>
>>From: rwoodcock <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>>In response to Mark O'Connell and JMC,
>>
>> 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....I agree
>>with the association >>between B&W and authenticity
>>
etc....
Rose,
You have a predjudice towards black and white. You LIKE black and white.
You percieve it as being "authentic." It speaks to you. That's great! But
what's that got to do with me? My humble point was simply that these are
archaic notions. These distinctions no longer apply. All images are equally
suspect.
from JMC:
>
>The question is posed in terms of the referent: What is the referent?
>
Is this really necessary?
>In the situation I have proposed--a movie that alternates between
>black-and-white and color film--a distinction between representations comes
>into
>question. Which is the original? Not something beyond the frame, but the
>contrast the juxtaposition calls into account: a difference in technology. When
>technology becomes the referent, black-and white film, as I have argued, is
>more
>authentic because more original.
In a film that alternates between B&W and color the assumed "real" position
(if there were one) could be presented by either. What was more "real" in
that case would be determined by the way the piece was put together. I mean
really..... Further, to say that B&W has more veracity because it's more
"original" (by "original" I assume you mean because it was invented first)
is a bit goofy. Is a covered wagon more real then an automobile? The
covered wagon was invented first so I guess so.... Also, your choice of
the word "original" is misleading and suggests an ad hominem defense.
Mark O'Connell
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|