3

Two miners on a 1871 photo: tourists, gay, women?

Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, the national-history museum of the Netherlands, is making an increasing number of its collection items available online. Online museum visits have a lot of benefits (next to some important downsides!). One of these is that one item can be shown in combination with many different items, and used in many different thematic exhibitions at the same time. The same photo of Amsterdam can, for instance, illustrate urban history and the history of photography.* Using this idea, one Rijksmuseum curator has assembled a ‘Queering the Rijksmuseum’ collection, in which works ranging from early printed books to modern jewellery are shown alongside each other.

One of the items is this picture from 1871:

Photo by Paul Ney, 21 July 1871. Rijksmuseum Amsterdam, no. RP-F-F23327. Public domain. Accessed via Rijksmuseum

It was taken on a summer morning near a Bavarian salt mine: ‘Glück auf’ is a German miners’ greeting. According to the Rijksmuseum description, it shows two men, and we can see them carry what is probably a miner’s lamp. Are they two German miners in romantic embrace?

There are three noteworthy things about this photograph.

In the first place, of course, we see two men sitting very close together and looking comfortable. The picture reminded me of many of the photos in the recently published book Loving: A Photographic History of Men in Love. And I agree with the Rijksmuseum curator that a case could certainly be made that the two people on the photo were intimately befriended. Check out the book if you want to compare notes: it is probably available in the Rijksmuseum library!

Second, that mine’s rocky facade looks suspiciously like papier-mâché. Also, the entrance is weirdly symmetric. And, most important of all, it would have been unusual for two miners in 1871, if they had the money to have a photo of themselves taken at all, to hire a photographer and pose with clean-scrubbed faces but still holding their miner’s lamp, in front of the entrance to their work. Much more likely, they would have arranged for a gentlemanly family portrait in their Sunday’s best, posing next to a Greek column or a vase. Or, if posing as miners, it would have been their employer who arranged for a photo to be taken of a group of workers, in order to promote their own enterprise.

You guessed it: the two figures are no miners at all, but tourists. According to the handwritten text on the photo they were ‘on the way to the Königssee’, a lake close to where the photo was taken. This text is in Dutch, so they had probably travelled from the Netherlands or Flanders, and were perhaps taking an Alpine trip of a few weeks.

What’s more, the photo itself was not taken in front of a mine, but in a photographer’s studio specialising in tourist snapshots. The studio was located close to an actual salt mine, but it was much more convenient to make these photographic souvenirs in front of a replica of the mine. We can only guess at whether the two tourists even saw the real mine in the first place. In many ways, tourism back then was already very much what it is like now.

Thirdly and finally, I wonder whether the mine is the only ‘fake’ on this photo. Here I enter the realm of speculation, I must add. But the picture does raise the question: were these tourists men at all? There is something in their oversized coats, the hat of the person on the right and the white pantaloons (with lobed edge) of the person on the right; something about their posture and the way they bear their head; the build of their shoulders, their face, and perhaps most of all the way their hair seems to be tied up – that suggests to me that they may have been female tourists masquerading as male miners.

There would not have been anything too remarkable in that: dressing up was a favourite middle-class pastime, and this occasionally included cross-gender-dressing. The moustache of the right-hand person, I must admit, would have been a bit more unusual to slap on. As I said, we are rummaging around here in the realm of the speculative. And of course there is a chance that instead, we see a feminine man or a masculine woman, with no sense of dressing up for the photo but a more enduring mixing of gender styles.

But the really remarkable thing, in case these really were two women, would be that they would be two women travelling together, possibly without men. Not unheard-of in the nineteenth century, but certainly less usual than all-male or mixed parties.** Which is of course what this couple could be as well: a ‘mixed party’.

Whichever way we bend it, all this confusion certainly makes this photo a valid example of a queer collection item in the Rijksmuseum.

Loving: A Photographic History of Men in Love, 1850s-1950s, edited by Hugh Nini and Neal Treadwell. 5 Continents Editions, 2020.

* A downside of this practice of siloing visitors according to their interests, is that people are challenged less to learn about new topics. The integration of important themes such as homophobia or slavery into permanent exhibitions that all visitors get to see, might work better here. Also see the reservations that have been expressed about the Rijksmuseum’s temporary exhibition on the history of Dutch slavery that is opening now. Fortunately, the Rijksmuseum has announced it is also incorporating information about slavery into their permanent display.

** See my forthcoming book on travel and space in the nineteenth century.

0

More shared loos: from binary to queer

One more brief post on unisex toilet facilities, before we move on to other things! (Unless this new city which I moved to, keeps surprising me.)

My new office building has many floors. On one floor:

One cubicle for two genders.

On the next floor:

One cubicle for all genders.

(Including, apparently, the ‘wheelchair gender’. Odd how wheelchairs keep being presented as some kind of stick-on gender feature. Or genderlessness feature: most wheelchair-accessible loos are shared among all genders. But that’s a slightly different topic.)

And then there was this one:

Ain’t they a beauty?If anyone knows who designed this merhuman, I wouldn’t mind being told!

0

Military gender-bending in 1848

This is a self-portrait by Adolf Dauthage.

Photo of lithograph (1848) posted on Wikimedia Commons by collector Peter Geymayer

Dauthage was a nineteenth-century Austrian lithographer. Working for the most part before photography became available, this means it was his job to draw portraits of high society, which could then be multiplied without limit using the new technology of lithographic printing, and serve as publicity material.

At the very start of his career as a portraitist, however, he drew himself (pictured here), as a soldier. And not just any soldier: this is the uniform of the Viennese Academic Legion, one of the many militia that were formed by students across Europe during the 1848 revolutions.

A contemporary from Germany described the Viennese students in his memoir:

They looked like a troop of knights of old.

Indeed the uniform can be said to express a very romantic masculinity.

Yet Dauthage’s posture subverts this masculinity. From under his feathered hat, he looks coyly out at the spectator. Add to this his tight waist, skirted coat, slightly stuck-out bottom, handkerchief (or single glove) in hand, the fact that he has kept his hat on (whereas men would always take theirs off indoors), and perhaps also his somewhat strangely positioned sabre, and his portrait reminds us more of the aristocratic and theatrical ladies he drew than of the statesmen and male artists:

Actress Friederike Gossmann, by Dauthage (1857). Wikimedia Commons.

General Ferdinand von Bauer, by Dauthage (1882). Wikimedia Commons.

Or, the ones drawn by his colleagues:

Lady Selina Meade Countess Clam-Martinics, by Thomas Lawrence (1835), photo © Victoria and Albert Museum, London.

 

 

It is rare to see a man portrayed with his head bent down, looking up at the spectator. Especially a military man.

Perhaps this is all a figment of the imagination and we should look for the reason behind Dauthage’s posture in the history of self-portraiture: perhaps the coy look I saw is in fact the penetrating look of an artist looking at their own face in the mirror (think Rubens, Van Dyck… Gluck…).

Yet looking at the portrait naively, I felt Dauthage might be having a private cross-dressing party in his studio.

 

Quoted are The reminiscences of Carl Schurz (New York: McClure, 1907-1908.), p. 145.