Color vs Black and White, the eternal debate

[Alex Benjamin]

But I I don't believe that color is an element of composition or content or even form as had been said before.

You're missing out on some wonderful and inspired photography.

Richard Misrach's for example.

Or Todd Hido's

 

[Arthurwg]

Yes, & not a really appealing photo in colour or bw.....

Exactly.

 

[Arthurwg]

The choice of color vs bw cannot affect the essence of a photo

Don't be silly.

 

[loccdor]

This is what I meant about an image that works great in color but would be unremarkable in B&W.

 

[Arthurwg]

"For Malraux, black-and-white photography could transcend the literal and enter the realm of art, while color tended to anchor the image in reality — making it more illustrative than imaginative."

This has something to do with the "abstract" quality of B&W.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Not considering here yet, I don't believe, is the way at looking at the final image. How it's presented to the viewer. I think we're assuming a print that was done well, hanging on a wall in a gallery. What if the image is for a newspaper or a circular? Colors aren't usually very good. A BW may be clearer and have more impact, especially if it's about war or crime. Pictures are usually smaller which has an effect.

 

[nikos79]

You're missing out on some wonderful and inspired photography.

Richard Misrach's for example.

Or Todd Hido's

You mean Richard Misrach yes I find him interesting use of color I know him.

 

[nikos79]

Why do you keep subjecting yourself to having so much crap thrown at you here?

Maybe I don't see something who knows

 

[nikos79]

I don't know why you are getting from my posts that I don't like color photography or that I consider it inferior, on the contrary I said that because of the inherent difficulties it presents I admire the good color photography

 

[Alex Benjamin]

And if I am poor and of limited mental capabilities I am sure you cannot say thay about the brilliant mind of Andre Malraux:

"Malraux saw color as central to the emotional and symbolic power of painting, but he also considered it more ephemeral and culturally variable than form or composition."

"For Malraux, black-and-white photography could transcend the literal and enter the realm of art, while color tended to anchor the image in reality — making it more illustrative than imaginative."

First, you're not quoting Malraux but someone (unnamed) writing about Malraux.

Second, this is totally out of context. Malraux only interest regarding photography—and hence his entire concept of photography—was its role and effect in the reproduction of art works. His thoughts about colour vs black and white were conceived while he was working on Le musée imaginaire, book in which photographs of artworks held an important, central place. None of this can be transcribed into a general philosophy of photography. There's no indication Malraux had even the slightest interest in photography other than relating to the reproduction of art works

Moreover, Le musée imaginaire was written in 1952-1954, about the time Ernst Haas, Helen Levitt and Saul Leiter started working in colour, and way before the appearace of colour works by Shore, Meyerowitz, Eggleston et al...

 

[nikos79]

First, you're not quoting Malraux but someone (unnamed) writing about Malraux.

Second, this is totally out of context. Malraux only interest regarding photography—and hence his entire concept of photography—was its role and effect in the reproduction of art works. His thoughts about colour vs black and white were conceived while he was working on Le musée imaginaire, book in which photographs of artworks held an important, central place. None of this can be transcribed into a general philosophy of photography. There's no indication Malraux had even the slightest interest in photography other than relating to the reproduction of art works

Moreover, Le musée imaginaire was written in 1952-1954, about the time Ernst Haas, Helen Levitt and Saul Leiter started working in colour, and way before the appearace of colour works by Shore, Meyerowitz, Eggleston et al...

The books were published later. I suspect he had worked on these ideas through the late 60s
It was not the Imaginary Museum

• Le Surnaturel (1974)
• L’Irréel (1974)
• L’Intemporel (1976)

 

[nikos79]

But color in photography is just an element of reality that you have to take into account, it is not a transformative building block as in painting (again my opinion)
A red in painting is really a red paint something material. In photography is just an element of reality

 

[Alex Benjamin]

The books were published later. I suspect he had worked on these ideas through the late 60s
It was not the Imaginary Museum

• Le Surnaturel (1974)
• L’Irréel (1974)
• L’Intemporel (1976)

I'll have to go check. I'm less familiar with these works.

 

[nikos79]

I'll have to go check. I'm less familiar with these works.

I think only the first is translated into English. I found the references from some French websites

 

[nikos79]

But really can you remind me what are we really arguing about?
I think my main stance which caused all that backslash was that:
"A good photograph is a good photograph both in color and in black and white"

I expressed a personal opinion, which again I am not 100% sure about it, just my gut feeling and what I think I believe at this point. Also what helps me to choose photographs when I do digital, I see them in color and if they don't work I usually discard them, if they work then I can decide whether to turn them into bw or not.

 

[koraks]

A red in painting is really a red paint something material. In photography is just an element of reality

I think you're confusing the material artifact of an artwork with the subject matter it may or may not represent, and disregard or are unaware of the fact that no literal subject matter may exist, or that whatever aspect of reality was depicted no longer literally is the subject matter of the resulting artwork. As to the latter, you seem to accept that this is the case with paintings (at least, that's what I suspect), but not with photographs. This sort of inconsistency is puzzling to me, but in earlier instances where attempts were made to make you realize this, any counter-example was shot down as just not good photography anyway. Ah well..

Then that statement of how color cannot be a "transformative building block" - what's that anyway, a 'transformative building block'? Color sure as heck is a main building block of many images or artworks (photographic or otherwise). As to being 'transformative' - color can either be manipulated or twisted to a great extent (counter to your statement in post #1, which lacked any clear basis and seemed just, well, incorrect to me), and in a figurative sense, it can be such a dominant aspect that it 'transforms' whatever reality was photographed by attributing or emphasizing an emotion or a meaning that was lacking in the original scene.

But really can you remind me what are we really arguing about?

The kind of normative statements that are interspersed with your apparent/indicated desire to learn something, such as the two I highlighted above (and many others). Those two aspects (learning and being normative) seem at odds with each other. You're either strongly normative, in which case there may be a willingness to learn, but no ability, because your norms stand in the way of changing your views. Or you're out to learn something, in which case you'll have to let go of the normative stance. I'm normative in the sense that I believe that 'anything goes' (cf Feyerabend), but to make that possible on a forum, there needs to be space for all voices to be heard. If one voice is consistently and strongly normative, then that voice can expect fierce resistance from my end. Basically, if you want to believe that there's such a thing as good or bad photography, be my guest. Same for preferring color over B&W or vice versa, film or digital, etc. etc. It's all good. But the moment someone starts down the path of "color cannot make good art" - well, not in here, you don't. Find a different bar for that brawl.

 

[nikos79]

. Basically, if you want to believe that there's such a thing as good or bad photography, be my guest.

Yes I strongly believe that there is good photography (very rare), bad photography (rare), and uninteresting photography (super common)

Same for preferring color over B&W or vice versa, film or digital, etc. etc.

I don't have any preference of BW vs Color and film or digital etc. Photography is photography I don't care how it was created.

It's all good. But the moment someone starts down the path of "color cannot make good art" - well, not in here, you don't. Find a different bar for that brawl.

Sorry, that I never said it.

 

[koraks]

Yes I strongly believe that there is good photography (very rare), bad photography (rare), and uninteresting photography (super common)

If this means that there's photography you enjoy, photography you actively dislike and photography you don't care about, then that's fine. We all have our preferences. On the other hand, if you mean it like it reads, literally, -i.e.a that some photography is objectively good and some is bad- well, then you'll have to accept that there'll be a lot of friction on your path every time you voice your qualifications.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

The books were published later. I suspect he had worked on these ideas through the late 60s
It was not the Imaginary Museum

• Le Surnaturel (1974)
• L’Irréel (1974)
• L’Intemporel (1976)

Going to borrow this at the library, as I am curious.

This said, you've got your dates wrong. The original essay was published in 1957 under the title La métamorphose des dieux. It was later expanded into three volumes. The reflexions about photography are in volume 1, Le surnaturel, and are indeed about photography and the reproduction of artworks (as in the 1957 original essay) — the idea being that only through photographic reproduction can artworks from all time and from all over the world be made accessible to everybody. This is fundamental to his idea of the Imaginary Museum.

 

[nikos79]

If this means that there's photography you enjoy, photography you actively dislike and photography you don't care about, then that's fine.

Exactly that! My very personal opinion. No photography is objectively good or bad or indifferent. It is just my reaction to it (at the current time).

 

[nikos79]

Going to borrow this at the library, as I am curious.

This said, you've got your dates wrong. The original essay was published in 1957 under the title La métamorphose des dieux. It was later expanded into three volumes. The reflexions about photography are in volume 1, Le surnaturel, and are indeed about photography and the reproduction of artworks (as in the 1957 original essay) — the idea being that only through photographic reproduction can artworks from all time and from all over the world be made accessible to everybody. This is fundamental to his idea of the Imaginary Museum.

You could be right and the reference is wrong and he wrote these things at "The imaginary Museum", meaning way earlier around 1950 as you said.
I thing these are super difficult books to read but perhaps worth trying! I haven't read them yet just seen some of his interviews and read excerpts from the books.

---

"In true questions, there is never an answer." - Andre Malraux

 

[koraks]

Exactly that! My very personal opinion. No photography is objectively good or bad or indifferent. It is just my reaction to it (at the current time).

Ok, got it - then might I suggest calling it that, instead of labeling it 'good' and 'bad'? That makes it seem like you're making a universal statement. I like the addition 'at the current time', because I, too, feel like there's a temporal aspect to personal preferences. In my case, I couldn't express it in simple terms of like vs. dislike, though. There are so many ways to look at a photograph (or any other work of art).

 

[Don_ih]

"A good photograph is a good photograph both in color and in black and white"

Your statement assumes that there is a single photograph that can be shown either in colour or in black and white. On the face of it, that seems true. But what that idea already fully assumes is that colour is merely a characteristic of a photo - a non-essential one - that the photo remains the same if you drain all colour from it. But there are many instances (some of which have been presented here) where colour is essential to the photo.

 

[GregY]

Your statement assumes that there is a single photograph that can be shown either in colour or in black and white. On the face of it, that seems true. But what that idea already fully assumes is that colour is merely a characteristic of a photo - a non-essential one - that the photo remains the same if you drain all colour from it. But there are many instances (some of which have been presented here) where colour is essential to the photo.

Thank you Don!

 

[Craig]

I think this would be a nothing photo in B&W, it's all about the colour of the trees.