I messaged the person who first posted the image, asking where it came from, but have not heard back. Context can often provide a clue. To me, the image looks like the sort one would see in the "girlie" magazines of the 1920s, like Artists and Models. I am guessing that this image was taken in 1924 or 1925.
THE ARGUMENT AGAINST: The model is not identified. Most models were back then, even something vague like "the newest star of the Follies." However, the identity of this model could have been lost when a caption was trimmed from the image. Hence, my request for the picture's source. Secondly, I don't recall seeing this bit of clothing on Brooks before. When originally posted, some thought the image depicted Colleen Moore. It does not.
THE ARGUMENT FOR: The model does bear a striking resemblance to Louise Brooks, especially in her face. The hair is also right. And so is the body type. Some of the fake nudes floating around get that last point wrong. Also spot on, and this could be coincidence, is the way the model in this photograph holds herself. At some point early on, Louise Brooks was taught to pose. This model knows how to do so. She is also holding her hands -- fingers spread -- in ways Brooks did in some of her early images. As well, there is also the use of a curtain in the background. This is something other photographer's of the time, such as John De Mirjian of the "draped nudes" scandal, would sometimes employ.
CLOSING ARGUMENT: I don't know.
If anyone know who this model is, or knows more about the origins of this picture and where it might have been printed, I would certainly appreciate hearing from you.
Admittedly, I have been fooled before. I once came across a 1920s photo of a pretty model, the so-called "sepia-toned nude," and believed it to be Louise Brooks, even though the model was identified as being of someone else. But still, the resemblance was so great I talked myself into believing it was Brooks to the point of creating a little narrative in my mind as to why the image was deliberately misidentified. Wishful thinking. . . . until other images of this similar looking model-showgirl were pointed out.
6 comments:
On balance, I think it is Louise; it's just that the pose and lighting give the face a modeling we're not used to seeing. Hollywood portraiture is all about changing the face via tiny adjustments of light and shadow. What makes me feel most strongly that it's Louise are the elongated eyes and the sardonic twist of the mouth. The twist was one of Louise's biggest "trademarks"; it gave her a sexual knowingness that few stars of her generation dared suggest. My vote is that this is Louise Brooks.
Good observations.
That's her gaze, her mouth, her hands. That has to be her.
Hello, this is from the Ader auction house, Paris, lot 113 on sale on 13/11/2021: https://www.interencheres.com/meubles-objets-art/photographies-298957/lot-29521298.html, starting bid €500
or this link when past auction : https://www.ader-paris.fr/catalogue/116968?sort=num&num=113&id=&p=1#lot113
I found this photo shot on an "X" page called "Museum of Curiosities", and it's identified as "Colleen Moore, 1920s", but I noted that it couldn't be her, since her nose was rather large and the woman's nose in this photo is rather diminutive. I added that I wasn't sure, but the picture looked a lot more like Louise Brooks.
The only thing that makes me unsure is that this woman's legs seem to be shorter than Ms. Brooks's. One thing that catches my eye when I see a full-body photo of Louise Brooks is her long legs, and this depiction doesn't capture the image I normally see of her. The muscle tone is there, but the length isn't.
Post a Comment