From Canvas to Camera: The Accessibility of Memorial Art

Before the advent of photography, the ability to preserve a loved one’s likeness either in life or in death was a privilege reserved for royalty and the wealthy, who could commission expensive oil paintings to immortalize their lives. When the daguerreotype was first introduced, it remained a significant investment. However, many families who could not otherwise afford a portrait made a rare financial exception upon the passing of a family member.

These memorial images were not always solitary portraits. It was common for the deceased to be included in a "final family reunion" within a garden, around a dining table, or in the family living room, documenting the complete family unit one last time.

The Museum of Mourning Photography & Memorial Practice archive is an investigation into human ritual.

The practice of gathering for a final family reunion became deeply significant, leading families to do so when facing a time of loss/ During the Victorian Era, this custom was culturally accepted and perhaps even expected by society.

As previously explained in other posts, ordinary families could not always afford to hire a photographer to document life, but death was a serious matter. This is why we usually see post-mosrtem photos of older individuals or youg children.

Just as you would if you were sitting for a painted portrait, decisions were made about how the deceased would pose. Looking at photographs from that era, we see some subjects placed inside a coffin surrounded by flowers, others resting on a bed surrounded by family members and some even posed in a lifelike manner. 

When I first heard about Mortuary photography , which was back in 2001 when I first saw the movie: The others ( I would recommend to see it) , I was absolutely fascinated. Throughout the years, I have looked at more and more of these photos, but just everything else in real life and online, there are fake photos out there. I previously shared some of these images because I am no expert and I used to trsut "the Almighty internet" thinking that if it was online, it had to be real. It turns out, that isn't always the case. Please forgive me if I still do so, although I will try to look harder for better examples. 

A memorial photograph is usually legitimate when:

• The mortal remains are inside a coffin.

• The deceased is surrounded by flowers and a cross (or other religious artifacts).

• The deceased is surrounded by people and has their eyes closed and mouth slightly open while laying back (which would look unnatural if they were standing or sitting in a chair like everyone else).

• The people surrounding the departed are dressed in black.

• The subject is in a cemetery or next to a grave, surrounded by a group just before burial.

• The subject has eyelids painted to look like open eyes, but you can easily tell they are not real.

Those are the usual telltale signs when determining if a death photograph is the real deal.Why people lie about which photos are Remembrance photography? Some people don't know, some people are just interested in the story and how interesting these images are and some are just interested in selling these photos as curiosities, even if they are photos of living people. 

Please leave a comment. I love to hear your thoughts. 

Some photography sources: 

https://clements.umich.edu/exhibit/death-in-early-america/post-mortem-overview/