So let us assume that at least some of these women (and we can surmise from their skirts that they are predominantly women) were the mothers of the children they held. What is perhaps strangest to me is the number of women who are not wearing a black covering–something that would blend into the background, especially once the images were cropped or matted, as several have commented they would be. Instead, however, several women are draped in pattered throws…These mothers are not merely effaced–they are shown to be effaced. Their absence becomes a presence in these images; indeed, it becomes the focal point of the images. These images, consciously or unconsciously, mark the mother–or the mother-proxy–as the subject of effacement.
A lamp, a chaise, a rug, a mother. Domestic objects all.
“Where’s Ma? Oh, she’s the one ensconced in the rug.” (Part I) « Susan E. Cook, Ph.D.
She also made a response that talked about the possibility that the children in these portraits were dead. It’s absolutely worth reading/looking at.
(via fuckyeahvictorians)
Victorian tear catchers, usually used by a widowed bride. Upon the day of the funeral, the widow would collect her tears into this small vile, and all the tears she cried in the first year over the loss of her husband, she would capture in this vile she would wear upon her neck. And on the anniversary of his death, she pours the preserved tears atop his gravesite.
(via extranuance)
