The Look...

[dirtyshirt]

Just throwing this out there:
I got an amzing gift from my wife today for my birthday. Hard to describe, but it enclosed a picture of me in my confederate kit when I was about 17 years old. After being choked up and all, I noticed something. I was trying to get that "look" in the face and eyes of the worn veteran.
After the service and eveything else I've been through over my short years, I look in the mirror now and see that look I was trying to fake ten years ago.
So I am writing to ask you all if you have had similar feelings. Even after the wonderful work of our image takers today, why we can't seem to get it right. Is there that element of realism that will forever be lacking because as a whole we have never seen the things that give us "that look" in our eyes? I don't know if this is the right place for this post, but it didn't seem to fit in the sinks. Thanks for listening-

[yeoman]

Re: The Look...

Sir, IMHO, we all wear our experiences on our faces and even what we try to conceal or cover is what people see. If I may bring in a couple of quotes from "These Honored Dead" by Thomas A. Desjardin and "Embattled Courage" by Gerald Linderman. I use these quotes to throw light on conditions which shape our experience. "Men were stupefied by the experience of battle---the deafening noise, the whirlwind of pain and death, the numbness of shock and horror---and had no idea what had just happened. Even the more sober and clear-headed would only have seen and remembered what occured within a few feet of them, as that was as far as thier vision and consciousness allowed them to record". "Adrenaline, chaos, confusion, noise, anger, pain, blood---all capture the mind's focus when one,s life is on the line in combat". "This effect only worsened among veterans who survived several engagements over two or three years of combat. For former soldiers, thier perceptions of what they had done from one day of battle to the next shifted, over-lapped, and merged, leaving them with blurred memories and blunted emotions. . . many specific actions and particular battles became submerged in a generalized blur". Thanks for the occurrence in time to add my two cents.

[Dusty Merritt]

Re: The Look...

Something I've always found fascinating about "the look" in CW photographs is that some seem to have it even before they've "seen the elephant."



That thousand yard stare doesn't necessarily require combat experience. Life was often quite rough in those days. Even today, I know I've seen the stare from folks who've just simply been going through hard times.

From both the battle-hardened and the life-hardened, "the look" conveys so much simultaneously.



Guilt, fear, pity.



Anger.



Sheer exhaustion, a million indescribable emotions at once. Or is it a void?

And yet--




There is still that pride. And hope.

It's no wonder "the look" is one of the toughest things to recreate. You can't buy it from a sutler, that's for sure.

[Bruce Schultz]

Re: The Look...

I think part of it has to do with the fact that since most folks hadn't been photographed, they really didn't have a good idea of what they would look like in a picture.
I've recently read that to appear friendly to strangers in those days was not socially proper, hence the avoidance of anything but strict formality. After all, you didn't really know who would be viewing your picture.
Certainly, the notion of "smile for the camera" was decades away.

Bruce Schultz

[Hank Trent]

Re: The Look...

I've recently read that to appear friendly to strangers in those days was not socially proper, hence the avoidance of anything but strict formality.

Could you give more information on where you recently read that, and what it said?

Personally, it always seemed bizarre to me, to be expected to smile for no reason when my picture was taken, rather than have a natural expression. I've always felt the burden should be to show why people are pressured to smile today, rather than why they didn't used to be. To turn that logic around, is it now considered improper to appear anything less than friendly to strangers? Is it because we know what we look like and we hate ourselves unless we're smiling?

But more importantly, I love the photos at that link:

www.tintypesforever.com

The close-up portraits illustrate a fact that fine-art photographers have always known: a portrait has more power to capture the individuality of a person when the subject isn't forced to smile. Pride, suspicion, sorrow, determination, fear, all show dramatically in the different faces there.

It's a shame the "say cheese" attitude has taken that depth away from most casual modern photographs, but surely both photographers and their subjects recognized the power of a natural portrait in the 1860s.

Hank Trent
hanktrent@voyager.net

[Andrew Kasmar]

Re: The Look...

Hi,

Hank Trent

Personally, it always seemed bizarre to me, to be expected to smile for no reason when my picture was taken, rather than have a natural expression. I've always felt the burden should be to show why people are pressured to smile today, rather than why they didn't used to be. To turn that logic around, is it now considered improper to appear anything less than friendly to strangers? Is it because we know what we look like and we hate ourselves unless we're smiling?

You do make a excellent point. Why do we all have to smile for photos? In general I do smile for modern photos, but mainly from force of habit.

[Bruce Schultz]

Re: The Look...

Unfortunately, I can't remember exactly where I read that smiling for the camera was considered too forward back in the day. It was an essay that had to do with manners and the boundaries of being friendly, but not too friendly, especially for women.

[lrbrightwell]

Re: The Look...

I remember reading about the look. If you look at pictures from WWII and Vietnam and possibly of the two recent actions , Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom I am sure you will see that 1ooo yard stare. This is what you have. They have always been there and always be there to a combat vet past or future. It is the look of vigilance. As I have served 20 years in USAF in a support roll, clerk and Ops Center capacity I have seen it myself in others who have been there in the heat of battle. As I have not had a picture taken after battle in a reenactment I am sure that all have had the look you refer to. This is a good thing for all. We are there and in the moment. We need to maintain that look to remember what and who we are and who we are honoring as re-enactors.

Roger Brightwell
1st Nebraska Volunteer Infantry
Ret TSGT, USAF, 92 BMW(SAC)

[dirtyshirt]

Re: The Look...

Thank you for your input. You touched on a good point. We wear our experiences in our eyes, and in the creases of our faces. Even a photo taken in the moment of a truely happy man, will still show his anguish. We live in a kinder, more gentle time as our heroes before us and that is evident in their photos, even pre-war. This is just an interesting topic that dives into a realilty that many don't want to actually comprehend though they may think they do. That is the most "beautiful", if I may, thing about the photos of the men who fought this war, is the intrigue that we feel when we look at them, which I beleieve sits at the core of our interest in it all. Truely amazing

[fedcampaigner]

Re: The Look...

I think "the look" can be seen on any soldier wether CW or modern. Combat and months of campaign can definetly be read on a soldiers face. Even though its a modern picture I have always thought this soldier has "the look".

[claynpendleton]

Re: The Look...

Unfortunately, I can't remember exactly where I read that smiling for the camera was considered too forward back in the day. It was an essay that had to do with manners and the boundaries of being friendly, but not too friendly, especially for women.

If you look to 19th cent. etiquette books (or many times, "advice" collumns in popular magazines) you will see that modesty is encouraged and any outward appearance of foolishness is frowned upon. Take for example this passage from "Advice to a Young Gentleman on Entering Society"( Philadelphia, 1839):

"P.53 But if in any scene or among any persons, it should be deemed expedient to assume an apppearnace of modesty, it then becomes very important to distinguish beween that quality and timidness. The one is an affair of show, the other of feeling; that is to conciliate taste, this saps and ruins strength: the last is as noxious in effect, as the first is pleasing in form. He, therefore, who puts on an air of diffidence, must be very carful that this sentiment which he outwardly enacts, does not enter and affect his purposes and character. Modesty is an appearance assumed to gain an object; if it makes us really diffident, the weapon we have grasped, has cut our hand..."
(look at other examples at the source: http://www.assumption.edu/whw/advice.html)

When I worked at Mount Vernon and was in the first person program I used to practice similar "rules" from 18th cent. etiquette books on unsuspecting tourists...they probably thought I was crazy! Try brushing up on your etiquette and "practicing" on friends and family for a week before an event/photo session, I bet you'll be surprised at how it changes the way you carry yourself.

-Clay Pendleton