Re: www.nakedinthanet.com

"Tim Forcer" <tmf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:06ec73dtla6b0915foinrdn4s4b9oltsbp@xxxxxxxxxx

There are clearly differences between monochrome and colour
photographs of the same subject. Removing colour means the image is
clearly a representation, not an attempt at pure reproduction of a
visual scene. (Which, perhaps, makes it easier to be "artistic", or
to convey an artistic message to the viewer?)

I take the point. I don't know whether you saw the TV programme in the BBC's
"Edwardian Season" about Albert Khan's project to produce a photographic and
film record of the world 100 years ago. Some of the resulting photographs
used an early colour process which was difficult and very expensive, but the
resulting images have a vibrancy and immediacy completely lacking from the
B&W cine film of the same subjects. Like the rare colour footage from WW2
which brings that period in history alive in a way that all the countless
hours of B&W newsreel footage fails to do. So yes, if you want to say "this
is not reality, this is art" then using B&W is one way to do that.

Similarly, the
grayscale tones encourage the eye to view forms and shape whereas
coloured ones encourage the eye to see flesh. While many of the
(acknowledged) great photographers of the nude had no option but to
work in monochrome, others made that choice deliberately. I'm not at
all sure that the work of (for example) Brandt would have the impact
it does were it in colour.

True. If one is presenting the nude body as "sculpture" then using B&W (with
appropriate lighting) is one way to do that. If Peter had used B&W just for
some of his work, that which concentrates more on form, then I wouldn't have
commented. But he has used B&W for *all* of his pictures, many of which,
IMHO, would have looked a lot more interesting in colour. They are all
outdoor pictures and we have lost the opportunity to see the contrast
between the model's flesh-tones and the greens, greys, browns and blues of
the backgrounds for example.

Taking a (potentially dubious) analogy with painting, I suggest
portrait painters tend to divide between those who use the medium to
achieve what might be termed a photo-realistic result (even though no
photograph would deliver what the painting does) and those who allow
brush strokes and other artefacts of the painting process to be a key
element in the result.

Indeed. And it is a very rare thing for a painter not to use colour when
painting the nude even if the colours may be deliberately distorted. I once
modelled for a "Colour Day" in which the artists were encouraged to
concentrate on the subtle shading of colour, rather than brightness, on my
skin. The results were strange to say the least, some looking rather like a
TV picture on a set with a luminance fault (for those who know what that
looks like!) but it was fascinating. Drawings, of course, are monochrome.
But these work because they concentrate on the *shape* that the body forms.
They hardly ever attempt to put the body into a context and rarely bother
with much detail.

To deal specifically with Peter Checksfield's work, I think his choice
of monochrome is entirely reasonable. What I am less sure about is
his mixing of naked and part-clothed subjects. To me, the latter
don't "work". Perhaps my preconceptions are at fault and I am
expecting semi-nude subjects to fit into "fashion", "glamour" or
"reportage" categories - these images don't seem to be easy to
classify in those terms. Not that classification is a Good Thing, but
one can't help but carry the baggage of classification around. In
which context, again I am unsure whether the images of fully-naked
women are "nudes", "artistic", "naturist", some mix of these, or
something else entirely. But that's very much my problem. Peter
appears to enjoy producing his work, and seems to have a clear idea of
what he's trying to achieve with it.


Of course, they are his pictures and he is as entitled as any other artist
to produce his work in his own way.


David.


.

Relevant Pages
Loading