or not?

[sanking]

What do you think of this statement of mine-describing why I prefer B&W photography for my personal work:

I believe that most monochrome photography does present an inherently greater abstraction of reality than most color photography. But even if you accept this as fact, does that make B&W more profound? I would say not, it merely establishes greater distancing between the photograph as object and the object itself in nature, and in doing so makes us concentrate on the more essential and generic qualities of the object rather than its specific attributes, and on its tonal values and the qualities of light.



Sandy

[Doremus Scudder]

Color is too close to normal perception-b&w is inherently an abstraction and therefore intrinsically more profound.

Kirk,

Unlike others, I don't mind artists' statements at all, in fact, I enjoy them if they are honest and unpretentious. Now trying to pull the wool over others' eyes or just make people think you are important is another thing altogether, but if one is attempting to express what informs one's approach and vision, I think they can be really helpful.

As to your quote: You set up "normal perception" as the opposite of "abstraction," and then state that abstraction is intrinsically more profound. If you really think that abstraction in and of itself shows more intellectual penetration or emotional depth than "normal perception," or that black-and-white photography is inherently more profound than color, then you've said exactly what you wish.

I'm not 100% sure that is what you want to express, or if you really want to predicate "profundity" as an essential characteristic of abstraction.

I assume that the reason you posted the query was that you were not completely satisfied with the statement and wanted some input to help clarify and maybe refine it. I hope this helps a bit in that department.

Best,

Doremus

[Kirk Gittings]

Guys. Sorry I wasn't clear. I'm not looking for affirmation-looking for discusion. I'm not looking to simply my thoughts for the masses but deepen my own understanding.

For me personally the original statement is absolutely true for my personal work. But I started in the early 60s when color photography was not really accepted as an art medium (I'm not talking about "scenic art").

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that. But at least one of the dictionary definitions - "penetrating beyond what is superficial or obvious" is arguably applicable here, in the sense that removing the distraction of color makes it easier to pay attention to other things. What I don't agree with is any implication that B&W is therefore necessarily more meaningful or more important.

For context, I'll add that in my own photography I've never been able to figure out what to do with color, though not for lack of trying. I find it strange and distracting and never quite right, and I'm much more comfortable working in B&W. But I don't think my pictures are especially deep in any philosophical sense just because I happen to prefer B&W Oren Grad

Oren, I make my living every day with color photography and like you, when I contemplate making a personal image in color, the color is always "strange and distracting and never quite right". I remember one of my first shows (maybe 1979 or 80) up in Canada was a collection of my Chaco images in B&W. I gave a talk to a local camera club and the most common question was why didn't I shoot Chaco in color-that I lost so much with b&w. I didn't know how to answer that then and don't always feel satisfied with my answers now in similar situations. I like the highlighted definition you quoted. That gets to the heart of the matter for me.

[Ken Lee]

"I'm not looking to simply my thoughts for the masses but deepen my own understanding."

I like Black and White Large Format images because we can combine depth of feeling with breadth of facts.

[Kirk Gittings]

"I'm not looking to simply my thoughts for the masses but deepen my own understanding."

I like Black and White Large Format images because we can combine depth of feeling with breadth of facts.

I absolutely feel the validity of this statement, but how would you defend it in a crowd of serious color photographers?

[Lenny Eiger]

Kirk,

I often get asked why I don't work in color.

I ask people whether they like the book or the movie. B&W is the book, color is the movie... I find the imagination is much richer while reading, with a few exceptions for movies that have been truly exceptional. Movies are generally a passive "taking in" of information and story where a book engages you.

My favorite portrait is very intimate. The subject sat still for 90 seconds, we breathed together and she gave me everything of herself. It was a beautiful moment we shared. I tell people that if she had a exquisite green shirt on that we would be looking at color. I would end up talking about color vs talking about intimacy. I much prefer talking about the bigger words like intimacy, integrity, presence, etc.

Lenny

[Kirk Gittings]

Kirk,

Unlike others, I don't mind artists' statements at all, in fact, I enjoy them if they are honest and unpretentious. Now trying to pull the wool over others' eyes or just make people think you are important is another thing altogether, but if one is attempting to express what informs one's approach and vision, I think they can be really helpful.

As to your quote: You set up "normal perception" as the opposite of "abstraction," and then state that abstraction is intrinsically more profound. If you really think that abstraction in and of itself shows more intellectual penetration or emotional depth than "normal perception," or that black-and-white photography is inherently more profound than color, then you've said exactly what you wish.

I'm not 100% sure that is what you want to express, or if you really want to predicate "profundity" as an essential characteristic of abstraction.

I assume that the reason you posted the query was that you were not completely satisfied with the statement and wanted some input to help clarify and maybe refine it. I hope this helps a bit in that department.

Best,

Doremus

Absolutely. It is totally what I think about my own work and as I am often giving talks about my work I would like to understand it better.

[Jac@stafford.net]

What do you think of this statement of mine-describing why I prefer B&W photography for my personal work:

Color is too close to normal perception-b&w is inherently an abstraction and therefore intrinsically more profound.

Just a few early Saturday comments here.

Your statement could be true if color were profound, but generally it is not. I would drop 'more profound' because it begs the question of profundity in all regards from subject to the photograph as the object itself, so we have, ""Color is close to normal perception; b&w is an abstraction."

To offer myself as a fair target for the pedantic, I will state that "Black & white photography is usually color without hue." (where 'usually' is intended to obviate near-color-blind and some narrow band B&W films.) So what distinguishes B&W are qualities of light evinced in reflection, shadow, tones of each, and texture.

B&W is one of the limits we impose upon our work. Limits are important because they narrow the scope of attention (and critique).

Recently i read a surprising comment from a well-informed photographer who stated that B&W is a cheap-shot aesthetic and color photography is much more difficult. (I would agree in some cases such as Pete Turner's work.)

Maybe you can take my word-salad, blend it and re-mix it.

[Kirk Gittings]

Recently i read a surprising comment from a well-informed photographer who stated that B&W is a cheap-shot aesthetic and color photography is much more difficult. (I would agree in some cases such as Pete Turner's work.)

That's just some ahole trying to get a rise out of people by making a blanket pronouncement. He is trolling (though I think there is some merit in his idea). I guess there is a hint of that in my statement too but I am always absolutely clear that I am talking about my own motivations. I admire people who can make "penetrating beyond what is superficial or obvious" images in color. I don't feel like I can and wonder if it is actually a weekness......

[Kirk Gittings]

Kirk,

I often get asked why I don't work in color.

I ask people whether they like the book or the movie. B&W is the book, color is the movie... I find the imagination is much richer while reading, with a few exceptions for movies that have been truly exceptional. Movies are generally a passive "taking in" of information and story where a book engages you.

My favorite portrait is very intimate. The subject sat still for 90 seconds, we breathed together and she gave me everything of herself. It was a beautiful moment we shared. I tell people that if she had a exquisite green shirt on that we would be looking at color. I would end up talking about color vs talking about intimacy. I much prefer talking about the bigger words like intimacy, integrity, presence, etc.

Lenny

I like that Lenny.