Here’s another ceramic image that I photographed on a gravestone in Mt. Olivet Cemetery, Chicago last Saturday: Alfredo O. Bilotti, Born November 12, 1920, Died March 1, 1921. This one instantly struck me as a post-mortem image at the cemetery … although looking at it closer I now think I could be wrong. What do you think? (And why didn’t I remove the grass that caused the shadows over the image? I’m such a frickin’ “mustn’t alter the scene” photo purist sometimes!!)
Click on this close-up for a larger image:
Looking at the picture I think this child was alive. One hand seems to be reaching out, and the eyes seem to be focusing on the same person/object out to the same thing.
Also, the eyes aren’t sunken at all, which seems to happen very quickly with corpses. So either the baby was alive, or the eyes were painted. I’ve seen some amazing things done with eyes painted. They would even do it with old photographs of live people if the eyes didn’t turn out right.
I wonder how long the subject had to be still to get a photo taken at that time in the past? I know some older photos required the subject to not move for quite a long time, and if that is the case here, I vote for post-mortem. I’ve never seen one that small that could be still for long!
I have twins-at that age if I promised my son a cookie he would sit still forever. When my son was about 1 yr. to 18mths, I took him to get a haircut. His twin sister had a major diaper issue so I gave him two cookies and asked him to sit still until I was finished. He sat still, did not eat the cookies and the haircut was almost finished when I came back. It just depends on the child.(The twin I was changing would have screamed bloody murder if I had tried that with her….)
I agree with mary that the childs eyes look alive. Usually in the post photography the eyes are devoid.
A nice photo of the child though.
Morgana
I must get that book yu reviewed getting out of hell alive.
@Morgana Ooops I mean The Road out of hell.
Actually, I think this is a post-mortem. The eyes are open, but they have an up-turned, half-lidded quality that most children don’t exhibit at that age. Most infants, when awake, are wide-eyed enough that you can see all of the iris. This picture is different.
It looks post-mortem to me. The eyes look cloudy.
Maybe he’s alive but sleepy?
Having read your post from July 6th where it was mentioned that the photographers took care to make it look as if the subjects were alive, I vote post-mortem.
I’m voting for post-mortem. At that time, photographs were expensive. Also, there was the custom of taking post-mortem photos and painting over the eyes so that they looked open and alive, though the effect was difficult to achieve.
I have always been interested in death and I have seen a lot of post mortem photos. You would be surprised how alive people look after death when the eyes are open. Its unnerving. The reason why we glue eyes shut, glue lips shut. One of my favorite stories is that of Rasputin. During the Revolution and upheavel of the imperial family in 1917, many high level soviets thought that Raputin was a wretched con man, not at all holy, who managed to worm his way into the lives of the imperial family. Anyway, the soilders and a couple of commanders dug up his body. They tossed the body, onto an already healthy fire, face up. As the fire burned the tissue the muscles contracted and it appeared that he had “sat up” in the fire. It really scared many people who were on the fence, about him being a holy man, and those who thought digging up any body isnt good Karma. I bet those soilders nearly pissed themselves.I gotta say, I would have loved to have seen that whole thing go down.
Anyway…Im voting for Post Mortem!