# What is this...? A photograph of... Beethoven?



## Praine

Yesterday, I was up to the merry hours of the night listening to Beethoven's fourth piano concerto. For reasons undefined, I searched "Beethoven" into the Google image bar and scrolled through the pages as I listened. It wasn't long until I came about this photograph...

http://www.russianpianoschool.com/programs/img/page16/beethoven_russia.jpg

I was quite blown away because I thought that this could perhaps be real and verily, it could be possible that Beethoven looked like this. But I abjured the thought almost immediately realizing the date of Beethoven's death (1827) and the fact that the first photograph that remains was taken in 1826, not to mention that the first human photograph was taken in 1839.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_photography

Still, I became very curious as this apparent photograph of Beethoven was found not only once, but twice in the image search (and later, I found yet another citation). The articles that present this photograph tell nothing of when this photograph was produced or where it came from and just place it in like it's nothing. But this is a big deal! A REAL photograph of Beethoven!? What a discovery that would be! That defies even the apparent "history of photography"! (Although in truth, it has been expounded upon on numerous occasions that Wikipedia isn't the most verifiable source).

So I did a bit more research and came across the Beethoven statue in Los Angeles which is unequivocally derived from this picture. It also mentions it that in the description.

http://www.lvbeethoven.com/MeetLvB/USALosAngelesPershingSquare.html

So we must ask, if this picture is a fraud (and verily, nothing points to it being a fraud. I searched "beethoven fake photo" and other variants to see if this would show up and it didn't), then why would a statue be built upon it?

This has piqued my interest immensely and I'm looking for input as to whether this is legitimate or merely an extremely dexterous manipulation. I have done my research and I think that it very well could be real...


----------



## Ignis Fatuus

I has to be staged I think. If you look at the 'quality' of the 1927 photograph. And Beethoven died 2 years after that. Also I think he would have had greyer hair.


----------



## Weston

I have seen this picture before and thought it a painting. What about it makes one think it is a photograph?


----------



## Argus

Looks like a painting to me too. Or rather a recreation of a painting.


----------



## Praine

A painting!? It's on photography paper (as you can see with the various creases). That's far too intricate for a painting and that would mean that the creator had to paint without colour. You can see that this paper has some slight green tinging in areas which is common with some older photos (I'm not a photographer so I don't know what causes that) so that would mean that this hasn't been a quick computer edit from colour to naught. I genuinely believe that this is a photo.


----------



## Ignis Fatuus

It is surely a photograph - from an artistic standpoint! The artist is free to choose the pose he paints so I don't think he would have Beethoven staring at the ground. He would also paint a more interesting background. And it translates too well into black and white to be a painting. This has all the hallmarks of an early photograph, before modern techniques were developed (no pun intended).


----------



## Argus

Possibly a black and white photgraph of a colour painting? Which has then been reprinted in a newpaper or periodical.

I don't know but something about it doesn't seem like a photograph and if it was the only photo of Beethoven I am sure it would have been discovered years ago.



> It is surely a photograph - from an artistic standpoint! The artist is free to choose the pose he paints so I don't think he would have Beethoven staring at the ground. He would also paint a more interesting background. And it translates too well into black and white to be a painting. This has all the hallmarks of an early photograph, before modern techniques were developed (no pun intended


).

Similarly, why would someone photograph Beethoven looking at the ground in a field rather than indoors looking either into middle distance or straight at the camera like most early photographs.


----------



## Aramis

Praine said:


> A REAL photograph of Beethoven!? What a discovery that would be!


You call finding something with google a discovery?

Yeah, it probably was there since 3294237327 year BC.


----------



## Praine

Aramis said:


> You call finding something with google a discovery?
> 
> Yeah, it probably was there since 3294237327 year BC.


I never said it was _my_ discovery. The credit goes to whoever found it. Finding something via. Google is not discovering something new; someone obviously found it before I did. I'm sorry you interpreted it that way.


----------



## Aramis

Praine said:


> I never said it was my discovery. The credit goes to whoever found it. Finding something via. Google is not discovering something new; someone obviously found it before. I'm sorry you interpreted it that way.


But when you find something with google it means that it can't be new thing. You talk about it like it would be fresh revelation, and the truth is that me and, as you see, other people interested in typing "Beethoven" in google have seen this pic long, loooong time ago. So there is no need to discuss it this way - if it would be real photo, then it would be attached to most encyclopedias (including wiki) + there would be no theory that Beethoven was black. It's not the real photo.


----------



## dmg

Things are discovered that have already been 'discovered' all the time. 

Look at all the new fossils discovered in the storage rooms of museums and whatnot. One could definitely make a discovery on Google - someone with an old photo decides to scan it & put it up online, not knowing what it is. It is possible that someone had an old periodical that had a photo of Beethoven that was known then, but then lost in the annals of time. Years later, someone scans an image off of said periodical for use in some web blog and PRESTO! You have a discovery.

However, the more I look at it, the more it looks like a watercolor painting. I can't find a color version of it, though, or an actual description of the image anywhere.


----------



## Praine

Aramis said:


> But when you find something with google it means that it can't be new thing. You talk about it like it would be fresh revelation, and the truth is that me and, as you see, other people interested in typing "Beethoven" in google have seen this pic long, loooong time ago. So there is no need to discuss it this way - if it would be real photo, then it would be attached to most encyclopedias (including wiki) + there would be no theory that Beethoven was black. It's not the real photo.


Ok, let me set this straight with you right now. You obviously have some sort of discrepancy with the way I worded something but I did not indicate that I (nor others before me) made a discovery by "Googling" Beethoven. The discovery goes to whoever found the physical picture obviously, and that's who I was giving credit to.



dmg said:


> However, the more I look at it, the more it looks like a watercolor painting. I can't find a color version of it, though, or an actual description of the image anywhere.


That's the troubling part. I only found this picture 3 times on the internet and there is no indication as to where it came from or when it came about.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

Clearly a photograph of a painting. The Beethoven Haus would have definitely said if it was a photograph. It was in the DEPICTIONS section of the site.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

Oh and also, seeing as I can barely speak German. The original image said this in the description
_Beethoven beim Spaziergang in der Natur - Kunstpostkarte nach einem Gemälde von Julius Schmid_

I had it translated to this

_Beethoven with the walk in nature - art postcard after a painting of Julius Schmid_

Sorry man, it is not a photo.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

Here is another work of Julius Schmid










To me, the painting is semi Photo-realistic. If it was photographed in the early 1900's, I would believe it was a real photograph.


----------



## Praine

Ok, thanks a lot for clearing that up, Salieri=Innocent. Schmid is one damn good painter as he sure fooled me. Funny thing is that the original photograph that I posted said "Shmit" and when I tried Googling that, nothing appeared. Oh well, I guess this thread can be locked or deleted now.


----------



## dmg

No, it is still an interesting topic. I'm now interested in seeing a full color version of the painting. 

Also, to be fair, the old copy of the painting in the original link does fuzz the edges a bit, obscuring the nature of the image.


----------



## Ignis Fatuus

*eats hat*


----------



## Artemis

It is very clearly not a photo. If it were, it would have been a well-known fact that such a thing existed of Beethoven. Photography didn't develop until much later. In any event, dynamic poses (e.g. somebody walking) were not possible until even later. All very obvious. Further, the various paintings of Beethoven all have different facial expressions, some not being very flattering, but usually the most chocolate-box impression of him is the one people like to adhere to.


----------



## lricardo

umm.. it's not a photograph... but it would have been great to have a photograph of Beethoven, by the way... the chocolate-box impression of him that people like to adhere to is accurate? or there are other images that ressemble more his physical appearance? do you know about this subject?


----------



## Artemis

lricardo said:


> umm.. it's not a photograph... but it would have been great to have a photograph of Beethoven, by the way... the chocolate-box impression of him that people like to adhere to is accurate? or there are other images that ressemble more his physical appearance? do you know about this subject?





lricardo said:


> umm.. it's not a photograph... but it would have been great to have a photograph of Beethoven, by the way... the chocolate-box impression of him that people like to adhere to is accurate? or there are other images that ressemble more his physical appearance? do you know about this subject?


Of course it would be nice if there were a photograph, but there isn't one. If there was a genuine photo (rather than a mere photo of a painting) it would be extremely well known and every conceivable aspect of it would have been analysed to then nth degree. It is also perfectly obvious that one is hardly likely to stumble across a genuine photograph of Beethoven, which is hitherto unknown to the world at large, simply by doing a Google search.

As it is, we only have various PORTRAITS .

The last one that I am aware of was by Ferdinand Georg Waldmüller, completed in 1823:










Compared with the more "chocolate box" images we're used to, this one above is not quite flattering, is it? Moreover, it doesn't bear much resemblance to most earlier portraits. Which is the more accurate representation of Beethoven's true facial features I do not know.

A similar situation applies in the case of W A Mozart. There is little consistency between the various "portraits" of him, some of which are of questionable authenticity. Some show a reasonably handsome person while others are much less flattering. The version which most people choose as avatars, for example, is the more flattering one. Ditto for Schubert, and possibly a few other major composers as well.


----------



## Argus

My favourite portrait of Beethoven is in the front of the _Oxford Companion to Music_ by Percy A. Scholes, Tenth Edition. It is very hard to find a version of it on the internet but it is entitled _Beethoven in Middle Life _: A Portrait by Batt. It.s a bizarre picture. My father bought the book about 20 years ago for about 50p from a library and his main reason for buying was the Beethoven portrait. In it Beethoven is wearing a green waistcoat and white shirt, neckerchief and trousers, and a top hat is just behind him. He is sat with his hands on his knees. It's his face that is the funniest part of the picture. His cheeks are bright red and his eyes piercing blue with a menacing scowl on on his oversized face. Just the most unflattering portrait of him I've seen.

Anyway, Artemis, can you give examples of a 'chocolate box' image (do you mean ones like the J.Stieler 1819 portarait) and where can I buy these chocolates. Kinder should put little composer figurines in their Kinder Surprises. A great way of getting kids into classical music. Or an advent calender with pictures of composers behind the doors.


----------



## Artemis

Argus said:


> Anyway, Artemis, can you give examples of a 'chocolate box' image (do you mean ones like the J.Stieler 1819 portarait) and where can I buy these chocolates. Kinder should put little composer figurines in their Kinder Surprises. A great way of getting kids into classical music. Or an advent calender with pictures of composers behind the doors.


 The portrait by Stieler is a good example of the "chocolate box" image I was referring to even though I didn't mean the term "chocolate box" to be taken too literally. What I meant was the too-good-to-be-true looks:radiant eyes, genius-inspired glare, with a leonine writhing hairstyle, sitting there in a nice clean environment dressed all neat and tidy, penning away at his latest masterpiece.

This picture doesn't fit well with most contemporary verbal accounts of him: short, stocky, big shouldered, large head with a prominent chin, black hair and a brownish face, bushy eyebrows, narrow eyelids, and a flattish nose. He was also well-known to be reclusive, a bit of rough if not uncouth in his manners, was sometimes ill-tempered, drank too much, and in his dress and demeanour was reputed to be scruffy, shaved infrequently, and was none too hygienic in his personal affairs. Not my type, for sure.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

This is my favorite version ever. It takes characteristics from all of his paintings. It matches his life mask perfectly. I wish I could find a large version of it.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Praine said:


> Schmid is one damn good painter as he sure fooled me.


I knew right away that it couldn't be a photograph. In real life, Beethoven would never have remembered to bring a hat.

On a more serious note, it does look a lot like a photograph, except Beethoven's figure doesn't seem to cast a shadow.


----------



## bassClef

Fsharpmajor said:


> On a more serious note, it does look a lot like a photograph, except Beethoven's figure doesn't seem to cast a shadow.


So, .... Beethoven is a vampire?


----------



## Mark Harwood

He has no shadow. His coat is not in repose: it would have moved in the time taken to expose an early plate. No way is it a photograph of ol' Ludders. It's a superimposition, or a painting, or both.


----------



## AmateurComposer

Artemis said:


> Ditto for Schubert


The book "Schubert, the Music and the Man" by Brian Newbould, has a number of drawings of Franz Peter Schubert. There are some differences, probably due to different artists.


----------



## Tapkaara

Perhaps the closest we'll ever get to seeing a "photo" of Herr Beethoven is looking at his life mask:

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...&safe=off&sa=N&um=1&ei=AKcUS5-1NIP1nQeMqe3zBA

or his death mask:

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...&safe=off&sa=N&um=1&ei=AKcUS5-1NIP1nQeMqe3zBA


----------



## Fsharpmajor

bassClef said:


> So, .... Beethoven is a vampire?


I tried to come up with a witty answer to this question, but couldn't, so I'll just say, of course he wasn't a vampire, you silly person.


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

Tapkaara said:


> Perhaps the closest we'll ever get to seeing a "photo" of Herr Beethoven is looking at his life mask:
> 
> http://images.google.com/imgres?img...&safe=off&sa=N&um=1&ei=AKcUS5-1NIP1nQeMqe3zBA
> 
> or his death mask:
> 
> http://images.google.com/imgres?img...&safe=off&sa=N&um=1&ei=AKcUS5-1NIP1nQeMqe3zBA


I really love this bust that was based off of Beethoven's Death Mask. It is the best thing we can get.










It would be cool if someone attempted to add flesh and hair to this digitally to get an even better idea. I really can't see any difference from the CD cover I posted above. Compared to his masks, his paintings seem to be fairly consistent. The one painting with the slicked back hair and narrow face is only a copy.


----------



## Conor71

Tapkaara said:


> Perhaps the closest we'll ever get to seeing a "photo" of Herr Beethoven is looking at his life mask:
> 
> http://images.google.com/imgres?img...&safe=off&sa=N&um=1&ei=AKcUS5-1NIP1nQeMqe3zBA
> 
> or his death mask:
> 
> http://images.google.com/imgres?img...&safe=off&sa=N&um=1&ei=AKcUS5-1NIP1nQeMqe3zBA


Quite fascinating (and a little bit spooky!) looking at the Death Mask and the others assembled there - cheers for posting .


----------



## Argus

Looking at photos/paintings of old composers shows just how boring collars and ties have become in the modern age. Nowadays, there are basically two of each. The long necktie and the folded over collar for less formal occasions, and the bowtie and 'standy uppy' collar for black tie events. Polo necks are a casual variation on the former. Obviously older style of collars and ties still exist but are rarely seen worn without trying to represent a figure from history.

Even hats have got incredibly boring, with far too many baseball caps worn by non-baseball players. Top hats are only really worn at weddings and at Royal Ascot, the bowler was ruined by a Clockwork Orange and fedoras and trilbys have become intrinsically linked with 30's gangsters and jazz.

There seems to be a lack of innovation in _mainstream_ fashion.

No real reason for this post, it's just an observation.


----------



## Artemis

Salieri=Innocent said:


> It would be cool if someone attempted to add flesh and hair to this digitally to get an even better idea. I really can't see any difference from the CD cover I posted above. Compared to his masks, his paintings seem to be fairly consistent. The one painting with the slicked back hair and narrow face is only a copy.


I took the bust of Beethoven and "fleshed" it out a bit.


----------



## Artemis

Now the one below is my attempt at building up from scratch a portrait of Beethoven based on his "life mask". I started with this and added some features. The initials in the lower right corner are mine:


----------



## SalieriIsInnocent

Artemis said:


> I took the bust of Beethoven and "fleshed" it out a bit.


Wonderful work!!!


----------



## Aramis

Argus said:


> Looking at photos/paintings of old composers shows just how boring collars and ties have become in the modern age. Nowadays, there are basically two of each. The long necktie and the folded over collar for less formal occasions, and the bowtie and 'standy uppy' collar for black tie events. Polo necks are a casual variation on the former. Obviously older style of collars and ties still exist but are rarely seen worn without trying to represent a figure from history.


True. Even high-ranking politicians usually look like nerds from chips bar, wearing their hopeless, neuter suits.



> and fedoras and trilbys have become intrinsically linked with 30's gangsters and jazz.


Y, here's photo of first-grade gangsta, wanted by FBI, Don Rachmaninone:


----------



## MROWE

Perhaps someone has brought this to your attention already, but what you have is not a picture of Beethoven. In fact, it is a well know picture of Robert and Clara Schumann. You can find it easily in most musicology books dealing with them and probably online as well. There are no photographs known of Beethoven, but there is definitely a life mask and a death mask.


----------



## JosephHugo

*It's a 19th century painting by Julius Schmidt that was copied as a postcard.*

It's a painting by Julius Schmid (1854-1935) called "Ludwig van Beethoven on a nature walk" The painting was used as the cover of The Etude magazine in February 1909.

After being copied in black and white for use as a postcard it's took on the appearance of a "photograph", however, we know that the invention of photography is attributed to Joseph Nicéphore, being the first recognized photograph dating back to 1826. Beethoven died on March 26, 1827.


----------



## NoCoPilot

Is this it?


----------



## elgar's ghost

As far as I'm aware no genuine photographs, daguerreotypes etc. exist of any composers until the 1840s. This supposed image of Paganini is undoubtedly a fake as the composer died in 1840 and the monochrome quality (even if it has been cosmetically enhanced) looks too sharp for the time when the art was still in its infancy.


----------



## Flamme

It looks pretty darn real tho...


----------



## Chilham

Blink. .............


----------



## elgar's ghost

It does, but plot holes were discovered - cut of the clothes not representative of Paganini's earlier era, some of those decorations were never awarded to him, and the meaty hands do not match contemporary depictions. That hooked schnozzle looks somewhat bogus, too. One source suggests that the photo might have been taken as late as the early 20th century but made to look older. Whenever it was, the figure is obviously somebody else made up to look like him.


----------



## NoCoPilot

Early daguerreotypes had exposure times of more than two minutes, which is why you see the subjects seated comfortably and sometimes blurred. Paganini would not have been able to hold his bow still for that length of time.


----------



## Luchesi

JosephHugo said:


> It's a painting by Julius Schmid (1854-1935) called "Ludwig van Beethoven on a nature walk" The painting was used as the cover of The Etude magazine in February 1909.
> 
> After being copied in black and white for use as a postcard it's took on the appearance of a "photograph", however, we know that the invention of photography is attributed to Joseph Nicéphore, being the first recognized photograph dating back to 1826. Beethoven died on March 26, 1827.


And how old does Ludwig appear to be in this painting? 45? in 1815?


----------



## pianozach

elgars ghost said:


> It does, but plot holes were discovered - cut of the clothes not representative of Paganini's earlier era, some of those decorations were never awarded to him, and the meaty hands do not match contemporary depictions. That hooked schnozzle looks somewhat bogus, too. One source suggests that the photo might have been taken as late as the early 20th century but made to look older. Whenever it was, the figure is obviously somebody else made up to look like him.





elgars ghost said:


> As far as I'm aware no genuine photographs, daguerreotypes etc. exist of any composers until the 1840s. This supposed image of Paganini is undoubtedly a fake as the composer died in 1840 and the monochrome quality (even if it has been cosmetically enhanced) looks too sharp for the time when the art was still in its infancy.


• Photos (and daguerreotypes) had a notoriously long exposure time (or slow shutter speed). That's why you'll see most subjects seated, or standing in a relaxed/comfortable position, with a neutral expression. Any movement causes a blur. Early daguerreotype images required an *exposure* of around twenty minutes, and by the early 1840s it had been reduced to about *twenty seconds*.

_There's the fairly noteworthy photo of a seated *Abraham Lincoln* where his legs are crossed, and his foot is a bit blurry, leading some medical experts to diagnose, with increased confidence, that Lincoln suffered from *Marfan Syndrome*._

• To me, the "photo" of *Paganini* is a photo of some artwork. Given the rather unsophisticated nature of photography in its early years, there could not possibly be anyone that could stand in that particular position stock still (with their arm held in the air): Even more, the end of the bow would most certainly have had some blurring, as it's the far end of a pivot point mounted on an unstable foundation (fingers/hand/ extended arm).

A couple of other things:

• Both the nose AND chin do seem quite exaggerated, although not impossible. But a nose that long that's so very symmetrical? Yeah, probably not.

• There's some stark highlighting on his right leg, probably added by the artist to give his leg some definition, and to point out some of the light source. However, it's only on the section in front of the darker part of the background. If there was a bright lighting, I'd also expect it on the inside of his other leg, as well as on his right arm, or even on the side of his hair.

• I doubt that Paganini _EVER_ fingered a quadruple stop with the bow so far away.

• I'm not a violinist, but I've worked with violinists, and everything about the bow seems suspect. The far end looks wrong to me, and the bow itself is straight from stem to stern. Generally, the wood has a gentle curve while the hair is straight. And I'm sure that Paganini would have had a high quality bow.

• And I do believe he's not holding the bow correctly. More like an artist's conception, or a model's violin inexperience.

Any *violinists* in the house?


----------



## elgar's ghost

Re the long chin - I wondered if that was a light-coloured cloth serving as a chinrest.


----------



## Flamme

elgars ghost said:


> It does, but plot holes were discovered - cut of the clothes not representative of Paganini's earlier era, some of those decorations were never awarded to him, and the meaty hands do not match contemporary depictions. *That hooked schnozzle* looks somewhat bogus, too. One source suggests that the photo might have been taken as late as the early 20th century but made to look older. Whenever it was, the figure is obviously somebody else made up to look like him.


:lol:
Didnt realise, tnx...


----------



## NoCoPilot




----------

