civilized ku # 958 ~ color vs b+w
Thursday, May 19, 2011 at 05:03PM 
Secaucus Junction pickup & drop-off view ~ Secaucus, NJ • click to embiggenIn a recent entry, Frank (no link provided) wrote:
You have written about photography representing the ‘real’ and I believe that you have also written that you use colour because that’s how we see. But given that all photography is an abstraction with black and white being more of an abstraction that colour (I believe) maybe you would talk about what you consider this photo* represents in B&W rather than colour.
Leaving aside the idea that I believe (straight) color photography is a representation of the real rather an "abstraction" thereof, I believe that b+w photography, since the advent of color photography, has become an abstraction expression of the real. Of course, historically speaking and prior to the wide-spread availability and use of color film, viewers of b+w pictures had little trouble in seeing and accepting them as accurate (minus color) representations of the real. However, in today's (color) media saturated world, color pictures rule the reality roost.
Nevertheless, there can be little question in stating that the b+w picturing medium is fully capable of creating, in the hands of skilled practitioners (such as my friend Michael Gordon), some remarkably beautiful pictures. I might also add, some of the most beautiful prints - as objects, in and of themselves - I have ever viewed are exquisitely crafted b+w prints.
However, the question is - are those pictures representations of the real or are they something else?
IMO, they are something else. That something else is derived from the real inasmuch as the real is the referential origin of most b+w picturing. However, IMO, as I have stated (and as Frank has reiterated), since we don't see in b+w, b+w pictures can not be, by their very nature, completely accurate (inasmuch as the medium and its apparatus allow) representations of the real.
That said, IMO, b+w pictures can be incredibly accurate representations of some visual aspects, if not the totality (inasmuch as the medium and its apparatus allow), of the real. Those "aspects" include tonality and tonal relationships (I am never so aware of peering into the shadows as I am when viewing rich "extended" dynamic range b+w pictures), shape, line, form, and texture - to name a few of the more obvious visual "aspects".
Some practitioners of b+w picturing will state - IMO, rightfully so - that these "aspects" of the real are made more easily perceivable by the fact that there is no color to distract the eye and the mind from these "aspects" of the pictured referent. It is only when they proceed from that logical and reasonable point to the idea that the monochromatic picturing of a referent is the best way to see/reveal that referent's "essence" that I part ways with their b+w raison d'être.
Sorry, but a referent's color is integral to how normally functioning (vision wise) humans see the world and how they relate to it. A referent's color is an important part of its essence and true qualities. Eliminating it in a picture, negates that part of its essence and therefore a significant part of its truth/realness.
And, as subjective as it might be, color is a significant factor, re: an emotional response, to how one sees an object/scene and how one responds to it and, in the case of pictures, how one responds to a representation of it. Consequently, one could argue that b+w pictures are more "analytical" / less "emotional" than color pictures and, to some extent, I believe that to be true.
That said, I must restate that analytical / abstract as b+w pictures might be, b+w picturing is fully capable of remarkably beautiful results. However, IMO, those results are never an as fully real representation of the real as the medium allows.
So, all of that blather aside but drawing upon it nevertheless, what do I think civilized ku # 950 represent in b+w rather than in color?
Well, for one, the tonal relationship between the foliage and the man-made environment that surrounds it emphasizes the free-form randomness of the natural world as opposed to the harshly rigid regimentation of the man-made world - in a sense, organic vs numeric / mathamatical. In addition, the somewhat ethereal roundness and softness of the clouds is emphasized and contrasted against the straight-edged and hard contours of the man-made environment and its man-made objects. And, to my eye and sensibilities, there is a nearly palpable sense of air and atmosphere - a brilliance which the lighter tones of the greenery amply suggest and reinforce.
In addition to those visual representations, all of which are aspects of the real, there is also a sense of Form.
It is at this point, I must take you back to the civilized ku # 950 entry wherein I wrote about my purchase of 2 Robert Adams books and my reaction to them. I describe the reaction as "revelatory". I also wrote the books and my reaction to them instigated the b+w picturing activity which resulted in the civilized ku # 950 picture accompanying the entry(as well as # 954 and # 957).
The revelatory insight I experienced in the viewing of Adams's pictures was the nearly overwhelming sensation of Form the pictures conveyed. Having read several of Adams's books - Why People Photograph and Beauty in Photography in particular - I was mentally aware that Adams believes (as do I) "the proper goal of art is ... Beauty" and the Beauty that concerns him is that of Form - Beauty, for Adams, is "a synonym for the coherence and structure underlying life".
I used the phrase "mentally aware" regarding Adams's idea of underlying Form because, prior to viewing my 2 most recent Adams book purchases, I must admit that I was never really able to see that Form in his pictures. Which is not to state that I didn't appreciate his pictures - I most certainly did (and do), but the Form thing was something I struggled with seeing in his work.
That is, until I viewed Adams's beautifully reproduced pictures, especially so in his book, The New West. Those pictures - which have as their referents some of humankind's less endearing efforts at "civilizing" the planet, as mentioned in civilized ku # 950, exhibited an overwhelming sense of "radiant and luminous brilliance", a quality gained through Adams's picturing MO/trope (brilliantly accomplished) of picturing, almost exclusively, in brilliant / bright western sunlight.
In discussing Beauty and Form, Adams states:
... William Carlos Williams said that poets write for a single reason - to give witness to splendor (a word also used by Thomas Aquinas in defining the beautiful). It is a useful word, especially for a photographer, because it implies light - light of overwhelming intensity The Form toward which art points is of an incontrovertible brilliance, but it is also far too intense to examine directly. We are compelled to understand Form by its fragmentary reflection in the daily objects around us; art will never fully define light.
I have read that passage (and chapter) from Beauty in Photography quite a number times in an attempt to more fully understand Adams's, and perhaps my own, idea of Beauty and Form. However, it wasn't until I looked at the pictures in The New West that the light bulb rather suddenly turned on above the cartoon drawing of my head ...
... Beauty, Form, splendor, light, brilliance, intense ... I get it now - it is all about the light. The light is Adams' metaphor for the "coherence and structure underlying life", aka: Beauty / Form. Despite humankind's often banal efforts (and results) - many of those are amply represented in all of Adams's pictures - to civilize the planet, there is always the light, almost always brilliant and intense. So, voila, I can now view Adams's picture in a different light.
an aside - intentional or not on Adams's part, I am also very appreciative of the fact that Adams chooses to utilize as his metaphor, to reveal Beauty and Form, the light which is least appreciated, most often avoided like the plague, and scorned by those pretty picture makers who "chase" only the cliched, ubiquitously obvious, and over-wrought-ly presented "golden" light.
All of the preceding said, and back to the point of this entry (color vs b+w), I have included a color version of civilized ku # 950 for your consideration. I could brattle on for another 20 paragraphs about the difference between the 2 pictures, but suffice it to state, all of the aspects of the real that I see in the b+w version I see in the color version and then some. And, I most certainly respond much more emotionally to the color picture - amongst other elements, that red newspaper box really gets me wound up - than I do to the b+w picture.
In any event, that how I see it. How do you see it? - either pictures, themselves, or the color vs b+w topic itself.
Reader Comments (5)
You are right, the colour version makes it very difficult to see anything beyond the red box and one would have to be forgiven for thinking that it was the reason for making the image. The two pictures are a good demonstration how as an artist you can influence what the viewer will consider.
Mark
Thanks for those thoughts. I found what you had to say about Robert Adam’s photos interesting. Why do you think he decided that black and white was the way to reveal the light and how it illuminated the subject? Your photos are a representation of the ‘real’ but surely there are times when B&W does this better than colour. I find that atmosphere is often communicated better in black and white. I don’t know if you are familiar with a book by the British war photographer Don McCullin called ‘Open Skies’ which are dark B&W photos of his native Somerset countryside. I think they conjure up the reality and atmosphere of a British winter much better than any colour photos could do. While I am on the subject of atmosphere I might add that I am a fan of Film Noir. The dark contrasty B&W photography is integral to the ‘reality’ that these films are attempting to portray. But don’t get me wrong. I love your colour photos. But do you not think that B&W can sometimes capture a bit more atmosphere?
It is a picture of a situtation most people would never consider taking a picture of. I prefer the coloured one. Why? The red box is catching the view of the beholder. After that one's view is free to dwell over the image. But at every time the eye comes back to the red point of attention. That makes this picture just as abstract as the black and white one. The meaning of the photographed situation is not important in this picture.
The photograph in colour balances on the edge of abstract and surreal.
IMO the black and white one is dull. Moreover,
you used a different crop.
Jaap, it is not only a different crop, it is a different photo (look at the clouds and traffic on the highway).
Here is my take, for which I have a hard time explaining:
Now that I see the color picture, I like the B+W less, but still like it more than the color one. Cannot explain why. Perhaps the color has taken some mystery away?
For me the use of color vs. monochrome has everything to with distraction. In some color images the eye is distracted by powerful colors in objects that are tangential to the main subject(s). Unless that is your goal, then sometimes it is better to go B&W, particularly if you cannot frame the image such that the distracting features can be eliminated.
Just as an example, in this color image I find my eye is drawn back and forth between the red box and the strong green traffic sign over the highway. In the B&W version, the green sign's tonality blends in with the brush and becomes unnoticeable; my eye is drawn rather between the box and the lamp post--the dominent structures in the foreground. I'm not sure of the picture maker's intent, but if (e.g.) it was to feature the box, then both images have done so successfully, but each promotes a different strong secondary subject.