Re: OK to have fun/color

[Alan Zinn <azinn@xxxxxxxxxx>]

>
>If you permit me, may I, as promised, start another discussion?
>
>A famous photographer once told me that real photography, as art, should
>always be in black and white. What do you think?

Herman,

That is a good area for discussion I think.  I don't like absolutes - black
or white thinking - but I think b/w photography is better suited for art.
Don't want to offend Kodachrome lovers but I think color is best left to
painters. 
Color is too powerful.  There is no way to control it in the wild. Of
course, someone will scream and holler about Elliot Porter, Meunch (sp?), et
al.  They are masters of depicting the colors of the natural world. I put
them in a special category of decorative illustration. Another example of
color art photography I believe works are tableau photos where the artist
has complete control over everything.

In our previous discussion about journalism photos I think Christine R. said
there was a risk of them being too photogenic.  Color has such a strong
gestalt that it often dominates (and obfuscates) the image. Hideous things
often have beautiful colors. One example I vividly recall was in an essay
about prostitution.  It was an image of a dying, syphilitic woman with
wonderful color that was gorgeously illuminated. 
AZ

>
>
>
Lookaround Cameras are more fun.

See cameras and pictures at:
http://www.keva.com/lookaround
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Gallery/8874

Also at Cafe Society Gallery:
http://www.curdev.hull.ac.uk/root/cafe/cafegal.htm