Perhaps she did but the family didn't really need the money and I doubt that she was really interested in making any income from photography other than the novelty of it.
Not needing money has never kept anyone from wanting to make a little more.
Whether she was interested or not is surely open to speculation. I'd speculate that for whatever reason she may have gotten into the selling aspect... the fact remains that for some period of her life she actively sought out and worked with a gallery to sell prints, and they sold.
I've often envied her because I suspect, like you do, that she engaged in photography purely for fun and had all of her other worldly needs sufficiently taken care of.
Those who obsess about proper spelling are quite often of such small minds that they cannot deal with anything else of substance.
Nothing personal, I'm jest sayin'
OK, I obsess, but in this case the spelling obsession was to confirm the spelling of a proper name - That being done the "fuddy duddy" bit I took as a joke
Also, and crucial to my posts is that I always claim, and where I have not I apologise, that my views on the work of Henson are my personal opinion based on seeing his works, I have said very little on the 2008ish portraits apart from saying, I think, that I found them verging on the innocent, I can say no more on these pix as I have never seen real prints
If I state that opinions on photographer's images are my own and not claimed as absolute I feel that is OK, but will take other views into consideration
Perhaps I should have taken my page one advice on this thread, but I am glad to see this thread running as it is a damned sight more interesting than Leitz vs Nikon arguments - I pick on that one as I started it
Fascinating and educating thread. Somehow it had passed me by, but I had never really taken much notice of Lewis Carroll or the Alice stories, other than I am aware of them of course. I did not know he was a photographer. The other angles are interesting, but I believe we cannot moralise on victorian values from a 21st century perspective.
I had a very interesting conversation recently with a foreign agent for the equipment I sell. I won't name the place - it is irrelevant - but he told me it is (little known outside the country) but customary for the ruler to have the services of different young girls from different "tribes" on a monthly basis. If the young girl becomes pregnant it is looked on with great delight, as it brings royal blood to the tribe (and helps the gene-pool which is otherwise constrained within the tribe). If she fails to become pregnant she leaves with presents. Either way, being the "chosen one" is looked on with pride.
The point is morals are different from place to place and from time to time. Who are we to judge.
...but I am glad to see this thread running as it is a damned sight more interesting than Leitz vs Nikon arguments...
Well, I have been hesitating to mention this because of the potential for a Nikon vs Canon debate, but shouldn't we be referrin to the man by his real name versus his psuedonymn. In real life when talking with real people I'm not sure he was ever called that. Don't we corrupt history by doing so?
... but I believe we cannot moralise on victorian values from a 21st century perspective.
True to an extent. Understanding the context in which people behaved within the context of their native environment and times is very important to understanding their beliefes and behaviours. But how does one draw the line on what is or is not moral? Do we excuse racial bigotry (thinking southern US in the 1950s, for example) as acceptable because the majority apparently practiced such beliefs and it was memorialized in the laws? Are bigots and bigotry moral? Were they ever moral, or will they ever be moral? Slavery was and still is socially acceptable in some cultures. Is slavery moral? It seems that every behavior can be rationalized if one constrains the limits of their thinking.
I read in an well-researched book about a 20th century European leader who did soemthing the complete opposite of your story. That behavior was a matter of national policy and accepted (albeit not universally even within that country). Should we not moralize about that too?
p.s. Your story is interesting because it is very much like another I read once 9in a well-researched academic book/journal) where the tribal king de-flowered each girl in the tribe. He even saved a memory by shaving her "personal hair" and kept it in a pillow, upon which he slept every night. I must admit to not being sure wheter to suggest that he was possibley depraved, or possible the luckiest man on the face of the earth.