Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Twitter
It deepens like a coastal shelf
About Me
- Steerforth
- Lewes, East Sussex, England
- This is supposed to be a blog about books, but something went wrong...
Links
- A Penguin a Week
- Bookseller Crow
- Branches and Rain
- Caustic Cover Critic
- Chris Neill's Dirty Kitchen
- Christopher Butler
- Cultural Snow
- Desperate Reader
- Economy Custard
- Gaskella
- Grey Area
- Hats-n-Rabbits
- James Russell
- John Self
- Mrs Trefusis
- Ms Baroque
- Oliver's Poetry
- Peter Sipe
- The Art of Words
- The Dabbler
- The Dusty Bookcase
- The Poet Laura-eate
- Thomas at My Porch/Hogglestock
- zmkc
3 comments:
The thing is, however often I tell myself that faces really don't change that much - that there aren't uniquely Victorian or Edwardian physical features - when I look at a photo like this, I simply can't take the faces, strip away the period hairstyles and clothes and then believe that they would "fit" in the 21st century. Why not? Is it something to do with the expressions?
I've often thought about this. There seem to have been a lot more ugly bugs in the old days, but that can't be true so it must be down to fashions.
But then there are some faces that are just so...un-now. I remember working with a girl who looked just look a 1930s film star, even though that was the last thing she was trying to do.
I suppose that certain physical types are preceived as attractive in different eras: 1950s women had to be curvy, 1960s women looked more adolescent, whilst Michael Caine's successful nerdy look in the 1960s would have got him nowhere ten years earlier.
But none of this alters the fact that like you, I can see faces in this photo that just I can't imagine existing today. It's very odd.
They are wonderful. I wish we could know what kind of entertainment they're watching.
Post a Comment