7/12/16

The Tiny EXPRESSION OF LOVE


There is no information as to when this photo was taken, where it was taken, or who these gentlemen were. We can surmise that this photo was proof of a love that in most of the circles of their society had to be kept quiet.

This is a tiny photo measuring 1" x 1.5". A small photo that could be easily hidden in a wallet when it was impossible to display a larger one in a frame in the home.

It's hard to imagine a life where joy and love must be hidden, but if each of us think about it I imagine we can find a time in our life where even in the smallest moment we were outsiders afraid to tell our truth. A life built on lies is wrong both for ourselves and others. We must be kinder to each other.


_____

8 comments:

  1. Another example of how your prose makes a good photo better. There is obvious affection between the two men and you make a valid interpretation. However I'm not so sure that relationships/friendships in the olden days were measured with the same yardstick when it came to personal space and physical contact. Men and women are rarely touching in old photos except in an approved manner for husband/wife, brother/sister, son/mother. Those no touching rules didn't apply to members of the same gender, and I think the closeness of single sex groups of men or women in early photos can seem more sexual in nature to our 21st century eyes than they really were. This isn't to say you aren't right, the days of Oscar Wilde's "love that dare not speak its name" were indeed a terrible time for anyone to endure hateful prejudice, and the secret wallet photo makes a good story. I have a few collegiate group photos that show a similar close comradery. Could this pair have been cut out of a larger photo? The color and suit style looks 1910 to 1925.

    but I've a few early collegiate student photos that have men sprawling over each other in a comradery that we wouldn't see in a modern photo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're absolutely right. Physical nonsexual contact was more open in earlier photos. And I'll admit I hate when I see "gay" attached to photos on ebay simply because it's two guys. These guys could have been college chums who just had their photo taken. They'll remain a mystery. But there is an interesting book called "Picturing Men: A Century of Male Relationships in Everyday American Photography" which I'll eventually get enough money to buy that deals exactly with this. It's available at Amazon.

      Delete
    2. It looks like an interesting scholarly study of vernacular photos. {Footnotes!} I just read the forward and the author seems to agree that modern eyes may misunderstand the nature of relationships in vintage photos.

      Delete
    3. Yup, it follows along with what you were saying. And you like footnotes too? I like them until I have to typeset them.

      Delete
  2. I was thinking father and son actually.

    ReplyDelete
  3. As much as I like to read gaiety into old photos, I'd have to conclude this is father and son, too. Their ears are almost identical and other features similar enough. If the head angles were more alike, I think a likeness would be more apparent. As for latter-day labeling, our motive is usually wishful thinking over relationships that went largely unrecorded or evidence thereof suppressed or destroyed, the assumption that relationships, sensuality and even sexuality were even remotely consistent with our present social standards, or---as in sales---greed. Gay gets attention. As does any love story. Here I get the sense of a young man loosing his father during the 1918 flu epidemic and keeping this semi-casual pose of intense mutual admiration tucked away ever after. Anyway, it is no less an affecting story of love and loss---a societal loss of intimacy, if not a personal one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not seeing the father and son relationship because they look to be very close in age. But I do like the story you've spun of it being a remembrance of a lost father.

      Delete