The New Color: The Return of Black-and-White

[tim atherton]

If any-one's interested, a somewhat interesting essay by Charlotte Cotton (plus my minor blathering about it)

http://photo-muse.blogspot.com/2007/03/new-color-return-of-black-and-white.html

http://www.tipofthetongue.org/main.html?id=0

plenty of ammo for everyone...

[Scott Davis]

I read the article, and I'm on the fence about her summation- that "a time when photography's value as a contemporary way of seeing is to be questioned" is upon us. I think photographic imagery is still very much currency of the realm in this day and age, but the methods of its production and display are in flux. The advent of cellphone cams and digital video are certainly changing the medium, but I don't think that photo-captured imagery (as opposed to CGI-rendered) will cease relevance. So much of our common cultural language is now spoken through recorded images. To remove photographic imagery from world culture today would be like trying to remove Latinate words from the English language.

[Michael Graves]

Isn't it odd that a pen and ink drawing by a good artist draws no less praise than the oil painting in full color. But when the discussion turns to photography? B&W seems to become an orphan child. Personally, I prefer black and white. Always have....always will. But that's just me, daring to express my opinion.

[paulr]

Isn't it odd that a pen and ink drawing by a good artist draws no less praise than the oil painting in full color...

Is that true? What artists today are making waves with pen and ink drawings?

Not posing a rhetorical question ... i'm curious if anyone knows of examples.

[Glenn Thoreson]

I agree, Michael. To me, there's nothing comparable to a finely executed B&W print. Color has it's
place, of course, and I'm not knocking it. The wow factor, for me, will always be black and white, though.

[David A. Goldfarb]

Is that true? What artists today are making waves with pen and ink drawings?

Not posing a rhetorical question ... i'm curious if anyone knows of examples.

Comix, graphic novels, etc.

[Vaughn]

Isn't it odd that a pen and ink drawing by a good artist draws no less praise than the oil painting in full color. But when the discussion turns to photography? B&W seems to become an orphan child. Personally, I prefer black and white. Always have....always will. But that's just me, daring to express my opinion.

Just another observation, but I have come across art historians and painting faculty (university setting) who praise a historic/established painter's paintings, but snub the same artist's etchings as being unimportant. So I am not quite sure your point is correct. That, along with the another concept I have heard of...that the critique of art is in itself an art form, has made me wonder about the the general ability of university art historians to actually think critically.

My apologies to any art historians here, but I get the impression that the university art history programs tend to churn out mental lemmings.

Vaughn

[davidb]

I just finished listening to this while working on some silver gelatin prints in my darkroom. I am not sure what to think just yet.

[Robert Hughes]

My impression is that Ms. Cotton's opinions and positions are heavily "colored" by her choice of occupation, that of curator for modern art museums and galleries. Is it any suprise then that her primary concerns are about fashion: "I had doubts, of course, about photography's moment in art's spotlight." Translated: will it fly off the wall into the homes of the rich and dedicated followers of this week's Statement?

I am struck by her lack of emphasis on the process of creation, as if the only reason analog/b&w photographers keep working in the medium is nostalgia. "Reveling in the auratic propensity of monochrome photographic thinking is perhaps not an unreconstructed Modernist impulse any longer, but rather a true reaction to the axis shift in the way we look at photography in light of digital." If I understand this statement correctly, it appears she has decided that b&w photographers are either old dinosaurs or archly ironic pseudo-Luddite avant gardists, playing the audience for subterranean echoes of memory. Everything must refer to previous works: "Susan Lipper's .... fictional version of the American road trip was a signpost to me as to how relevant a contemporary black-and-white vision could be. Somehow, Lipper managed to combine the classic Robert Frank-ian pictures-just-waiting-to-happen with the tangible sense of her own photographic discovery....So, too, is the comment upon warfare by An-My Lê, which utilizes the aesthetics and rhetoric of the earliest war photography by Roger Fenton at the Crimean War or the graphic portrayal of America's Civil War by George Barnard."

Is that what goes through your mind when you set up and take a shot? Do you intentionally make your work to comment on art history? I'm not that clever, I'm not a curator at MoMA. I can't even figure what she means here:

"While I think that the jury is still out as to whether more than a sophisticated minority can intuit the difference between an active and unreconstructed pastime of homemade abstract photography and the critical rethinking of a sidelined process, this is hardly a criticism to level at this artist's intentions....You can choose to see such a gesture of unique happenstance as essentially formal or as the ascendance of strategies that resist and confound the de-politicized, decorative tsunami of photography-as-art that we are currently submerged beneath."

It sounds rather elitist, whatever she said. But she is a virtuoso with words.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Who cares. I wonder if she ever took a photograph? Not that it matters.

I do what I do because I like it. I used to photograph in color, when it wasn't cool. Now I photograph in B&W when it isn't cool, so I guess I am not with the in crowd. Darn, no sleep tonight. Big Color prints are in today and out tomorrow, who knows what will be next, maybe tiny little 35mm contact prints.

[Mark Sawyer]

"Reveling in the auratic propensity of monochrome photographic thinking is perhaps not an unreconstructed Modernist impulse any longer..." ~ Charlotte Cotton

ummm... could somebody translate that into English for me?

[Vaughn]

"Reveling in the auratic propensity of monochrome photographic thinking is perhaps not an unreconstructed Modernist impulse any longer..." ~ Charlotte Cotton

ummm... could somebody translate that into English for me?

"Doctor, my brain hurts!" (said in my best Monty Python voice). I was developing negs until 2 this morning, then rode home the 10 miles on my bicycle. Then off to work at 9am. I thought that perhaps it was just my tired brain that made it impossible for me to penetrate the art-talk of Ms. Cotton and pull out a clear statement.

The quotation above is a beautiful sentence. Basically, I think it means that it is now okay, even if you are a Modernist, to enjoy the quality of black and white photography.

Vaughn

Edited to add...my appologies for my previous negative statement about art historians. I think I was reacting to feelings of inadaquacies from not understanding what Ms Cotton had written. That, and a past experience of having an art historian as a boss.

[Mark Sawyer]

Actually, in my ignorance, I looked up "auratic" in the online Cambridge, Merriam-Webster's, Encarta, and American Heritage dictionaries. None had an entry...

[Marko]

The way I understand her, she is basically saying that fashion goes through brief cycles and that every once in a while the old comes back with a twist and becomes new again, because inventing new things so often is sooo tiresome.

Of course, she does it in many more words to prove that she really is the sophisticate she fancies herself to be. And to prove that she really belongs to such a refined position she holds... ;)

The problem is, I don't quite see any of us here as being fashionable, so her point is more or less obsucred by all the fluff. Much less fashionistas or, God forbid, socialites for whom the apearance is of utmost importance and substance of none. I kid you not, those two ...words, for a want of better description... are frequently used in the "social" press.

Sometimes I think that parallel worlds do indeed exist, most of them in this country.

:D

[r.e.]

What I don't get about this thread is why someone thinks that Ms. Cotton's essay is worth reading. I have read her piece twice now, and her command of the language, or rather lack of it, is trully embarrassing. She desperately needs an editor who can turn her ideas, whatever they are, into something approximating English.

[John Kasaian]

A lot of words and a lot of names thrown in. I wonder if she knows any of those photographers deeply enough to know why they do what they do or if she is just speculating? The idea of the color of photography being the color of memory is pretty neat, but the rest I found confusing, especially the part about finding a "fresh" way of making photographs---it sounds contrived in light of what a photograph is as I see it---a time and place and maybe a thing taken "out" of time, crudely preserved on a fragile bit of film, glass or paper, exisitng for what purpose? Perhaps part of collective memory that is only realized post facto (Atget's stuff, as old as dirt but it is still "fresh" to my eyes!)

What a fantastic mystery! Instead we just get a list of names. Perhaps if she gave some examples then I could understand it better.
You know:"...a picture is worth a thousand..."

[Vaughn]

Actually, in my ignorance, I looked up "auratic" in the online Cambridge, Merriam-Webster's, Encarta, and American Heritage dictionaries. None had an entry...

I am assuming the base is "aura". Why would someone use "quotidian" instead of the instead of "common" or "every-day". Art-speak. I think she likes to read her own wordage a bit too much.

The website has potential. Its goal: "Tip of the Tongue is a project that will evolve over the course of 2007. Its aim is to find the words that explain emergent issues for photography." It looks like they will be inviting people to contribute esseys...hopefully future contributors will write not just for the art historian/SPE crowd.

Vaughn

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

If any-one's interested, a somewhat interesting essay by Charlotte Cotton (plus my minor blathering about it)

http://photo-muse.blogspot.com/2007/03/new-color-return-of-black-and-white.html

http://www.tipofthetongue.org/main.html?id=0

plenty of ammo for everyone...

Well, speaking in terms of what's being collected... black and white's hayday is over for now. The new trend is largescale color photographs... the old, 8 x 10 small black and white collectors have all but dissappeared.

[tim atherton]

well - that was predictable

[Mark_C]

Well, speaking in terms of what's being collected... black and white's hayday is over for now. The new trend is largescale color photographs... the old, 8 x 10 small black and white collectors have all but dissappeared.

I wonder how do you know about that?

BTW Anyone had ever seen "old, 8 x 10 small black and white collectors"?:confused:

truly surprised with emptiness of meaningless statements
-Mark C

[r.e.]

the old, 8 x 10 small black and white collectors have all but dissappeared.

There are enough to support the thickest, slickest photography magazine that appears on my local newstand: http://www.bandwmag.com/backissues/index.html. It isn't the world's most adventurous magazine, but apparently people read it.

The other day, I was showing some B&W photographs to a number of people under 30. Every one of them made a point of saying how much they like black and white as a medium.

The premise of the Cotton article is that B&W left in the first place. Is that true, or is it just sky-is-falling stuff?

[Edwin Lachica]

I've tried to digest Cotton's article bellow. After reading the article twice, I still could not wrap my head around what she was really trying to say. So I did what the old college way of trying to understand text, outline it and break the article into pieces. Hope it helps others to wade through the article. :)

She is actually pretty much anti-fashion in a sense that she thinks current "contemporary-art photography" is conservative and rigid and its claims to a contemporary way of seeing as questionable.

But her statements I think have to be qualified from the perspective of "contemporary art photgraphy" and not photography as a whole.

BTW, for those who missed it, her article links to all the photographers she mentions including images etc.


I. Introduction: Setting the Scene

I. Early 2000s Researching for her book: (photography as contemporary art) and curating exhibits on the history of photgraphy

A. The market for photography was setting and breaking new records

1. Examples: Richard Prince’s untitle cowboy photograph (US$1.248 million) and Steichen’s Pond Moonlight (US$ 2.9)

B. Photography has undergone a “face-lift” enabling it to sit alongside painting and the visual arts in international fairs and art center

1. Large scale C prints mounted on plexi glass

2. Extremely small edition numbers

3. “Staged” photographs

a) Every prop and gesture could be attributed to the artist’s direction

b) N.B. Author views above with suspicion and views it a bastard form of photography

(1) She was schooled in the magic of photography: willfull embrace of luck, mistakes and happenstance

(2) She does not want to deride the “awe-inspiring handful of artists” who showed us that photography is a “supremely capable and elastic medium”

(3) But the popularity of “staged” photos does not herald “understanding of photography’s broad creative terrain”

C. Since the mid-1990s black and white photography (documentary photography / pseudo documentary photography) has lost popular interest

1. Viewers are used to the “big , colorful spectacle of contemporary art photogrpaphy”

2. 35mm work has not offered “style and production values required to sustain clear legibility”

a) Truly great photographs by Stieglits, Evans, Weston Kertész and Cartier-Bresson (mostly LF and MF) are still very powerful within the cultural milieu

b) Contemporary relevance for the current practitioner of black and white will be a hit and miss

(1) Dominance of color in contemporary art photography

(2) B&W as a historic and once-important art form

(a) Last generation of B&W contemporary art photographers were from the 1950s

(i) Arbus, Winogrand, Friedlander

(b) Current students and younger artists tend to reference Cindy Sherman and the god-fathers of color photography

(i) Eggleston, Shore

(ii) with occasional referencing of proto-artist-using-photogrpahy

(a) Man Ray, Ruscha

(iii) Bernd & Hilla Becher are seen as unreapeatable but they demonstrate how (B&W)photography can be discipine and controlled

(iv) It is telling what the current artist keep relevant nad in contemporary circulation

D. The rise of digital technology

1. Color is now predominantly hybridized

2. Digital capture is making inroads into creative practice

a) artists she has talked to see it as a viable option

(1) good enough quality and long term cost effectiivity

(2) she cites pragmatics and creativity as key ingredients in true art photography

b) but creative exploration of digital photographic languages is held back by the “seductive grip of digirally sharpened and lushly enhance C prints

(1) as they become the print by which to judge others

(a) we forget the pleasure of an entirely analog print (analogous to forgetting the hiss of vinyl records)

(b) the potential for other color languages are slow to emerge

(1) the art-market is still suspicious of ink-jet prints

(2) Digital C-Print dominance

E. Thus the current career oriented photographer chooses a rather conservative path

1. “Trying to be like” Eggleston, Shore & co.

2. Sticking to large C-Prints

3. Not departing from these standards.


II. Black & White will provide photography’s long term positioning within the Art World



A. Black & White is complex, messy, unfashionable and has a wide scope which are ingredients for cognizant, challenging photography

1. Established darkroom trial and error loving photographers are stockpiling on film and paper

2. Young practitioners are experimenting ironically transforming chromatic digital to monochrome

3. B&W analog is still the key entry point to photography outside of the financially and technologically privileged families and high schools

a) a cheap way to teach visual literacy in not so well off schools

b) while techno-friendly time-rich amateur photgrapher crafts his black and white masterpieces by digital means an epson

4. re-appearance of monochrome fashion photography

5. monochrome work is seen as a reprieve from potential cultural extinction

B. Looking and defining photographic practice in print

1. Nostalgia in photography:
a) Self-consciousness in the the act of looking at a photographic print
(1) Taking pleasure in the physicality of a photographic print and its survival through time

(a) Embracing the profoundness (auratic) of monochrome photography as a true shift away from the way we look at photographs in these digital times

2. Photography is an act of making choices regarding methods and visions which “should not be defined by the fashionable, marketable production values of an era”

a) Lipper’s Trip and Schoor’s Forest and Fields as revivals of photographic heritage at the same time making it fresh

b) An-My Lê’s Small Wars series referencing rethoric and aesthetics of Roger Fenton and George Barnard

c) Not as acts of rethinking history but offering creative in process solutions to the potential quagmire of the color manifestations of photography-as-contemporary-art

d) Survey of Works

(1) Osamu Kanemura

(2) Jason Evans

(3) Marketa Othova / Jasansky & Polak

(4) Walead Beschty

(5) Christopher Williams, James Welling, Shannon Ebner Michael Queenland

e) Contemporary black and white photography and photographers as surveyed aboved present the true maverick character of photography at a time when current contemporary art photography’s “contemporary way” of seeing is questionable

[Dick Hilker]

Since most younger people were introduced to photography after B&W had been eclipsed by color in the popular market, perhaps there's a sense of nostalgia for the seeming simplicity and quaintness of images that evoke memories of the good olde days. I've noticed a lot of interest on photo forums in how to convert color images to B&W. Obviously, these folks are using their digital cameras and have no real interest in the traditional wet darkroom processes, but are fascinated by pictures that, for them, are different. Will the trend last? I doubt it. Like most such things, since it's based more on curiosity than a deeper motive, it will self-extinguish when the next "new" thing comes along.

Conversely, for those whose experiences included their apprenticeship in the darkroom, B&W will continue to be a unique language for artistic expression.

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Hey Edwin,

Thanks!

Eric

[paulr]

Comix, graphic novels, etc.

These strike me as different media that happen to use drawing as a main ingredient ... not so much as examples of drawing pushing the frontiers (or even just getting trendy) in the plastic arts.

[paulr]

What I don't get about this thread is why someone thinks that Ms. Cotton's essay is worth reading. I have read her piece twice now ...

"Waiter! This meal is terrible! Bring me seconds!"

[paulr]

Brilliant summary, Edwin.

It seems that Cotton's writing skills are a few notches below her thinking skills. Your digested version makes a lot more sense.

Here's my re-digested version of your version:

I. Black and white photography has been unfashionable and marginalized for a long time now.

II. Some artists are finding ways to use it that breathe new life into it while still maintaining ties to the tradition.

I think her points and her examples are pretty good; if she had hired someone like you as an editor, and found a way to speak her mind in a couple of un-auratic paragraphs, she'd be getting a lot less grief from the peanut gallery.

[r.e.]

"Waiter! This meal is terrible! Bring me seconds!"

Funny, but that is exactly what food and wine critics, and indeed other kinds of critics, do. It's about satisifying oneself that one's initial judgment, especially if negative, was either right or wrong. Being from Brooklyn, you may be familiar with New York Times critic Frank Bruni. He doesn't write restaurant reviews based on a single experience.

I'm not going to say that this woman can't write without giving her a chance. After two chances, she reminds me of a first year university student with a pen in one hand, a thesaurus in the other and no clear idea of how to get from A to B, nor indeed what A and B are. It really shouldn't be necessary for someone like Edwin to have to take apart a 2000 word essay in detail to figure out what is being said. And if your digest is indeed the sum total of what she has to say, it ain't much.

...

Doesn't the existence of newspapers, which are pervasive as a form of communication and which are chock full of black and white photographs, suggest that black and white as a medium is alive and well?

[paulr]

Funny, but that is exactly what food and wine critics, and indeed other kinds of critics, do.

i agree; i just thought your phrasing was funny.

[r.e.]

Paul, cool.

If I wanted to make a case that black and white has low acceptance as a medium, I think that I'd point to film and television. If those media are indicative, the public stopped accepting black and white, rather abruptly, forty to fifty years ago. In other words, this is very old news.

On the other hand, when producers have made feature films in black and white in the last few decades, the films have sometimes been very successful; just to take some recent examples, Woody Allen's Match Point, Clint Eastwood's Million Dollar Baby and George Clooney's Good Night and Good Luck. And these days, when a producer chooses to release a film in black and white, he is making a decision to do something that presents a lot of technical challenges relating to stock and processing. For example, if I recall correctly, Good Night and Good Luck was shot in colour and was desaturated in post production. Yet producers sometimes go with black and white despite the problems and despite the financial risk.

Maybe the bottom line is the old adage that some subjects just work better in colour and some just work better in black and white.

[jnantz]

thanks for the breakdown edwin -

i am just wishing for a 48" flat panel plazma TV with a "desaturate" button on it.

great signature paulr :)

-john

[Jim Ewins]

The Bard could make the statement about Ms Cotton; "Much ado about..."

[Robert Hughes]

Edwin's bullet-point breakdown of the Cotton article exemplifies the ways in which specialist language patterns inadvertantly fracture common knowledge. In a way, Ms. Cotton's work (and Edwin's clear translation) point out that art-speak, like legalese, has become the province of a benighted inner circle, intentionally created to concisely describe fine points of the art, yet exist beyond the understanding of mere mortals, perhaps like the special language of the Imperial Chinese mandarin class.

My perusal of the New Century Dictionary of 1927 does not find "auratic", but does have a definition to "aureate": Gilded; golden; golden-yellow. So her "auratic propensity" possibly was a reference to modern photographers' wish to tap into the public's yearning back to a Golden Age of photography as a source material. Very skillful and concise wordsmithy, if you can follow her lines.

[tim atherton]

Edwin's bullet-point breakdown of the Cotton article exemplifies the ways in which specialist language patterns inadvertantly fracture common knowledge. In a way, Ms. Cotton's work (and Edwin's clear translation) point out that art-speak, like legalese, has become the province of a benighted inner circle, intentionally created to concisely describe fine points of the art, yet exist beyond the understanding of mere mortals, perhaps like the special language of the Imperial Chinese mandarin class.


or any even moderately serious scientific paper or article

(I guess I cut my teeth many years ago as a youngster on the continental theologians and philosophers. And although it's been a while, after wading through Karl Barth, Jungel, Schillebeeckx or Merleau-Ponty the language in articles such as these seems fairly crystal clear... :-) )

[tim atherton]

PS - Auratic is basically "having an aura" - or perhaps "possessing/creating an aura" an idea developed by Walter Benjamin (and expanded by others later) especially with regard to photography. It has to do with photography's particular ability to take something fairly ordinary and essentially turn it into something special, worthy of the viewers gaze. There's more to it than that but I think that's pretty much the essence

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

I wonder how do you know about that?

Because it's my job to know about the trends in collecting photography. Ask any gallery or dealer today in New York, LA, or SF about what collectors are buying and you'll hear the same statement. In fact, in the February '07 issue of Focus magazine, we had a pull quote in a John Bennette article that was from Yancey Richardson, owner, director and curator of the Yancey Richardson Gallery, who is also a member of AIPAD, that the biggest trend she sees today is the dissappearance fo black and white photography. Walk into most galleries in Chelsea today, you won't find any black and white.


BTW Anyone had ever seen "old, 8 x 10 small black and white collectors"?:confused: truly surprised with emptiness of meaningless statements
-Mark C

In its beginnings as a collectible form of art, through the mid 1990s, 8 x 10 and at the most 11 x 14 photographs were the only ones ever purchased. Rarely was anything bigger than a 11 x 14 purchased for a serious collector. Then, when color fine art photography became a trend in collecting in the mid-late 1990s and what's really taken over almost all of the art photography world right now is largescale (we're talking 80 x 100 largescale) art photography. Look at the AIPAD show over the past 27 years. When the show first started, there was ONLY black and white photography... color photography wasn't taken as a serious form of collectible art photography back then. 10 years ago, only a few galleries had color photography at the show... and this year an overhwelming majority of galleries will be exhibiting largescale color work at the '07 show.

When I had a booth at Photo SF and NY, people only bought largescale color work from my booth and other booths.

So, interacting with the collector and seeing what the really wanted to buy, discussing these trends with curators and dealers and seeing what's being sold at major photography art fairs has given me enough evidence to form the opinion that black and white's hayday is over. Yes, there will always be some collectors to whom are partial to black and white photography...but the market is really 60-40, 70-30 right now...and the proportions will become even more lopsided in the near future.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

There are enough to support the thickest, slickest photography magazine that appears on my local newstand: http://www.bandwmag.com/backissues/index.html. It isn't the world's most adventurous magazine, but apparently people read it.


There absolutely are enough collectors and photographers in the market of fine art photography to support B&W. In 8 years of publication, their circulation is 28,000 according to their website. Look at LensWork and Black & White Photography UK. All of them, including Rassmuesens magazine are great publications and I subscribe to both B&W (US) and LensWork. Whether or not market trends will support growth for both publications so that their circulation can grow above 100,000 remains to be seen.

By my the time my 13th issue hits newsstands, my circulation will surpass both B&W and LensWork theirs in only two years of publication. The reason being? What's going to do better on newsstands? A magazine about football or a magazine about professional sports? While people who are passionate about football may subscribe to both, people who are passionate about all aspects of professional sports, not just one aspect of it will subscribe to the sports magazine. There are more people interested in fine art photography as a whole than just purely black and white photography.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Doesn't the existence of newspapers, which are pervasive as a form of communication and which are chock full of black and white photographs, suggest that black and white as a medium is alive and well?

Actually....no. Instead of using 4 inks they're using 1. So it's cheaper production values.

By the way, show me 5 newspapers here that have their front pages in black and white:

http://www.newseum.org/todaysfrontpages/

[David Karp]

So, interacting with the collector and seeing what the really wanted to buy, discussing these trends with curators and dealers and seeing what's being sold at major photography art fairs has given me enough evidence to form the opinion that black and white's hayday is over.

Is there any chance that these trends ebb and flow? Will it always be this way? Will b&w eventually become more attractive to purchasers? Or is today's trend cast in stone? If so, why do you think that? I am curious.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Maybe the bottom line is the old adage that some subjects just work better in colour and some just work better in black and white.

The trends are reversing actually...commercial photography trends are going more and more towards black and white, while fine art photography trends are going more and more towards color...it's as if the two are trying to imitate each other!

[tim atherton]

Is there any chance that these trends ebb and flow? Will it always be this way? Will b&w eventually become more attractive to purchasers? Or is today's trend cast in stone? If so, why do you think that? I am curious.

I think that's in part what Cotton's article was about. Bear in mind she's also part of the group which sets the trends we are talking about.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Is there any chance that these trends ebb and flow? Will it always be this way? Will b&w eventually become more attractive to purchasers? Or is today's trend cast in stone? If so, why do you think that? I am curious.

I think it would be illogical to conclude that fine art photography will not follow the same cycles and trends that other products' cycles and trends follow. Look at any trend in the past 50 years. One minute, it's the hottest commodity on the market (i.e. small black and white photographs that were popular in the 70s - mid 90s) the next only a few people want it and it's out of style. Black and white photography as a popular collectible art form is out of style currently. Does that mean that you should stop photographing in black and white or stop trying to sell black and white photography? Absolutely not! But it means that if you want to make a career off of selling your photography to collectors, you have to go with the trends. Almost like being in the stock market...you can't put all of your eggs in one basket, you have to diversify! Offer black and white photography up to a certain print size and offer largescale color photography as well! If this is something you do as a hobby or sell to collectors part time, do what you feel passionate about. No photograph, no matter how incredible your technique of print making or how amazing your subject matter is will look good if the photographer is not passionate about what he or she is creating and doing.

I believe that there will always be enough people around to support black and white art photography as a medium and it will never die. Whether or not black and white photography comes back as the more popular medium to collect in the future, I think will be determined by technology. 30 years ago, no one in their right mind would've said that large color photographs will be more popular than standard black and white photographs...then digital came along and completely changed the market.

The new trend isn't still photography at all. I believe in a conversation I recently had with a dealer is that moving photographs will become the new trend soon. I believe he said that this wasn't a type of photograph that involved electricity or a computer monitor or technology at all (like a video) but that this was a new type of photograph that recorded a series of images and displayed that entire series of images in a sort of slideshow...I'll have to ask him again, because the more I'm talking about this the less it makes sense.

[David Karp]

Re Tim's comment. That's kind of what I was wondering, but the statement that black and white's heyday is over was so strong, I became curious regarding the grounds for the statement.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Is there any chance that these trends ebb and flow? Will it always be this way? Will b&w eventually become more attractive to purchasers? Or is today's trend cast in stone? If so, why do you think that? I am curious.

By the way, I might be interested in attending your lecture next month. Please give me more information about it when you can.

[Mark Sawyer]

To grossly over-simplify in summing up, in chronological order, the trends of the Fine Art Photography World for the last fifty years:

Black-and-white is in, color is out...
Color is in, black-and-white is out...
Black-and-white is in, color is out...
Color is in, black-and-white is out...
Black-and-white is in, color is out...
Color is in, black-and-white is out...

Gee, any guesses what the next trend will be?

[kmgibbs]

In its beginnings as a collectible form of art, through the mid 1990s, 8 x 10 and at the most 11 x 14 photographs were the only ones ever purchased. Rarely was anything bigger than a 11 x 14 purchased for a serious collector. Then, when color fine art photography became a trend in collecting in the mid-late 1990s and what's really taken over almost all of the art photography world right now is largescale (we're talking 80 x 100 largescale) art photography. Look at the AIPAD show over the past 27 years. When the show first started, there was ONLY black and white photography... color photography wasn't taken as a serious form of collectible art photography back then. 10 years ago, only a few galleries had color photography at the show... and this year an overhwelming majority of galleries will be exhibiting largescale color work at the '07 show.

When I had a booth at Photo SF and NY, people only bought largescale color work from my booth and other booths.

So, interacting with the collector and seeing what the really wanted to buy, discussing these trends with curators and dealers and seeing what's being sold at major photography art fairs has given me enough evidence to form the opinion that black and white's hayday is over. Yes, there will always be some collectors to whom are partial to black and white photography...but the market is really 60-40, 70-30 right now...and the proportions will become even more lopsided in the near future.

I would be interested to know how chemically toned photographs fit into this? They are not technically monochrome after strong toning and would seem to fall into a category of their own.

Kent

[David Karp]

Technology does seem to have an effect. Just a wild __ guess, but for all those years when color was out and b&w was in, most people took their own color photos. Art color was not so different from what most people could do themselves. Now technology allows the artist to readily make big color prints. Not everyone can do it so now collectors are interested in big color. As everyone collects big color, and it becomes commonplace, then maybe big b&w will be "in." Maybe it's kind of like fashion. Once big b&w is around for a while, then maybe a collector will decide that small is beautiful.

As for me, it really does not matter, since I just do it for myself. I was just curious about why you feel that b&w's heyday is over.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

To grossly over-simplify in summing up, in chronological order, the trends of the Fine Art Photography World for the last fifty years:

Black-and-white is in, color is out...
Color is in, black-and-white is out...
Black-and-white is in, color is out...
Color is in, black-and-white is out...
Black-and-white is in, color is out...
Color is in, black-and-white is out...

Gee, any guesses what the next trend will be?

That's a bit of over-simplifcation. Color photography really hasn't been a trend until the mid 1990s. But yes, it's more than possible that black and white will be a trend to collect again soon...when the greats of today die.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

I would be interested to know how chemically toned photographs fit into this? They are not technically monochrome after strong toning and would seem to fall into a category of their own.

Kent

You're talking about sepia? Duotone? I think that fits into black and white photography... unlike what magazines (mine included though I'm looking to change that) reproduce, very few black and white photographs are just white, grey and black. George Tice's work has a slight warm tone to them, Keith Carter has a slight violet tone to some of his work. Realistically, very few black and white photographs today are neutral toned.

[adrian tyler]

i agree with what ms cotton is saying about the the predomenance of colout in the gallery world, upto to the point where she begins to justify a b&w revival, althought the examples she gives are in the most part fresh they seem to me in no way ground-breaking determining factors that will "provide photography’s long term positioning within the Art World". i think it is all wishful thinking, if you looked a bit you could find equally fresh and new work going on in colour or digital.

[Edwin Lachica]

I think that's in part what Cotton's article was about. Bear in mind she's also part of the group which sets the trends we are talking about.

Looking at her bio (V&A Curator for photography, Art+commerce etc) and her published work, she is very much at the forefront of setting trends on what collectors and museums will be buying in terms of photography. It does not even concern the general public but the rarefied world of high-end collectors, gallerist, and museums. Note that large scale color works have not penetrated much of the wider market (at least in my area where B&W and small color works still get exhibitied side by side in small galleries). Pity her ruminations (although I think she needs to chew on this a little bit longer :) ) are cloaked in art speak. But perhaps the target audience for her piece was more the "art world" as the the general public.

I'll try and visit Art Basel this year and report back on what's on show and if her colleagues have taken her statements into account.

Cheers,

Edwin.

BTW, I'm glad some of you found my breakdown helpful. I could've gone into detail but halfway, I thought some statements weren't even worth summarising as they were too repetitive. :)

@tim
I was able to cut my teeth into this article precisely from having to wade through theology and philosophy texts (my uni forced us to have a minor in both).

[Mark Sawyer]

That's a bit of over-simplifcation. Color photography really hasn't been a trend until the mid 1990s. But yes, it's more than possible that black and white will be a trend to collect again soon...when the greats of today die.

I'd put the first color trend back to the 70's; Joel Meyerowitz, Marie Cosindas, Elliot Porter...

But is the implication that color could not become a trend today until the "greats" of yesterday had died?

[Martin Miller]

Charlotte Cotton is not the first prominent author to predict the return of b&w. Susan Bright was quoted as saying the same thing in the March 2006 issue of Art News (http://artnews.com/issues/article.asp?art_id=2003). So it could happen if enough tastemakers get behind the idea.

Note, however, that there have also been periodic predictions that abstraction was trending back into painting. However, it has always failed to get major traction.

[paulr]

An idea that hasn't been discussed is the difference between trendiness and relevence to contemporary culture.

They tend to get tangled up together ... might even be related ... but I think there are important differences.

Trendiness is typically a pejorative term. We use it to suggest a trend based more on novelty or herd mentality than on any deeper or more substantial forces.

Cultural relevence has to do with ideas and modes of expression changing along with the culture that's making and looking at the art.

The artists we consider important today are not making paintings that look like Michelangelo's. This isn't just because painting fashions changed the way skirt lengths did, and it also isn't because there's been some kind of progress in the world of art and today's painters somehow know better. It has to do with society changing, and along with it the ideas at the foundations of society and of art.

The subject matter changed (most of us are looking for meaning in places besides biblical imagery and classical greek iconography), and the style did too--because a style becomes deeply connected in people's minds with a way of looking at the world.

It's this last idea that's worth examining in relation to the history and fate of black and white. We should ask WHY black and white photography went out of fashion. Was it purely like a shift in necktie width, or did the whole style become associated with a way of looking at the world that our culture moved away from?

If it was purlely fashion, then all we have to do is wait around, and it will be back. But if it's about something deeper, we'll need artists to reinvent it (like the ones cotton mentions) as a new way of seeing.

[kmgibbs]

You're talking about sepia? Duotone? I think that fits into black and white photography... unlike what magazines (mine included though I'm looking to change that) reproduce, very few black and white photographs are just white, grey and black. George Tice's work has a slight warm tone to them, Keith Carter has a slight violet tone to some of his work. Realistically, very few black and white photographs today are neutral toned.

What I was talking about were strongly selenium toned warm papers, cyanotypes, viradon or gold toned, hand colored etc. They are not strictly monochromatic though based on monochrome materials.

I know very well that many gelatin silver prints are toned in some way. My question is trying to narrow down if the issue is that people want color, be it RGB or strongly toned silver gelatin, or if they (buyers and collectors) are only interested in RGB reproduction.

Kent

[Dick Hilker]

I love the abstraction provided by B&W and feel it's in some ways a more interesting way of seeing because of its relative simplicity. I personally use color as an additive to the basic image and only when it's necessary to complete the statement I'm trying to make with a picture.

For those who didn't grow up with color photography, there's a sense of nostalgia about the olde tyme B&W images. For those who did, there's a sense of novelty and seeing something "retro." Very cool! However, I do believe that the earliest developers of photographic materials would have been happy to give us color from the beginning, had it been possible. The only reason for B&W existing at all was their inability to produce color materials, and not a belief that it was an aesthetically purer means of expression.

In the early days, toning was a means to introduce color and direct the mood or feeling of a photograph that was more subtle than hand-coloring. These days, when we capture an image in color, desaturate it and give it a tint for printing as a B&W, what's our motive? With all that rich, vibrant color at our disposal, why throw it away and pretend it wasn't there? Is there something in our psyche that yearns for a seemingly simpler time when we didn't have the choice?

[Brian C. Miller]

We had color from 1907, with the AutoChrome (http://www.autochrome.com/Autochrome-centennial/Greeting.html). And it was very good color, too! 100 years of color photographs, and the AutoChromes are holding up well.

While toning does change the color of a print, its main purpose is to protect the image. Color photography has mainly been more expensive than B&W photography, and the prints faded. That's why B&W kept being popular for so long. Now that the color process has vastly improved, B&W has become a rarity. What is rare becomes interesting. Once B&W isn't rare, then interest will fade.

[paulr]

We had color from 1907, with the AutoChrome (http://www.autochrome.com/Autochrome-centennial/Greeting.html). And it was very good color, too! 100 years of color photographs, and the AutoChromes are holding up well.

The technical history of color photography goes back a hundred years, but the art history of it goes back just a few decades. For whatever reasons, artits and colectors didn't begin to take color seriously until the 1970s (Eggleston, Shore, etc.). Most were reluctant about it, too--you should see some of the borderline hate mail that Szarkowski got after the big Eggleston show. And Color didn't become the primary photographic art medium until the 1990s.

[paulr]

What I was talking about were strongly selenium toned warm papers, cyanotypes, viradon or gold toned, hand colored etc. They are not strictly monochromatic though based on monochrome materials.

Hand colored and heavlily worked-over prints (gum over platinum, selectively toned, etc.) are typically seen as even more retro than most monochrome work--they're heavily associated with the pictorialist work of the late 19th and early 20th centuries Unless they're done with a serious new twist, they tend to evoke that period of black and white much more than they evoke color photography, or so it seems to me.

Prints that just have heavy toning, even when split toned, are for all practical purposes monochromatic. They're doing nothing to capture (or even simulate) the colors in the world.

[Struan Gray]

PS - Auratic is basically "having an aura" - or perhaps "possessing/creating an aura" an idea developed by Walter Benjamin (and expanded by others later) especially with regard to photography. It has to do with photography's particular ability to take something fairly ordinary and essentially turn it into something special, worthy of the viewers gaze. There's more to it than that but I think that's pretty much the essence

Tim, at last I get to disagree with you :-)

I have always read 'aura' as being the mystique that accumulates around a piece of art because it is a unique physical object with a definite and traceable history. Thus, Elizabeth Taylor does not merely posess a large pearl: she has *the* large pearl that Phillip II gave to Queen Mary.

I have a mild disagreement with Benjamin, not so much in the idea of an aura, but because there is no reason why mass produced objects cannot have one too. In terms of photographic prints, we're talking about paying more for the print that hung in the photographer's darkroom, or which they presented to a loved one, or on which they wrote the suicide note. Benjamin didn't live to see the full flowering of the celebrity culture, but even in his day the signed photograph of a movie star was redefining the idea of desirability - as he discusses in the essay.

I suspect the new thing that won't change on the photographic art circuit is not colour or the lack of it, but size. Although there is a thriving market for intimate art objects - small bronzes, art books, etchings, prints, glass - for a long time now the headlines have been about larger canvases and larger works. Both the decor market and the world of fine art want objects which are bigger than ten inches or so, and photography is at last tagging along. I think this is a reflection of the way art has changed from being a material property to being defined as a pattern of activity or a behaviour. I find it ironic - and faintly amusing - that the supposed irrelevance of aura as a concept has led to the creation of works with more and more physical presence.

Struan

[Brian C. Miller]

I always thought that auras (http://thiaoouba.com/seeau.htm) are that colored halo around a person or thing. You see them too, don't you? (or maybe my glasses just need cleaning...)

[Brian C. Miller]

For whatever reasons, artits and colectors didn't begin to take color seriously until the 1970s (Eggleston, Shore, etc.).
Adams was involved with Kodachrome in the mid/late 1930's. I remember reading where he was complaining that some old images had degraded and he should have made copies. I think that its a question of material longevity; not many people want to spend thousands on an image that won't last long. Now we have prints that will do 80 years at least under the right conditions.

[paulr]

I always thought that auras (http://thiaoouba.com/seeau.htm) are that colored halo around a person or thing. You see them too, don't you? (or maybe my glasses just need cleaning...)

i think you need an uncoated lens to see auras.

[mrladewig]

Is that true? What artists today are making waves with pen and ink drawings?

Not posing a rhetorical question ... i'm curious if anyone knows of examples.

I don't know of any with pen and ink, but printing making has certainly seen a revival in recent years. I've seen special displays at various art museums on prints on several occasions over the last couple years. One of these exhibits was solely B&W work from woodcut. I'm surprised by how many print displays I've been seeing. I'm talking print making of the press sorts, not photographic prints.

I didn't realize how old this thread was when I replied.

[Jim Michael]

I am assuming the base is "aura". Why would someone use "quotidian" instead of the instead of "common" or "every-day". Art-speak. I think she likes to read her own wordage a bit too much.


Yes, one should eschew obfuscation.

[gth]

So, did this happen?

Is B/W returning to the galleries?

[r.e.]

So, did this happen?

Is B/W returning to the galleries?

It never left :)

At least, that was my position 41/2 years ago when this thread started, and I haven't seen anything since to change that view. Currently in New York, it looks to me like black and white is doing just fine in the galleries, although I'm not privy to sales figures.

Too bad that Tim Atherton, apart from the classifieds, no longer participates in this forum. It's a real loss.

[Donald Miller]

I spoke to a gallery owner here in Phoenix yesterday and he commented that prints of all types, etchings, engravings, lithographs etc, were down in price at least 50% when compared to four years ago. That prints were extremely difficult to sell at this time under these economic conditions.

[Kirk Gittings]

The galleries and museums in Santa Fe are full of b&w. You'd think color hadn't been invented yet.

[Doug Howk]

The 1% can still afford over-hyped work such as Hirst's. Large color sells to that group.
The more knowledgeable are looking to vintage prints - mostly B&W.

For those in the 99% who are still collecting, relatively smaller color prints are becoming like poster art - not worth much more than the cost of framing. For them, B&W retains value.

[cosmicexplosion]

sounds like 'i wish i was suzan sontag' via pulling wool over the already shut eyes of her assumed readers.... maybe she is a word sculptor trapped in space...

[Richard M. Coda]

... but I get the impression that the university art history programs tend to churn out mental lemmings.

Vaughn

I love this phrase... mental lemmings.

[Jay DeFehr]

What I don't get about this thread is why someone thinks that Ms. Cotton's essay is worth reading. I have read her piece twice now, ....:D

[D. Bryant]

The 1% can still afford over-hyped work such as Hirst's. Large color sells to that group.
The more knowledgeable are looking to vintage prints - mostly B&W.

For those in the 99% who are still collecting, relatively smaller color prints are becoming like poster art - not worth much more than the cost of framing. For them, B&W retains value.

Care to support those statements with some cold hard facts? What you propose is just hyperbole.

Collectors paying $5K, $8K, $10K, $15K and beyond for large color prints are not uninformed or any less knowledgeable than those that purchase vintage B&W prints. And small color prints selling for $1200-$2000 are very collectible. We are talking sizes that range from about 5x7 to 10x5 INCHES!


And by the way do have a clear definition of what a vintage print is?

[Brian Ellis]

Notice that it's hard to understand what she's saying without first parsing each sentence and then thinking of the simple word or phrase that could have been used in place of the more obscure word or phrase that she actually uses. Which tells you that the essay isn't written for photographers. Its intended audience is faculty members of university art departments, museum curators, editors of art publications, art critics, other writers on art, etc., i.e. the "art establishment."

[Doug Howk]

D Bryant, as to what is a vintage print, see A.D.Coleman as to a definition. (http://www.billbrandt.com/research/whatisavintagepr.html)
As far as sales, existing in the hinterlands rather than NYC does encourage a distorted perspective; but if people are spending $1200 on a 5X7 color digital print, then I need to change technologies.

[D. Bryant]

D[on] Bryant, as to what is a vintage print, see A.D.Coleman


That's Coleman's definition, I was curious to know what you meant by vintage within the context of your post.


As far as sales, existing in the hinterlands rather than NYC does encourage a distorted perspective; but if people are spending $1200 on a 5X7 color digital print, then I need to change technologies.


NYC? Who's talking about New York? And I never specified digital color prints nor meant those exclusively though they could be included in that group.

My whole point was that the market and by implication collectors don't behave and purchase as you suggested.

[E. von Hoegh]

"Reveling in the auratic propensity of monochrome photographic thinking is perhaps not an unreconstructed Modernist impulse any longer..." ~ Charlotte Cotton

ummm... could somebody translate that into English for me?

Translation - "I'm spouting a load of pretentious rubbish because I really don't know sh!t from Shinola".

A b&w photo relies on composition, lighting, form, and texture. It takes time to learn to use these well, and time to learn to appreciate them. Not to mention the time to learn to print well.
Color can dazzle - just look at the supersaturated heavily processed/photoshopped prints that are selling , while a b&w print that actually posesses artistic merit languishes on the wall.

edit: Just look at the title of the article, "The new color..." what nonsense.

[Brian Ellis]

Actually, in my ignorance, I looked up "auratic" in the online Cambridge, Merriam-Webster's, Encarta, and American Heritage dictionaries. None had an entry...

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/auratic

That's as far as I went.

[Robert Hughes]

That's aurible spelling!

[E. von Hoegh]

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/auratic

That's as far as I went.

It pertains to Kirlian photography.

[gth]

And to give the ol' pot just one more stir....

Since the OP original links to the article don't seem to work, I suspect that some of the recent posts used rehash from previous quotations. I found the original text via Google here:

http://camramirez.com/pdf/P1_TheNewColor.pdf

and actually PRINTED and READ the article. Notwithstanding the sometimes "artful" language, her article in it's entirety is actually a homage to b/w Photography - and Photography as an art. The practitioners on this forum would do well to have more Charlotte Cottons on their side.

Here's how she ends the article:

"The contemporary black-and-white photography I’ve described above has moved my thinking about the present state of photography onto a much more optimistic platform. Through these contemporary manifestations, the true, mav- erick character of photography, of our medium’s history, is far from lost. Indeed, these threads of the past are given new and meaningful effect. I am not proposing that con- temporary black-and-white photographic prints represent the full embodiment of the future for photographic practice, just that the degree of self-determination that I am sensing in these photographers’ work is timely. I’m enjoying their contrary and imaginative choice to work in a monochrome media at a time when photography’s value as a contempo- rary way of seeing is to be questioned."

/gth

[Brian C. Miller]

Reveling in the auratic propensity of monochrome photographic thinking is perhaps not an unreconstructed Modernist impulse any longer, but rather a true
reaction to the axis shift in the way we look at photography in light of digital.

Ok, is she actually saying that we've seen too much Peter Lik, and it's all swinging back to B&W still lifes and such? Believe me, I know she likes B&W, I'd just like to read an essay without the obtuse and opaque language.

[Jim Michael]

Sometime you might investigate why a writer chose a particular word rather than dismissing it as BS, obfuscation, opaque, etc. This is particularly true in philosophical writings. Since you brought to light the use of auratic, that made me ask what relevance the term has in aesthetics. More reading required on my part, but this (http://robmyers.org/2005/08/17/relational-aesthetics-considered-auratic/) was interesting.

[Brian C. Miller]

From Relational Aesthetics Considered Auratic, by Rob Myers (http://robmyers.org/2005/08/17/relational-aesthetics-considered-auratic/) above,
Relational art (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relational_art) is an aesthetic social space or event. If a social context is artistic, and activities or materials can be en-art-ed by that context, then the artwork is auratic. And even more so if the work en-arts the context. That is, there is something special and perceivable about the artwork and its context that would be lacking if the same base physical or social materials were not being used as art.

I think this goes back to Duchamp's "Fountain." This basically says that whatever the artist says is art, is art. But what people tend to forget is that this was part of the Dada anti-art movement. So now both art and anti-art are art, doesn't that cancel both out and there is no art? What fills the vacuum?

[E. von Hoegh]

Sometime you might investigate why a writer chose a particular word rather than dismissing it as BS, obfuscation, opaque, etc. This is particularly true in philosophical writings. Since you brought to light the use of auratic, that made me ask what relevance the term has in aesthetics. More reading required on my part, but this (http://robmyers.org/2005/08/17/relational-aesthetics-considered-auratic/) was interesting.

But when the writer uses what amounts to jargon, and jargon with fuzzy meaning at that, for no apparent reason other than to show that the writer is part of an "in" group, the article becomes something that can only be read and understood by constantly referring to definitions of the obscure and fuzzy terms used.
The article could better have been written in plain English, for all to understand.

[BetterSense]

But then it would have to stand on its own merits.

[E. von Hoegh]

But then it would have to stand on its own merits.

Precisely.;)

[Jim Michael]

But when the writer uses what amounts to jargon, and jargon with fuzzy meaning at that, for no apparent reason other than to show that the writer is part of an "in" group, the article becomes something that can only be read and understood by constantly referring to definitions of the obscure and fuzzy terms used.
The article could better have been written in plain English, for all to understand.

OK, I don't disagree with the don't use jargon for jargon's sake argument, however jargon is also a shorthand which facilitates communication at some level and in some cases very precise meaning is desired. It may be that when you don't understand what is being said you aren't the intended audience, or maybe some effort on your part is required. This isn't limited to art; e.g. there are a lot of physics papers available on the web which I can read but wouldn't understand without a lot of effort.

[E. von Hoegh]

"Good writing is clear thinking made visible".

[Jim Michael]

"Good writing is clear thinking made visible".

Yes, and if you are writing for a general audience you are not serving your own interests by not defining the terms that you are using.

[dwross]

OK, I don't disagree with the don't use jargon for jargon's sake argument, however jargon is also a shorthand which facilitates communication at some level and in some cases very precise meaning is desired. It may be that when you don't understand what is being said you aren't the intended audience, or maybe some effort on your part is required. This isn't limited to art; e.g. there are a lot of physics papers available on the web which I can read but wouldn't understand without a lot of effort.

+1 (i.e. I agree with this statement.)

[bob carnie]

All my lousy photographs I sign with the name Monty , works for me.

[Brian C. Miller]

This isn't limited to art; e.g. there are a lot of physics papers available on the web which I can read but wouldn't understand without a lot of effort.

Is the use of physics jargon for the sake of jargon, or is it to convey complex information between experts in the field? For instance, Virtual Journal of Atomic Quantum Fluids (http://www.vjaqf.org/) this month has an article on "Properties of Bose-Einstein Condensates and Bose Systems in Lower Dimensions." In this case, the jargon is used to precisely convey quantifiable information. While XKCD (http://www.xkcd.com) may have some fun with it and a Popular Science article would need to define a few things, everybody knows precisely what is being discussed.

When art "terminology" is used, the definitions tend to be historical, histrionic, and sometimes hysterical. Disambiguation of the terminology would leave the art world completely bereft of terminology. The only reason there is terminology in the art world is because its jaded bullshitocracy needs to justify itself. Instead of genetic inbreeding, it's an inbreeding of ideas. The Dada "movement" led to the acceptance of "found objects" (toilets and trash), which of course led to others copying the "form," which leads to a bullshitocracy to make up words to lend legitimacy to a bunch of poser junk. Thus, we have the word, "auratic," which basically means that something is art because someone who claims to be an artist says that an object or action is art.

[Jim Michael]

No, actually I think I was pretty clear about physics papers not being jargon for the sake of jargon. The point was that in aesthetics (which presumably I think you were referring to as 'art "terminology"') it needn't be either.

[MDR]

Since according to this article B/W is on the rise again we should found a new movement and write a manifest. Group or movement name something like the B/Wees or BWralists and title of the manifest Abolish Color or something along those lines :)

Dominik

[Mike Anderson]

Since according to this article B/W is on the rise again we should found a new movement and write a manifest. Group or movement name something like the B/Wees or BWralists and title of the manifest Abolish Color or something along those lines :)

Dominik

Neo-monochromists. "Nemos" for short.

...Mike

[E. von Hoegh]

Neo-monochromists. "Nemos" for short.

...Mike

Nemo = Nobody. Perfect!

We should start by getting rid of the term "monochrome". Black and white aren't colors. Although I suppose grey is. Kinda.

[jp]

In I.T., I sometimes use excessive Jargon for Jargon's sake, so I can B.S. without lying or so I won't have to explain things to someone who really doesn't need to know. Something was diagnosed as a Pebkac problem, or using the term "cloud computing service" to mean "handled off site because your inhouse expert is the problem".

IT people do use it to facilitate communications between themselves to a small extent, but we also mock it's use in news articles, press releases, and "white papers". Excessive and needless Jargon is indeed a matter of taste, and too much is bad taste that sets off the BS detectors.

[Mike Anderson]

We should start by getting rid of the term "monochrome". Black and white aren't colors. Although I suppose grey is. Kinda.

antichromist? Sounds kind of ominous. neo-antichromist. post-neo-antichromist.

...Mike

[jp]

Nemo = Nobody. Perfect!

We should start by getting rid of the term "monochrome". Black and white aren't colors. Although I suppose grey is. Kinda.

We think of colors as wavelengths of light, but in more practical terms, a gray, black, or white can be a color if you can buy a tube of that color, or mix it from something.

I think of monochrome as encompassing various b&w things which aren't quite B&W, cyanotypes, toned prints, etc.... Ever go shopping for white paint? There's only a zillion variations of not-quite-white.

I like the term monochrome. It has received a bad rap as a type of often inferior display for electronic devices though.

[E. von Hoegh]

antichromist? Sounds kind of ominous. neo-antichromist. post-neo-antichromist.

...Mike

Achromatists?

[Vaughn]

Neo-monochromists. "Nemos" for short.

...Mike

At 57, I ain't neo-much-of-anything. :D My carbons have a touch of burnt sienna in them, and some of my old Portriga Rapid prints are split-toned, thus are no longer mono-chromes.

One of my TV's had a monochrome screen -- I tossed it out back in '74 or so...

[Mike Anderson]

At 57, I ain't neo-much-of-anything. :D My carbons have a touch of burnt sienna in them, and some of my old Portriga Rapid prints are split-toned, thus are no longer mono-chromes.

One of my TV's had a monochrome screen -- I tossed it out back in '74 or so...

Well you obviously don't take the post-neo-monochromist's manifesto seriously. GET OUT!

:)

...Mike

[Vaughn]

Well you obviously don't take the post-neo-monochromist's manifesto seriously. GET OUT!

:)

...Mike

I have a hard time taking my self seriously at times! I will just have to remain a pre-post-neo-monochromist...:D

[E. von Hoegh]

I have a hard time taking my self seriously at times! I will just have to remain a pre-post-neo-monochromist...:D

We're Achromatists. Need a logo.:)

[Mike Anderson]

We're Achromatists. Need a logo.:)

http://rectangularimage.com/graphics/achromatist-512.jpg

...Mike

[Jim Galli]

Anarchromists?

[E. von Hoegh]

http://rectangularimage.com/graphics/achromatist-512.jpg

...Mike

Perfect. Kinda makes me think of Pink Floyd.:)

[Jim Michael]

So now both art and anti-art are art, doesn't that cancel both out and there is no art? What fills the vacuum?

When art and anti-art collide, creativity is conserved through emission of some combination of manifestos, works, and critiques ...

+a w
\ /
-~m~-
/ \
-a c

oh, well, non-proportional fonts aren't friendly to Feynman diagrams

:)

[Keith Fleming]

Mike,

Shouldn't those bands of tones be our 10 beloved ZONES?

Keith

[Struan Gray]

An achromatist logo should only have two colours. An apochromatist movement would need three. Ten makes me think of a Super-dee-dooper-dee-booper, special deluxe a la Peter T Hooper chromatist.

Personally I'd steal shamelessly from the existing art lexicon and call myself a Grisailleur. It sounds French and arty, has connotations of silver temples and established authority, and has a history that links it back to other craft-based pictorial media such as stained glass and enamels.

[Vaughn]

Achromatists preparing for Armageddon...

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/.a/6a00df351e888f88340134899ff9b7970c-popup

(photo by Ted Orland)

[Mike Anderson]

Mike,

Shouldn't those bands of tones be our 10 beloved ZONES?

Keith

Well the prism dispersion was, er, transformed from an existing image and I don't want to hand paint another 2 bands in there. So neo-achromatists will make do with 9 zones.

...Mike