Double exposure cabinet card of boy in DRESS and Pants! | ||
| Cabinet Card Photographs147 of 429 |  |  |
whitman75 loves this.
ho2cultcha loves this.
walksoftly loves this.
filmnet loves this.
tom61375 loves this.
fortapache loves this.
inky loves this.
TheGateKeeper loves this.
AmberRose loves this.
racer4four loves this.
vetraio50 loves this.
Virginia.vintage loves this.Create a Show & TellReport as inappropriate
Posted 10 years ago
scottvez
(977 items)
I have several of these multiple exposure images-- but this one has a GREAT twist.
The boy is shown wearing BOTH a DRESS and pants and shirt!
I have never seen this before in one of these double exposure images.
Photograph dates from the 1890s and is by Paddack of Howell, Michigan.
Reproduction of these images in any form is prohibited.
scott
Create an account or login in order to post a comment.
White dresses were worn for centuries by children. It was considered to be gender neutral-- and just considered infant/ child wear. It was worn by children up to the age of about 5 or 6. The reason for the white dresses were ease of changing and cleaning (Bleach).
Also at about the same age children got their first haircut, so you will often see boys with long flowing locks that are considered somewhat feminine by today's standards.
scott
Thanks geo and vetraio!
scott
He's Mama's darling!
I wonder what they will say about Gymboree a 100years from now.
My statement was on the historical aspect of boys in dresses. I don't know the specifics of your grandfather.
This is from Jo B. Paoletti, a historian at the University of Maryland and author of Pink and Blue: Telling the Girls From the Boys in America:
"For centuries, she says, children wore dainty white dresses up to age 6. “What was once a matter of practicality—you dress your baby in white dresses and diapers; white cotton can be bleached..."
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/when-did-girls-start-wearing-pink-1370097/#cuYWVmDOCTvBirCO.99
scott
Thanks for looking gatekeeper and tom!
scott
Thanks for looking amber and racer.
scott
Another amazing photo, scottvez. Do you think, and this is simply a guess, that the two images represent that the male child celebrated his "breeching" during this time.
From what I've read, it was typical in the 19th century to photograph the child's father along with boy in his first pair of "trousers." An informative article from Wikipedia on "Breeching (boys):"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeching_%28boys%29
Thanks for the great article from the Smithsonian. The photo shown of Franklin Delano Roosevelt in a white dress is a stellar example. After carefully looking at it, down to the shoes and "chapeau," I would have never considered the child is male, no less FDR!
Another interesting article "Boys dress" from the Victoria and Albert Museum of Childhood discusses a practical reason why male children wore dresses: ease of changing nappies.
http://www.museumofchildhood.org.uk/collections/clothing/boys-dress/
The article says "Breeching happened from the age of about four to eight-years-old, and varied according to different eras and families." It further says "From the 1920s onward, it became more normal for young boys to wear trousers. The introduction of new fabrics and detergents meant that trousers were easier to wash and iron and could be laundered more effectively."
The photographer is Charles A. Paddack and at some point used "C. A. Paddack" for his imprint.
Thanks for looking solver-- this most likely does represents the boys change from dresses to pants.
scott
Thanks for looking filmnet.
scott
Thanks much for looking david.
scott
Thanks much whitman!
This is an example of a double exposure image to create "twins".
scott