Showcasing vintage male photography, mostly nude. You must be 18 years of age or older to visit this blog! If you hold a copyright on any material shown on this blog, notify me, and it will be removed immediately.
Followers
Friday, February 4, 2022
Early 20th Century, Part 1 - Photos
Our Friday double feature is based on early 20th Century works. This guy's hair style
fits the period, but the rest of the photo makes me wonder if it's not earlier.
This doesn’t look “academic.” It does look rough in its aesthetics (or lack of). The posture is also very unrefined. I wonder if it was made primarily as “porn.” And I often wonder about the intentional baring of his glans in the days of foreskin near-universality.
I wouldn't say it is unrefined. To me, it has the air of an either an experienced life model asked to hold an academic pose who has done it more, allowing for his own comfort, hence to as fully upright and animated as one would expect. Or, an "amateur" interested in tableaux style photography. That blanket does look quite 1880s in style. Do we think the film is fully panchromatic? Regarding his penis. That could be his natural look if he just had a short foreskin. If he was from England, and upper class, he may well have been circumcised.
US Navy Photographer here... The picture has many elements of Civil War/Restoration Era pics. 1. The "lighting" is usually from a skylight, or even out doors with dummy walls. 2. Wet plate photos look blurry. Not from lack of focus, but fidgeting subjects, during L O N G exposures. The eyes look ghostly because of multiple blinks, etc. 3 the box and blanket seem to be props on hand, as well as the Civil War cutlass. The exposed head could be retracted peel back, circ (if done, usually to early teens in this era, to cure masturbation,) Or even a Jew, but in the last case, it would have been more likely a Ram horn, than cutlass.
I like the pose. The male sure was smooth, though. What is it that makes you think it predates the 20th Century?
ReplyDeleteMostly because that little blanket he's sitting on is a type used in some 1880s photos I have.
DeleteThis doesn’t look “academic.” It does look rough in its aesthetics (or lack of). The posture is also very unrefined. I wonder if it was made primarily as “porn.” And I often wonder about the intentional baring of his glans in the days of foreskin near-universality.
ReplyDeleteThe posture is indeed odd.
DeleteI wouldn't say it is unrefined. To me, it has the air of an either an experienced life model asked to hold an academic pose who has done it more, allowing for his own comfort, hence to as fully upright and animated as one would expect. Or, an "amateur" interested in tableaux style photography. That blanket does look quite 1880s in style. Do we think the film is fully panchromatic? Regarding his penis. That could be his natural look if he just had a short foreskin. If he was from England, and upper class, he may well have been circumcised.
DeleteThanks for your thoughts, David. The film type is something I need to learn more about.
DeleteI might be wrong but, I think non-panchromatic stock can be identified by the "ghostly" eyes appearance in some photographs.
DeleteThank you. Yet another great series, Jerry.
ReplyDeleteUS Navy Photographer here...
ReplyDeleteThe picture has many elements of Civil War/Restoration Era pics.
1. The "lighting" is usually from a skylight, or even out doors with dummy walls.
2. Wet plate photos look blurry. Not from lack of focus, but fidgeting subjects, during L O N G exposures. The eyes look ghostly because of multiple blinks, etc.
3 the box and blanket seem to be props on hand, as well as the Civil War cutlass.
The exposed head could be retracted peel back, circ (if done, usually to early teens in this era, to cure masturbation,) Or even a Jew, but in the last case, it would have been more likely a Ram horn, than cutlass.
Thanks for the historical info!
Delete