,
informal and widespread photography to which we’re accustomed today. The examples included in this post are all
portraits taken in a studio, and that’s worth noting for two reasons. First, early portrait photographs, much like the
stolid painted family portraits that came before them, typically invoked a serious
tone. Even today portrait photographs, while
they may include people smiling, tend to be a bit more serious than the
photographs parents take of their children on their iPhones. Second, photography in the late nineteenth
century was not cheap and cameras were not widely available. Portrait sessions were therefore not
something to be taken lightly.
I agree that smiling in photographs has evolved over time and
might be partly socially constructed (although to suggest that “smiling didn’t
come naturally” seems unnecessarily authoritative).
However, I would also acknowledge that there are very concrete economic
and technological reasons that can also partly explain the differences in
photographs over time.
On a side note, I think this post also demonstrates some of
the frustrations I have with this site.
Though I love the subject matter and thought-provoking content, I feel
that the conclusions are sometimes simply too definitive and don’t delve deep
enough to include alternative explanations.
Nicole DiMella — February 17, 2012
Don't forget the intent of the photographer today. Yes children may learn to smile for photos, but photographers (aka parents) take the photo when our kid is smiling, or choose the photos of smiling kids to share. (Such as my happy, smiling baby in my profile pic.)
Uly — February 17, 2012
I, too, think lack of smiling is more because taking photos back then took FOREVER than anything else. (That's also why photos of dead people, especially dead babies were so popular then. For many people it was their only chance to get a picture of their loved one, and said loved one wouldn't move suddenly either.)
I did once see a poorly-thought-out blog post that suggested that the lack of smiling in photos and paintings back then indicated that people today are too frivolous, but honestly, paintings are even worse than photos with the time they take.
Much more interesting than the facial expressions is the clothes they're wearing. Even if these are their best clothes, they strike me as incredibly too grown-up for the kids wearing them. And we say that children TODAY dress too much like adults! But that's just our own modern fashion sense speaking.
michelle judkins — February 17, 2012
if you notice..you can see behind the little ones, the base of a stand that had a clamp that went around their necks from behind. This was used to help keep them still for the long exposures. Often times, you can see the clamps peeking out of collars. The bland expressions are worn for the same reason. it was next to impossible to hold a smile in perfect place for minutes, sometimes. The affect, or lack of it projected in vintage photographs most likely are no reflection of emotion.
April — February 17, 2012
For contrast, Retronaut also has photos of Victorian folks smiling: http://www.retronaut.co/2010/06/smiling-victorians/
Gilbert Pinfold — February 17, 2012
Hah. Materialist explanation wins over cultural explanation. It turns out that photo behavior is not so much culturally constructed as technologically determined.
else — February 17, 2012
At least one of those is well known as an example of MORTUARY photography, just as an fyi.
Rsfpp9 — February 17, 2012
Everyone arguing that it is the technology (taking 5 minutes to take the photo): Please explain to me why all of the adults and children I photograph in Bangladesh (in 2012 with a digital camera) go immediately from candid smiles to serious/calm faces the minute the camera is ready, then back to smiling and laughing while we look at the picture, and then back to serious and stoic for the second photo?
Sometimes I ask the kids to smile, and 2 or 3 of them will.
Anonymous — February 17, 2012
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.
Emma — February 18, 2012
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/
Cielo — February 18, 2012
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!"
Anastasia — February 19, 2012
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.
finette — February 22, 2012
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.
Gynomite’s Reading Room! « Gynomite! — February 22, 2012
[...] really interesting post from Sociological Images about how posing for pictures has changed over time. Like this:LikeBe the first to like this [...]
Leasimne — March 5, 2012
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.