https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiKifz6l4TQiUYrEJEnMORHsBi63DkwZ3_PjF3Af3kWaKZA21QQKGreczjArRxGZYAi4AlIoifb0yAKkc_V1b4IM2eJEVRqBWu7LxIzzuE-Tyho_XWRilDciRx5dbfx8ghmuUG-lM4Faeg/s1600/-17.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/worldofrandsom/8931487199/in/set-72157633893249022
http://www.flickr.com/photos/worldofrandsom/8931484691/in/set-72157633893249022
http://www.flickr.com/photos/worldofrandsom/8932284634/in/set-72157633893249022
http://www.flickr.com/photos/worldofrandsom/8932104994/in/set-72157633893249022
Accident or on purpose? Given the venue, my guess is the latter.
The fortunate photographer on the spot was Randsom, who took the last four photos in this series and whose other work can be accessed through the above links by clicking on the link to his photostream. Credit for the first photo goes to Stacie Joy.
The only identification given relating to the dancer is "Shredding Wench Factory".
https://www.facebook.com/ShreddingWenchFactory
More about the event:
https://www.facebook.com/events/158799790960547/
http://evgrieve.com/2013/06/looking-at-bowery-bombshells-great.html
The final photo reminds me of one of those Belle Epoque postcards by G. Mouton where a lady's culottes are parted in the back to reveal some, but not all, of her delights. I couldn't find just the postcard I was looking for, which is more cancan-like, but here are two that give the general idea:
Originals, and more in the same vein, at:
http://www.delcampe.net/page/item/id,212333660,var,38-cpa-illustration-coquine-style-G-mouton-a-identifier--osee-erotique,language,E.html
In cancanfavorites@yahoogroups.com, Stuart Bleukin wrote:
ReplyDeleteI checked the photos. Yes, there are "dimples," all right. I know the cancan in the origins were danced by ladies who removed their
pants/bloomers/panties before the dance started.
With all due respect, Mr. Barbebleu, the term you used here is "dimples." But I think the proper term to use here is "cellulite." And although the lady is somewhat good looking, I really do not think that if she saw the picture,
even she wouldn't be pleased with the lumpy derrierre. But that is the nature of burlesque. Not-so-beautiful is beautiful to some.
But that is the free spirit on New York. I think I will wait for the Broadway version of "Can-Can" to come around.
In cancanfavorites@yahoogroups.com,
ReplyDelete"davidpriceuk" wrote:
No, you're wrong Stuart. The ladies who danced the original cancan in the 1830s didn't wear bloomers because no respectable woman did then. They didn't take them off to dance the cancan because they hadn't got any on in the first
place, but the cancan was very different in those days and didn't require the ladies to lift up their skirts, so generally nobody was offended by "indecent exposure". When the cancan changed in the 1880s to incorporate skirt
manipulation, and the showing off of petticoats, drawers were then a standard item of underwear. It's a myth that it was frequently danced without drawers, but the bloomers in those days were usually open (a closed type became common in the 1890s) so they could be quite revealing. The Moulin Rouge had a policy of not allowing girls on to the dance floor wearing open drawers.
The Broadway production of Can-Can, if it's the same one that was produced in San Francisco, perpetuates the myth of the knickerless cancan to make some sense of the idea that the cancan was banned in the 1890s. It never was, but this was central to Abe Burrows' book and if I'm right, in this production the nightclub supposedly presents a cancan in which the girls wear no panties - except that they do, or it wouldn't be allowed on a mainstream stage. And,
incidentally, cancan dancers didn't wear those long garters, what we in England call suspenders, in those days either!
Having said all that, I think the costumes for this production look great. So forget the historical inaccuracies!