Pickup Artistry, Victorian Style
(Click on image for a larger version.)
I ran across this remarkable painting, titled “The Irritating Gentleman,” on Sheltered and Safe From Sorrow, a blog devoted to Victorian mourning rituals and other creepiness from that period. The gentleman in question seems to be a Victorian era Pickup Artist in action. He’s even peacocking, Mystery style, with that bow tie and stupid hat and even a non-ironic handlebar moustache. Probably the only thing keeping him from wearing aviator goggles is the fact that airplanes haven’t yet been invented.
What makes it all the worse is that the PUA’s target is clearly in mourning. As the blogger behind rawr I’m a tumblr notes:
She’s wearing all black in 1874. Black gloves, hat, cloak, and dress. In public. The whole nine yards. That’s not a fashion choice or a gothic thing. Back then when people wore all black like that, they were in mourning for someone who died. No one did mourning like the Victorians, that shit was an art form to them.
Someone in her family has died—she could even be a young widow. No one’s accompanying her either. With the carpet bag? She’s traveling alone while still in deep mourning. Look at the closeup. She’s got tears in her eyes. She is upset, devastated in a way that one is only when someone has died. And the guy’s still bothering her, like her problems are flippant bullshit and she needs to just smile or pay attention to him because ladies are supposed to be pleasing for men no matter what shit they’re going through. That’s not a look of “what an ass.” That’s a look of devastation that even in her pain, she’s expected to give people like him focus. She’s not mad. She’s hurt. And to add insult to injury? Everyone would be able to tell. It was a clear sign and still is in ways that someone is mourning, to dress in black crepe like that. He would know why she’s wearing all black, and he’s still demanding her attention.
What an insufferable dick.
Yep.
Posted on January 12, 2013, in creepy, douchebaggery, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, MRA, PUA, sexual harassment and tagged art, misogyny, pickup artists, PUA, victorian era. Bookmark the permalink. 493 Comments.
Not to mention that she looks a good decade younger than the f..ktard!
Victorian history? :)
She’s got to be at least 17, black crepe mourning wasn’t a thing for minors. And that looks like full mourning without the veil (though I guess that’d be attached to the hat)
Assuming that’s crepe, and there’s a veil in that hat, she’s either been widowed in the last year, or lost a parent (or child) in the last 6 months.
Because yes, that shit was an art form…an expensive art form, she’s a middle to upper class woman travelling alone.
That skeeve’s probably at least twenty years older than her – click on the larger version of the pic and you can see really clearly how young she is (teens, I would say) and the wrinkles on his face. (You could say in this case he’s the “mutton dressed as lamb” with his fashionable gear.)
Must look up who the artist is, I’d like to know what particular message they might have been sending with this one. I don’t want to read it through my attitude to these things, that’s irrelevant.
I’m guessin 18~20, because that’s a level of mourning that girls under 17 just didn’t do (though I’m not sure if that’d change if she was widowed at that age)
Definitely still a creep though.
Well, going by the signature on the crate, the artist is Berthold Woltze, but there doesn’t seem to be much info on him in English, at least that comes up in a quick Google search.
Argenti, yes, that’s adult mourning, all right. I don’t see a veil on the hat, at least not that shows obviously where it’s on her knee.
The train setting is interesting. I don’t know how it was done in Germany, but that would be a second-class carriage in England, or possibly third class (I don’t know whether third class was enclosed by the 1870s). It certainly wouldn’t be first class there. I’d guess she’s middle class. If she’s upper class and travelling alone and in a second-class carriage, there’s money trouble somewhere.
This painting should be called “Dudely Entitlement, 1874.”
I’m thinking either that’s the level of mourning she could afford, ergo no veil, or the money trouble is related to being a widow — whether she could inherent anything would be an interesting question of when exactly it is, the circumstances, etc.
If I really had to guess, and maybe it’s moot for a painting, but widowed and returning to her parents’ house.
“Roissy’s Great Grandfather”.
I’m also questioning if standard Victorian mourning wear is truly applicable, that tartan blanket may make this set in Scotland, and idk how strictly they followed Victorian mourning, maybe the veil just wasn’t a thing where she is.
Bwahahhahahahaaa! RAGE! Rage against (very beautifully painted) fictional scene set nearly 150 years ago!! Dissect it for meaning as tho’ it was a photograph taken yesterday!
First RAGE Against The Hobbit and now this! :D
This whole site and it’s commenters are now a perfect example of Poe’s law.
Argenti, yes, that makes sense. I’d been thinking maybe she’d been working as a governess and was returning home after a parent’s death, but the working bit would mean there was already money trouble. Not that families didn’t practically bankrupt themselves to keep up the proper appearance, at least in England. I really don’t know anything about practices in the German states. I only know how different a society Prussia was from England, for example, because of reading a bit about Princess Victoria’s marriage. I read heaps of stuff about Victorian England years back (big fan of Prince Albert) but that’s just it, England =/= Weimar.
The woman’s hair is mostly down and she wears a hairband, so she possibly is not married. Children did go into full mourning (and half-mourning) for their parents and siblings (if they could afford to), but not as long as widows were expected to. Fiancees also went into mourning for their deceased betrothed.
If this woman were a wealthy widow, she would probably not be in that particular car. I personally suspect a daughter or fiancee who put more money into her weeds than her passage home.
Regardless, an unknown man jocularly approaching a woman in deep mourning is committing one of the severest breaches of etiquette known at the time.
Joe the Moron, doens’t it occur to you that the PAINTER of this beautifully done piece was making a social criticism in his own context? Gods you’re stupid. You’re also completely incapable of looking at anything with empathy.
Whether its ten or twenty years she’s seriously younger and portrayed as particularly vulnerable. He also looks pissed and dissolute, however it reminds me of much of the Victorian oeuvre which was warning pictures, eg don’t go off the straight and narrow, pray a lot etc. whereas Hogarth etc were more descriptive, the poor getting f..kd over, dangers of cheap gin etc.
I wonder where she is traveling to and why….
Joe don’t you even get some of the point, as long as women were able to travel independently we have been warned against the dangers of doing so.
Argenti – I’m pretty sure plaid was popular all over the place. A plaid rug wouldn’t be an identifier for a Scottish setting.
The Franco-Prussian War was fought three years before this painting, btw. It created a lot of widows, bereft fiancees, and orphans.
Sorry to make it double plus clear, this picture is about loosing the protector, husband brother or mother and therefore being exposed to the dangers this involves. Get it now?
Hey Joe? Go do some research on how art history works.
Kitteh — could be a governess if the mourning dress is something hand-made by her, but idk if that’d really make sense for a painting. I’m thinking the higher social status outfit in the not first class car isn’t meant to imply that she’s hired help, but that the loss of whomever she’s mourning has changed her social status (and now she has to put up with asshole’s like Roissy’s great grandfather)
…though I guess she could be travelling solo because now she has to be hired help. Idk though, her age, those looks? Probably just marry again if she was widowed (in some sense Victorian England was progressive — since women couldn’t really own much, or make much money, remarrying was pretty much expected except for older widows)
Stuffed Fantod – good point about her hair being down.
Many women removed the fancy trim from their clothing and dyed their entire wardrobe black when they went into mourning. That way they did not have to purchase new cloth.They embellished with jet beads and black garniture if they could afford them,
“Sorry to make it double plus clear, this picture is about loosing the protector, husband brother or mother and therefore being exposed to the dangers this involves. Get it now?”
I’m thinking husband, but yes, losing her “protector” would explain the point of the thing.
Kitteh — yeah I know, just musing if being outside the London region might change customs enough that the veil is a moot question.
“If this woman were a wealthy widow, she would probably not be in that particular car. I personally suspect a daughter or fiancee who put more money into her weeds than her passage home.
Regardless, an unknown man jocularly approaching a woman in deep mourning is committing one of the severest breaches of etiquette known at the time.”
Definitely put more money into her mourning wear than train fare (I just can’t call it weeds with a straight face). And absolutely on his breach of etiquette, approaching a complete stranger is bad enough, but a woman in mourning travelling alone? You Do Not Do That.
Could be she lost a parent, but I can’t really work out why she’d be travelling then. On the other hand, you’re right that a married woman would very probably have her hair up.
Governesses were in limbo. They usually were middle class and only doing it because of necessity; it did involve a loss of status. They were neither fish nor fowl, not accepted by the servants and not allowed to mingle with the family. It was often a seriously shit job and the pay was lousy, but it doesn’t fit in the bracket of hired help in the sense of a maid.
Whatever the specifics, I’m definitely reading money and probably status loss in this (oossibly for her whole family if her father’s died), with the contrast between her dress and her refined/pretty/very youthful looks and the carriage.
Joe: that’s ok, you’re the perfect example of a dude who knows nothing but doesn’t let that slow him down a bit. Fuck off.
*possibly
though oossibly looks an interesting word, must think of a definition for it
In any case, he’s committing a gross breach of etiquette, and yeah, the point is very probably about the dangers of (young, pretty) women travelling alone.
Argent: so it’s a 19th century how to protect yourself PSA?
Stuffed Fantod – another good point about the dyeing. Purchasing complete mourning was horrendously expensive, not least since it still had to be fashionable.
Re: Joe — do any of us sound rage faced? Or intrigued? He’s certainly violating all rules of etiquette, and the contrast between her mourning wear and the caridge is interesting, but rage?
In other, obvious, things, that painting is very well executed.
And whoops on lumping a governess in with the help, I’m tired and thus have a case of the stupids!
“Argent: so it’s a 19th century how to protect yourself PSA?”
Lol, or a what to never ever do you crass bastard. His breach of etiquette is appalling. And I fear it may even be a case of “the lower classes have no manners, avoid them”.
That she’s mourning is perhaps the least bad thing going on though.
Apparently any criticism of any representation of any male behaviour = rage, as far as Joe’s concerned.
I know the look on her face, I’ve had more than few bus rides with that guy. I want to hug her.
That guy’s not lower class, not with those clothes.
I’d meant lower in comparison to her, but yeah, he really is coming off as the rude cousin of Sherlock Holmes.
Probably not “the lower class” but the “up and coming semi-monied class.” She may be a young woman on her way down in the world, and he may be a man who has come up a wee bit. They may be of equal station at this moment monetarily, but not by “breeding/birth.” The Victorian age was full of those kinds of stories.
LOL yes!
He reminds me of an engraving from a decade or so earlier called “Heavy Swells” – a couple of extreme fashion toffs (think ridiculous Dundreary weepers, tartan trousers and monocles) trying to chat up a barmaid. They’re definitely upper class, which this guy isn’t, but the creepiness and fashion are similar.
Only the Heavy Swells are about to be in strife, because barmaid’s sailor boyfriend has seen ‘em through the window. If Joe wants rage, that guy’s got plenty. ;)
The carpet bag is an interesting detail. Women in mourning were generally expected to stay at home. The fact that this girl is traveling may indicate an added misfortune of poverty: losing (probably her father’s) home and having to go live with relatives. Alternatively, she may actually be traveling with the body, for burial elsewhere: we see a sliver of a pine box in the lower left-hand corner.
Stuffed Fantod, I <3 your comments. Reminding me of all sorts of details I'd forgotten. :)
His large, red tie would have been considered vulgar. He is also smoking a cigarette in public in front of somebody everybody would have seen as a “lady.” This would not be done by somebody who cared about the manners of the day.
Joe, the painter is clearly telling a story that the viewers of his time would have immediately understood. We are simply deciphering that story from a distance of 150 years and different cultures.
Amused – I don’t think a coffin would be put into a passenger carriage. It wouldn’t fit, for starters. There’d be a guard’s van or some such for taking travelling trunks, crates and the like.
@Unpaid_Help: I study (and teach/lecture on, depending on the quarter) religion, and have researched a lot of the material culture of different mourning customs. The Victorian age is particularly rich in such things. :-)
And my wife has her MA in Art History, so we have a LOT of conversations about such paintings. ;-)
I think that sliver of wood in the lower corner is another bench/seat. Maybe more of her belongings are in another carriage, but the one bag doesn’t seem like enough stuff for her to be moving — idk, could be more stuff elsewhere, could be that she’s returning somewhere for the burial, could be picking up or otherwise transporting the body.
I’m calling it a night I think, but damned is that dude like a rude(r) Sherlock Holmes! He’s so far beyond the pale that I’m having trouble reading this as something she should’ve avoided by not traveling alone. Or maybe I just want to see it as “gentlemen, don’t act like this or we’ll revoke your status as a gentlemen”
Or “More money does not make the gentleman.”
That would make more sense for the period!
It may be that the painter saw a scenario just like this, moments before he intervened. Any man who adhered to the mores of the day would be “honor bound” to tell “The Irritating Gentleman” (who is clearly the former and not the latter) to sit down, put out his cigarette, and cease talking to this woman.
@The First Joe
Yeah, because it’s not like MRA’s and PUA’s ever completely lose their shit over works of fiction, like “The Matrix”.
@Amused: WORD.
So the PUA was around even back then!
The Nice Guy, conversely, did not appear until the interbellum period.
It adds to the stupidity of Joe’s comment to know that Woltze was criticising the man’s behaviour in the first place. Sure, different perspectives, but nevertheless – it’s the man who’s at fault.
I guess that makes Berthold Woltze a raging misandrist.
Stuffed Fantod – those would be cool conversations to listen to! I have shelves of books on Victorian history, painting and fashion, from getting hugely interested in the period about twenty years back (all sprang from wanting to make clothes for this little person). Enthusiastic amateur, me! :)
The tartan “blanket” looks more like an overcoat draped over the back of the seat to me – which’d probably be another example of Mr Nouveau Riche’s faux pas, probably. There was definitely a big Scottish romantic trend at around that sort of time – we get most of the “Noble Highlander” stuff and clan tartans and Scotch whisky slowly changing from cheap firewater to sophisticated artisanal stuff from that.
Alternatively it could present the rude gentleman as Scottish, and that’s part of why he’s so uncouth? I detect a slight note of “this dude has no breeding” classism to this whole thing.
lowquacks – I don’t know if I’d equate the guy in that essay with the NiceGuy(TM). The latter are all about treating women as sex vending machines. This bloke … well, his story had me thinking more that this is what women are always expected to be like: nice, accommodating, putting everyone else’s needs ahead of theirs. It didn’t really seem a gendered thing, except that it was his and his father’s workplace experiences that were the main focus.
I USED FOUR FRENCH WORDS IN A ROW I R SO SMART
@kittehs
That’s a really interesting take! It’s definitely a very gentle form of “[people] only like assholes, so I’ll become an asshole” but far more subtle in that and good-humoured than I remembered. I think I first read it after being linked to it in a very Nice Guy reddit comment and the whole thing was tainted by that in my mind.
Gakk! Some Redditurds got their hands on that? Flaming typical.
Yeah, definitely the “people only like assholes” is in there, but I read it as the narrator, if he’s reliable (whether fictional or not) having some genuine stuff to complain about, which NG(TM)s definitely don’t.
It almost comes down to “Dammit, I have boundaries and I’m going to start enforcing them.”
@lowquacks: That tartan is probably a lap blanket that doesn’t need to be used, because it’s warm enough outside that the woman’s window is down.
I do not think she is of an age to marry since her hair is down. I have a suspicion that her traveling companion only left for a moment and the pua swooped in to display his dominance.
I just took another look in the full screen pic and there’s a fringe along the top edge of that plaid – so yeah, a blanket or shawl. Men wore shawls for travelling, but of course it might not be Roissy Senior’s anyway.
Gods, yes, that tie is vulgar plus! :D
It looks almost like a four-in-hand tied in some fancy way into a bowtie, which’d play into the “what a cad, in the bad way, this dude is” thing the painter might’ve been going for.
It’s a look I associate for some reason with Duran Duran, though I can’t find any pictures of them with their ties tied like that.
Speak for yourself first joe. I think the art history discussion is fascinating. Why should the fact that it’s old make it not worth looking at the meaning? It’s not like this kind of thing has stopped happening in the century+ that’s gone in between.
I thought at first that the older man at the edge of the painting was looking at the situation from the side, but now I look closer and he’s looking the other way. Ah well.
Joe’s a bit stupid, isn’t he? The painting, on the other hand, is very good. The girl’s facial expression in particular is perfect.
Yes, Woltze has caught her grief and vulnerability perfectly.
How’s your kitty, Cassandra? Any change?
Also, since Joe is a Brit – hey, Joe, what do you think about the investigation into Jimmy Savile and child abuse? Any fascinating thoughts to share about that?
(For David – Jimmy Savile was a British DJ and TV presenter. He appears to have sexually abused several hundred children during his career. The fact that he had pedo tendencies was widely known at the time in media circles, and nobody did anything to stop him, including his bosses at the BBC. Since this has hit the news the British papers are full of MRA-ish ranting in the comments on articles about how terribly unfair it is to Savile that there was an investigation after his death and the press is covering it. I dunno if any major MRAs have written about this yet, but probably worth keeping your eye on.)
Interesting. I remember reading on Roosh’s and Roissy’s and other blogs about how American women walk down the street with scowls on their faces or blank looks or otherwise not “welcoming smiles” for these men. As if its women’s social contract duty to smile at complete strangers 24/7.
I though, most people are going through something in their life; a parent just diagnosed with cancer, a recently dead grandparent, a divorce, a child who is being bullied in school, a sibling who got denied his/her dream job, a depressing break up, a fight with a significant other or close friend, a friend who’s being abused, an ill pet, etc, etc, etc, any myriad of things that can cause us to not be beaming sun rays and rainbows as we walk down the street.
Why does the self esteem of these men rest on the looks strangers have on their faces as they pass them for a split second in the street?
@ Kittehs
She definitely peed a bit overnight but is still making frequent frustrating trips to the box. Other than that she seems fine – eating well, wants to play, etc. I have some painkillers to give her to ease the discomfort so I’m just keeping an eye on her boxes to make sure she is able to pee a bit and isn’t blocked. Vet says it will probably resolve itself in about a week, but if things don’t get better I need to take her in again.
(She’s terrified of the vet so hopefully that won’t be necessary.)
Re: Saville: I think it would have been better if this had broken while he was alive. This is a rather different sentiment to thinking it’s unfair to do it now…
What’s the brown object she’s holding? It seems separate from her handkerchief.
Oh, no doubt it would have been better if it had been possible to put the old perv on trial. That doesn’t mean that we should just pretend the whole thing didn’t happen lest we speak ill of the dead.
This is an example of the kind of comments that are pissing me off.
Yep, that’s definitely a thing that many people would want, to have their name and picture in the paper as a victim of child abuse. No victim blaming going on there!
There’s been a fair bit of coverage here about Saville; fortunately none that I’ve seen has tried to defend him in any way. It looks like he preyed on the terminally ill and the mentally ill as well, from what I’ve skimmed. Was there anyone vulnerable that he didn’t prey on?
I was wondering how long it’d be before the MRM and their ilk got all outraged about how poooor Jimmy was being so badly treated. After all, this lot think India is some sort of feminist paradise, so it’s not surprising they’d defend this ghastly man. What’s the bet Tom Martin thinks he was wronged?