The Highlanders of Scotland

**auld argonian** · 7th March 10, 07:53 AM

I remember reading a very good article in a magazine that dealt with the artistic and historical aspects of photography which dealt with portraits of soldiers going off to the Civil War and prospectors going off to the Klondike. The point was made that people generally assume that all of the clothing, weapons and implements belonged to the subject but in many cases these were props owned by the photographer. I've seen several cases where a photo of a Civil War soldier shows up on the Antiques Roadshow and the appraiser says something like, "...we can see that he went off to battle very well armed." and I have to sort of do a double take at this assumption.

I have to assume that the same sort of thing may have taken place with the old fellas posing for the portrait painter...that some of the articles in the portraits could have been brought in because they "photographed better".

I take Jock's point about the difference between what's pictured and their everyday habiliments...I mean, think about it...any of you guys ever been deer hunting with somebody who looks like they just got done posing for the Cabela's Catalogue? Personally, I was out fly fishing once and a dude showed up looking like he went into Orvis and handed them a blank check and said, "I wanna look like a fly fisher." and they sold him every bloody thing in the store...including what looked like a gen-u-ine "A River Runs Through It" hat that was two sizes too big. This pilgrim nearly killed several of us because we laughed so hard that we almost fell into some swift current. We have a photo of my dad from WWII and he's brandishing a Thompson sub-machine gun...he readily admits that neither he nor anybody else in his unit ever actually got issued the Thompson but they let them use it for photos to send back home.

Sorry if I'm saying it the long way around, but what you see isn't always what was actually there...be careful drawing inferences from photos and illustrations.

Best

AA

**Tartan Hiker** · 7th March 10, 08:54 AM

Here's a point that I don't remember anyone dealing with up to this point.

Whether they "dressed up" for the occasion with their own gear or borrowed gear or even if the artist totally made up the outfit (which no one has suggested and which I think is not likely!), we are dealing with real gentlemen who were actually there, posing for posterity (surely they knew that the images they were posing for would be a representation of themselves into the future). Would they have dressed in a way that they themselves knew to be silly or "over the top" or just plain wrong? I think not. To suggest that they would totally negates any assumption of pride or deportment on their part, and I'm not willing to accept this. Did the painting take longer than a few seconds? Obviously. Did the gentlemen look over the artists' shoulder from time to time to see how things were going? Surely. Would they have objected if he were not portraying them accurately? I would certainly hope so. Would they have objected if he attempted to dress them in an unusual or atypical or unacceptable way. Again, I would certainly be surprised if they did not!

Obviously these portraits illustrate gentlemen turned out in their best raiment. Possibly some of the items may have been borrowed or secured for this event. Surely this is not how they went about daily. But just as surely I think it is safe to view these portraits as a guide to what was "acceptable" or "within bounds" in formal highland attire at the time when these images were made.

**auld argonian** · 7th March 10, 09:22 AM

I don't think that they would dress in a way that they thought was any way silly or wrong but it may have been that they dressed in a way that they thought was what was expected of them. Consider that you most probably will not be wearing a formal set of tails except on your wedding day, for example...not part of your wardrobe but what is expected of you upon that occasion.

And I don't think that anyone is suggesting that these fellas or the artists were trying to be dishonest or pretentious in any way, just that there's a tendency for anybody to try to optimize the situation when a portrait is being done.

Best

AA

**Tartan Hiker** · 7th March 10, 12:08 PM

Yes, that is my point exactly.

Here are several dozen of the most respected members of a society being portraited (is that a verb?) for posterity. Surely they would not have consented to dressing up as some foreign entity expected them to, but rather as their peers would expect them to. I can't imagine the whole lot of them being persuaded to dress in some romantic fantasy costume simply because some foreigner expected them to.

And again, yes. My point exactly. They certainly would have taken care to look their best.

**Redshank** · 7th March 10, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by Tartan Hiker

Yes, that is my point exactly.

Here are several dozen of the most respected members of a society being portraited (is that a verb?) for posterity. Surely they would not have consented to dressing up as some foreign entity expected them to, but rather as their peers would expect them to. I can't imagine the whole lot of them being persuaded to dress in some romantic fantasy costume simply because some foreigner expected them to.

Considering that foreigner was no less a person than Her Majesty Queen Victoria, I would assume that the would have dressed however she so pleased

**CMcG** · 7th March 10, 03:35 PM

Originally Posted by BoldHighlander

<snip>

One question I have for everyone though: is it just me or would'nt this thread, given the subject, be better served in the Historical Highland Attire section rather than Traditional Highland Dress section?

I agree that this discussion is more germane to the Historical Highland Attire section rather than Traditional Highland Dress section. These watercolours are very interesting and handsome to look at but I take them with a grain of salt as far as how much I can glean about wearing the kilt today. This is particularly true of the more elaborate dress in some of them.

It's not my place to say whether these gentlemen were just wearing the very best of their best, if there was intentional romanticization by the artist, or if what we see was a specific Royal request by the commissioning monarch. I'm guessing some combination of the three in varying amounts, based on the meaning of the verb to pose. These Highlanders were certainly posing for the portraits and for the Queen!

pose [pohz] verb,posed, pos·ing, noun
–verb (used without object)
1.
to assume a particular attitude or stance, esp. with the hope of impressing others: He likes to pose as an authority on literature.
2.
to present oneself insincerely: He seems to be posing in all his behavior.
3.
to assume or hold a physical attitude, as for an artistic purpose: to pose for a painter.

**BoldHighlander** · 7th March 10, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by CMcG

I agree that this discussion is more germane to the Historical Highland Attire section rather than Traditional Highland Dress section. These watercolours are very interesting and handsome to look at but I take them with a grain of salt as far as how much I can glean about wearing the kilt today. This is particularly true of the more elaborate dress in some of them.

It's not my place to say whether these gentlemen were just wearing the very best of their best, if there was intentional romanticization by the artist, or if what we see was a specific Royal request by the commissioning monarch. I'm guessing some combination of the three in varying amounts, based on the meaning of the verb to pose. These Highlanders were certainly posing for the portraits and for the Queen!

I'll be away until later, but I have a magazine article from 2003 that might help shed a wee bit more light on the background of these paintings that I will type up & post then

**creagdhubh** · 7th March 10, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by Tartan Hiker

Here's a point that I don't remember anyone dealing with up to this point.

Whether they "dressed up" for the occasion with their own gear or borrowed gear or even if the artist totally made up the outfit (which no one has suggested and which I think is not likely!), we are dealing with real gentlemen who were actually there, posing for posterity (surely they knew that the images they were posing for would be a representation of themselves into the future). Would they have dressed in a way that they themselves knew to be silly or "over the top" or just plain wrong? I think not. To suggest that they would totally negates any assumption of pride or deportment on their part, and I'm not willing to accept this. Did the painting take longer than a few seconds? Obviously. Did the gentlemen look over the artists' shoulder from time to time to see how things were going? Surely. Would they have objected if he were not portraying them accurately? I would certainly hope so. Would they have objected if he attempted to dress them in an unusual or atypical or unacceptable way. Again, I would certainly be surprised if they did not!

Obviously these portraits illustrate gentlemen turned out in their best raiment. Possibly some of the items may have been borrowed or secured for this event. Surely this is not how they went about daily. But just as surely I think it is safe to view these portraits as a guide to what was "acceptable" or "within bounds" in formal highland attire at the time when these images were made.

Here here! I agree completely and disagree mostly with Jock Scot. No need to bicker gents.