[GODREKR]

The Hidden Mother in photographs (from daguerreotypes and tintypes to cartes de visite and cabinet cards), all examples of a now redundant practice: to cloak or hide a parent within the background of a child’s portrait, a common procedure from the advent of photography up until the 1920s, when exposure times were relative slow, and a hidden parent was required to hold the child still.

These hidden mothers can be discerned in the background of every one of these portraits – looming behind their children, swaddled in blankets, carpets and brocades as they support their progeny as the central subject. The iterations vary, and in some instances the hidden mother is revealed as a single hand, while in others the child is seated on a shrouded figure, or the parent is quite literally hiding – ensuring that the child’s identity is transposed over their own.

The images hold a certain degree of comedy – albeit unintentional – because the viewer is asked to suspend their disbelief, to ‘not see’ the hidden figure. Some contemporary onlookers would have simply not seen the portrait’s hidden mother, indicative of the cultural nature of the act of seeing. For other viewers, the hidden figure was an essential part of the picture: high infant mortality rates meant that posthumous portraits were the norm, and thus the hidden mother would signify to the viewer that this child was alive.

[blue.beard]

[Wiggly]

Originally Posted by blue.beard ↗

The mothers are holding the kids.

[jesse]

I think the is why. Very odd. Very creepy.

Great post!

[GODREKR]

Sorry, I thought it was self explanatory. I just added some info to explain the photos.

[jesse]

Originally Posted by GODREKR ↗

Sorry, I thought it was self explanatory. I just added some info to explain the photos.

No problem. Thank you!

[corpsehands]

That's pretty creepy

[vipersna]

Awsum find. Yes creepy.

[vagabond]

The second pic looks like Spock's baby picture!

[LadyCPlum]

Looks like the Taliban designed those.