Ivy League Posture Photos
Yale started taking nude photos of incoming freshmen in 1919 as part of a program to detect and correct posture problems. The Yale photos have erroneously been associated with William Sheldon, a psychologist at Harvard and author of Nazi-like eugenic theories who used Harvard nude posture photos to illustrate his theory of somatypes. But, as far as I can tell, the Yale photos are not connected to Sheldon's work.
Here are five more posture photos taken at Yale that I had the opportunity to acquire. For privacy reasons, I redact the names of men who might still be alive. Two of these men have not passed away, so their names are redacted.
This is freshman Dean Allison Waters on Oct. 9, 1953.
An article in the Journal of the American Association for Health, Physical Education, and Recreation described how in spring, 1952, Yale installed an apparatus using mirrors to produce "PhotoMetric" posture photos like this showing front, rear, side and top views.
This is freshman S.W. on Oct. 9, 1953.
This is freshman J.W. on Oct. 16, 1953.
This is freshman Stanley Ebner on Oct 2, 1951. Before 1952, posture photos were taken from the side only.
Note the strange pins stuck to each student's back and chest. The pins were stuck on at specific points for later posture analysis. Supposedly, by examining the angles formed by connecting the points where the pins touched the body, certain posture problems could be detected.
This is freshman Henry David Marcus on March 20, 1951.
Were these photos an invasion of privacy for the students? By today's standards, yes. By the standards of the day, not so much. In that era, guys were routinely naked around each other in locker rooms and in swimming pools when women weren't present. Being asked to strip and even being photographed naked as part of a posture examination would not seem too outrageous, since the staff conducting this was all-male (and remember that Yale was an all-male school).
Some of my followers have questioned the propriety of publishing these photos, since the students did not give consent for their publication. My reply:
1. To protect the privacy of the students, I redact the names of students who may still be alive (despite the fact that their names have already been published on an online auction site). I only publish the names of students who have died. Legally, the right to privacy does not extend beyond death, i.e. it does not extend to spouses, children, grandchildren, etc. of the deceased person.
2. In my opinion, publishing these photos is similar to publishing nude photos of athletes and soldiers taken by LIFE magazine photographers. At the time, the understanding of the photo subjects was that photos with frontal nudity would never be published in the magazine (and they never were), but the LIFE photo archive containing those photos is now publicly available online, and nobody seems to be complaining about it.
3. I consider these photos to be a historical record of the time. Almost all of the Ivy League posture photos were burned when their existence became widely known. In my opinion, that was akin to book-burning of books that someone claimed were obscene. These photos are not obscene. They should be celebrated, not hidden away.
31 comments:
I enjoy seeing the natural bush on each student. The way things used to be.
The pins make me think of the many images of St. Sebastian
But the people you're celebrating? Their spouses and children and friends? I see your points, but I still think you're missing a vital piece of information in your argument or "case". And there's perhaps another essential question you haven't addressed: who owns the image? In the 18th century, William Hogarth fought hard on behalf of all artists to guarantee their right to own their images: in a nutshell, if he painted a picture then he owned the image; if someone wanted to make and circulate a print based on his painting, they had to deal with him (as in get his permission, and, if he chose, pay, to reproduce that image). I suggest that these men, photographed under circumstances which have nothing to do with their later use (for example, here), OWN their images, and that in any case, you don't. Just because an auction site violates what is arguably their (copy)right even more blatantly by giving their names, doesn't mean that you are right to exploit (or, as you prefer, "celebrate") their heritable ownership of their own images. But in the end, for me, it comes back to the question of empathy. Celebrate yourself.
Aren't the images in the public domain? It seems so.
Just because you can do something doesn't mean it's the right thing to do.
I'm sure those who don't like these pictures are free to enjoy other pictures on other sites.
I'd be interested to know how it is established that these subjects are living or not - apart from great old age.
The world class universities of Yale and Harvard are still going to have the vast majority of their graduates' identities to be completely unknown. The naked athletes who appear in the LIFE archive a still going to be more famous than these college men.
As time goes on, it will be more likely that these one time students would no longer be living, but at present many will still be alive. But, what's the point of naming them even if they are dead?
@Anon - I own the images. These are not copies of images from some other website. The photographs came up for auction and I purchased them. These are scanned images of the physical photographs that I own. By the way, under copyright law, the subject of a photograph does not “own” the image; he has rights to the image if it is used commercially, but no rights regarding non-commercial use of the image, such as my publishing these photos.
@Trevor - How do I research whether the subjects are still living? Yale has an alumni directory of all living alumni. In addition, some Yale classes, such as the class of 1957, maintain necrologies listing alumni who have died, and when. For students who have died, so I don’t have to protect their privacy, I name them because I am celebrating them. I do not consider these photos to be shameful.
Again, for me anyway, it isn't really about legal rights. It's about doing right. Even giving the subject (who most definitely does have some rights when it comes, for example, to the paparazzi and invasions of privacy; ask any number of tabloids who have been involved in lawsuits with famous people--and these men are not celebrities) the benefit of the doubt. That's why I think this is an interesting and worthwhile discussion. And by the way, you can't take a picture of your naked neighbor through a window, sell it, and thereby transfer the right to reproduce what was not a properly acquired image to begin with. Ownership of an image still depends to some extent on how the image was obtained, and not merely paid for...
Yale owned the pictures, and I'm sure one way or another (either implicitly as a fact of the time, or through consent form), the subjects gave the rights to Yale, and thence through the sale...
As for what's right, I see no harm coming from these pictures, which are historical record at this point.
"Either implicitly as a fact of time"... ? Show me the consent forms like you show me the images, and I'll shut up.
I appreciate those images. BUT...
they are not similar to being naked in locker room. In a locker room, outside of a period where the press is invited to take pictures of professional athletes after a game, there is the expectation that no pictures will be taken (let alone be published).
In this case, the organisation (Yale in this case) is explitely asking students to strip down for the purpose of taking pictures of the body for anatomical study. The students in those pictures have obviously complied.
So, if, on this blog, these pictures are publisehd solely to let us study their body's anatomy, then that would be well within the original intent of those pictures :-)
There is no ill intent behind publishing these pictures since they are not sexual in nature, do not aim to insult/degrade these persons and nothing akin to "revenge porn". They properly provide a good idea of body types for I would surmise 18-20 year old students in the case in early 1950s (so born early-mid 1930s).
Consider Rose Dawson in Cameron's Titanic: how did she, as very old lady, react when the whole ship found the drawing of her nude when she was young? She was proud or how good she looked back then. (even though that drawing was done during a highly intimate moment of her life). And I would think that someone in the 80s or 90s today, seeing their 18-20 version in the nude published wouldn't be ashamed or mad because it is in good taste and reflects a practice that was done back then.
Thanks for the clarification, though if a Yale graduate moves to another part of the world and subsequently dies (perhaps even changing their name beforehand), I don't see how Yale University are automatically going to get to know about it.
BTW, unlike the anonymous messager(s) to this little thread, I don't have a problem with the inclusion of the photos as as part of a historical commentary. The photos weren't treated in a flippant way, still less a sexual one.
@Trevor - You're right; it's possible that a Yale graduate might die and Yale is not aware of it. That's why I state that I redact the names of men who might still be alive. If I find the name in the alumni directory (list of living alumni) and I do not find the name in the necrology lists of dead alumni, he might be alive or he might have died but Yale doesn't know about it. I err on the side of caution and assume that he is alive, and I redact the name.
You err on the side that serves you. Or us. But it's uncomfortable and I think you know it.
Dear readers: this is my blog, and I do not intend to let it become a forum for people like the Anonymous commenter who can do nothing but criticize.
Example: after I carefully explain that a consent form from the photo subject is legally only required if the photo is used commercially (which I am not doing), Anonymous says “Show me the consent forms, and I’ll shut up.” Since the consent forms are irrelevant, apparently Anonymous will never shut up.
Example: after I carefully explain that in determining whether the photo subject is alive, I err on the side of caution, so in case of doubt I DO NOT publish the subject’s name, even though I would like to do so, Anonymous replies: “You err on the side that serves you.” No, Anonymous, I err on the side that does not serve me. I thought that was pretty clear. Are you stupid?
Anonymous, I’ve had enough of your hate. I will, reluctantly, do the only thing I can to shut you up. I will delete any further comments from you, so don’t bother replying. Since you hate my blog, go somewhere else.
I agree with you, Unashamed Male. I'm glad you're taking action on it.
On your last paragraph of whether those photos should be burned or not.
When I was young teenager, my mother bought some human health/anatomy books from France. This was in the 1970s. Books explained cells etc, and also had many pictures. One picture had a ground of men (and another women) of varying age from young boy all the way to 70 year old, naked, standing next to each other. (with text describing changes to body through life) Other sections of the books had pictures of variety of bodies. all naked.
Back then, I was brought up with the concept that a real man isn't affraid to undress in locker room. Sadly this went away because I think young men were affraid to look gay if they were willing to be naked in locker room.
So in those photos, I see 2 big values: points to a time where nudity was not a big thing. Same with the Life photos in locker rooms back then. A reminder to younger generations that there is nothing wrong with being naked in front of other men in a locker room and it doesn't make people gay to undress in a locker room and take shower naked.
Secondly, because younger generations no longer see normal people naked, these images provide something that is sorely missing today: images of normal people naked and totally flaccid. I have to wonder how young men feel when the only other penises they have seen are those "studs" on the Internet that are never fully flaccid and thus look much bigger than they would in a locker room.
As such, irrespective of the "rights" of the person pictured, the series of images (and being a series is inportant because the images are notfocusing on a single person) provide not only historical perspective on acceptability of nudity which suddently stopped, but also a means to compare against normal people, an ability that has also been lost in recent decades.
If societies had a healthier attitude towards nudity, then there would be no wanting to keep photos of nude people so 'hush-hush'.
Regarding the comment above about being afraid to seem homosexual if they shower, that's not my experience. I've been an athlete for more than 50 years, seeing (and being seen by) 1000's of naked guys all around the country. I think the thought of appearing homosexual in the gym locker room is the farthest thing from most minds. Rather, I see some guys hiding in the corner whilst they change or shower because they're afraid they might have a tiny one or they might get a boner.
I have very few photos of my father, University of Pennsylvania Class of 1943, and none of his father, University of Pennsylvania Class of 1899. I keep hoping to find photos of my ancestors, even if the only ones that appear are in this group.
Unashamed has already published moving photos of a grandfather of my 10th cousins, so we now know what he looked like when he was at University of Pennsylvania in 1885. Thank you.
I just want to say thank you for posting these pictures. You should ignore those who criticize you. They are all hypocrites. This is all about male body beauty and people should enjoy the pictures and stop whining.
Keep doing your good work!
I wish I could have been there as dozens and dozens of young male students were instructed to strip and be photographed. An orientation day activity as I always imagined it to be.
UtahJock mentioned there is no fear of being seen gay if you undress in locker room. At the local municipal pool in Québec Canada, they split the men's locker room in half with the larger half being "no nudity section". Every one 30 and below uses that section, leaving us older men to use the "normal" locker room.
I was brought up with the "a real man isn't affraid to be naked in a locker room" mentality and I cannot understand, other than the fear of being seen "gay" why younger generation decided it was not OK to undress in a locker room. Same with wearing sexy underwear.
This is why those images have value because they really bring to forefront a non-victorian era where nudity was not taboo and just normal.
Do you have any from the other Ivy League schools?
@Treeclimber - although several Ivy League schools took these posture photos, most of them were subsequently destroyed. Somehow a group of photos from Yale survived, and all the photos that I have seen are from Yale.
Shuta obrigado husto tambien
I love the size variety
I hope that you do find some photos from University of Pennsylvania, and that my father and grandfather, both named Thomas, are included.
@jimboylan2 - I don't know if any posture photos from Penn survived. All the ones in my collection are from Yale.
Post a Comment