When did it first become "acceptable" or even fashionable - if a shade risqué - for respectable young (upper) middle-class women to have studio photograph portraits taken of themselves with bare shoulders?

lanfranco

This seems to be is a situation in which photography followed fashion in the post-Victorian era. Women were having themselves painted in bare-shouldered dresses in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, but photography obviously didn't exist then. Once formal portrait photography became fashionable, one was generally photographed in day dress, though a painted portrait might still reveal a very substantial amount of skin. (I have seen one or two photographs of the Empress Eugenie in low-cut gowns.) However, as clothing (and underclothing) became skimpier and easier to wear in the Edwardian and then the post World War I eras, views of correct dress for a photograph seem to have changed accordingly. I recall running across a wartime exchange between the brother of Tsar Nicholas II and his wife regarding his desire that she be photographed in a bare-shouldered gown, and the subsequent picture was actually displayed in the photographer's window. A web search wasn't terribly useful. However, while the photograph in the first site given below is a fairly private image of about 1920, in terms of composition, it looks quite a lot like a famous painted portrait of the late Queen Mother done by Philip de Laszlo in 1925: http://www.vintageworks.net/search/detail.php/256/Hanson,+Raymond/0/2999/1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Bowes-Lyon">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Bowes-Lyon P.S. For the first site, hit "return to image list." Aug 07 05, 12:40 PM

bloomsby

Many thanks, Lanfranco. Yes, some portraits of women painted in the late 18th and early 19th centuries "reveal" quite a lot. In the case of developments during and after WWI, I suppose high (or relatively high) social status in some sense helped to protect reputation - or is this notion fanciful? Aug 07 05, 1:54 PM

lanfranco

It's possible, though a "glamour shot" wouldn't have been something that a great many people could have afforded anyway. Less affluent individuals would have been having more practical and "efficient" pictures -- such as family portraits -- taken. Another post-WWI influence that occurs to me is portrait photographs of film actresses, which in the late teens and 20's started to become rather provocative. I've seen some pretty yummy pictures of Lillian Gish, for example. Aug 07 05, 2:30 PM

bloomsby

There are some deliciously provocative shots of Clara Bow. ;) http://www.clarabow.net/picturepage/gallery/25/16.JPG (This one is presumably from a film) Aug 07 05, 3:32 PM

bloomsby

A little postscript. One day, when I have the time, I'll have another look at my collection of photos of my family, and look out specifically for the link between the fashions of the time and what they wore for formal photographic sessions. Interestingly enough, most of the photos that I have are "inefficient" in the sense you describe. There are quite a number of snapshots of groups but nearly all the studio photographs are individual. The collection starts c. 1870. The only glamour shots are two of my late mother, taken in 1931, when she was 21. She told me she felt daring when she had those portrait photos taken, and was very keen that her parents shouldn't find out! Once I summoned up the courage to ask her what she'd actually worn at the time and was thunderstruck when she replied, "Nothing, but I was wrapped an enormous beach towel". (!) (She added that the studio had a changing room). Aug 07 05, 3:48 PM

bloomsby

Here's another shot of Clara Bow that surely merits a "wow" plus! http://silentladies.com/Bow/Bow270.jpg Aug 07 05, 4:06 PM