You're missing out on some wonderful and inspired photography.
Richard Misrach's for example.
Or Todd Hido's
But I I don't believe that color is an element of composition or content or even form as had been said before.
Yes, & not a really appealing photo in colour or bw.....
The choice of color vs bw cannot affect the essence of a photo
"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."
You're missing out on some wonderful and inspired photography.
Richard Misrach's for example.
Or Todd Hido's
Why do you keep subjecting yourself to having so much crap thrown at you here?
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...
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.
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..A red in painting is really a red paint something material. In photography is just an element of reality
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.But really can you remind me what are we really arguing about?
Yes I strongly believe that there is good photography (very rare), bad photography (rare), and uninteresting photography (super common). Basically, if you want to believe that there's such a thing as good or bad photography, be my guest.
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.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.
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.Yes I strongly believe that there is good photography (very rare), bad photography (rare), and uninteresting photography (super common)
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)
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).If this means that there's photography you enjoy, photography you actively dislike and photography you don't care about, then that's fine.
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.
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).
"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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?