The responses to Struan's shot of the Cathedral brought up the old question of the artistic merit of color versus that of b/w.

I see too many photographers who seem to think that if if a picture is in b/w it is by definition either "art" or, interestingly, the obverse, meaningful social commentary.

Of course, color can "interfere" (if you want to call it that) with the perception of texture, tone, and composition, but you could just as easily look upon b/w as being a simplified - perhaps even a debased - form of art for failing to deal with it.

It seems to me that historical precedent and the influence of the popular media outweigh most meaningfull perceptual differences between the two. The thinking seems to be that since the great photographers of the past shot in b/w there must be something special about it, while color is merely a recent development suitable for advertising and snapshots but not much else. If color photography had been easily available to the great icons of photography, would we still think the same?

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), July 20, 2000

Answers

I guess it depends on what you want. The image is Colour and the nod was to Escher -- that feels colour to me. I looked at it and though Evans -- not Walker but the other dude with "Sea of Steps" -- so darned it, I wanted B&W. I would pin it on expectations of the subject -- I expect it should be B&W -- so then the colour counters expectations ... which kicks it up a step so it's Art...man... Dean

-- Dean Lastoria (dvlastor@sfu.ca), July 20, 2000.

Colour can be a crutch too

Almost all my photographs are unposed snapshots, but one thing I am now consciously trying to think about as I take them is their formal composition and the use of space. I find B+W easier for this because in colour it is much harder to avoid distractions. Shooting people with minimual make up is harder in colour for the same reason - brides always spot the insignificant pimple in the colour proofs, not the B+W ones.

On the other hand there are all those stock shots which rely on bright colours to sustain interest in a cliched image. Viva la Velvia.

It's an established stereotype that art school photography students think anything in black and white must be cool and deep. Mind you, here in Sweden that's been temporarily superceeded by very desaturated work. I like it all - well, I look at it all.

There is some very high quality straightforward colour photography of cathedrals and other ancient buildings in the guides and booklets put out by the Pitkin Press and HMSO. Now that polychrome decoration is largely absent from the masonry there are some wonderful subtle colour schemes which interact well with the formality of the architecture. When I think of typical cathedral pics I think of these rather than the older generation of ultra-large format platinotypes. Both share the property that they almost never include people, so I'll restrain my urge to enthuse.

-- Struan Gray (struan.gray@sljus.lu.se), July 20, 2000.

color?

For my tastes there is a great deal of difference between the two images. This one has color which has a use. It is eye catching. It draws your eye into the image and piques your interest to stay and play with it. The color in the cathedral was just there. It was almost a nuisence. It didn't seem to me to have a real intended relationship with anything. It had no real meaning beyond just being there. But this guy in the parka demands a response. Whether negative or positive, the color demands your attention. That, to me, is exciting. James

-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), July 22, 2000.