I love the coin-dot saree on this petite woman from the early 20th century. Though the colouring added to the image is beautifully done, I think we’ve lost something in the translation. Was the saree really a solid grey with white circles? It looks heavier than I suspect it was, more flat or less delicate, if you see what I’m (not) seeing. The woven golden border does retain its sheen.
The model’s traditional velvet choli has ornaments of silk or metallic embroidery that follow the simple construction of the sleeve along the neck and down the body. And I like her stacked necklaces, a pearl choker above the piece at her throat. A feather fan, small earrings and minimal bracelets complete her look of restrained elegance.
Yes, the colorist’s rendering of the golden portions of the image are quite nice, but I have to agree, overall there’s a certain flatness to much of the rest of the picture, especially the subject’s face. It looks almost like an early 19th century American Folkart portrait. I’d like to check out the original black and white photo as a comparison.
This photograph makes me think of Rupert Sheldrake’s morphic fields and some other rather “out there” ideas. I find it fascinating that women’s appearances seem to morph with the times. The lady in the photo above was clearly photographed in the early part of the 20th century but after WWI.
Part of the changing appearance is, of course, due to make-up, “foundation garments” as they used to be called and the photographer’s selection of a model. However, these factors don’t seem to me to explain everything, particularly when one looks at photographs of street scenes, or photographs where the subjects haven’t prepared for the photograph.
Fascinating observation, though I know next to nothing of Sheldrake’s theories. But there is something that makes people from different times (even more than places), look different. I’m an American historian, primarily interested in culture, decorative arts, clothing, photography and the like. So many factors determine the “look” of a person or an era, and clearly not all of the factors can be controlled physically or even recognsed consciously at that time. Since the introduction of the daguerreotype, most models look proper for the time in which they lived. However, when a period photograph shows someone who looks “modern” instead of like his or her own era, the effect is startling!