>From: rwoodcock <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: [log in to unmask]
>To: "film-philosophy" <[log in to unmask]>,
>"film-philosophy" <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: Tricks and Illusions (Mark O'Connell)
>Date: Tue, 3 Oct 00 13:53:05 +1000
>
>In response to Mark O'Connell and JMC,
>
>Leaving aside the tricks and illusions thing, I'm interested in the way
>colour and B&W photographs to my thinking speak differently of their
>respective referents. I have always preferred B&W over colour because B&W
>seems to afford a graphic quality that seems lacking in colour. Perhaps
>on the surface an aesthetic thing. I agree with the association between
>B&W and authenticity, truth and originality, but I think that there's
>another aspect to that too.
>
>In my conception of a photograph, the presence, or if you like,
>'proximity' of the (ultimate) referent - the object/person pictured - is
>mediated or constituted quite differently in B&W and colour in this way:
>In B&W I perceive a greater distance between what is pictured as an image
>and that ultimate referent. So the B&W photo has more scope as a
>graphic/pictorial/ semantic (etc.) thing because it is less attached to
>the referent. THe gap between representation and thing-represented is
>greater, more interesting, more tense, urgent maybe.
>
>In colour I feel as though the extra information that colour brings to
>the image is pushing the referent closer to its representation.
>Schematically speaking, the less gap, the less the image (representation)
>operates as an autonomous thing, (as an art thing, perhaps).
>
>Rose
How can I unsubscribe?
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|