Can the modern city be photographed in B&W?

By this I mean the modern North American city (on the whole). I also

mean the modern city (not for example it's nice historic sections or

parks) along with it's suburban and extra-urban regions.

 

My own work is currently very concerned with photographing this urban

and suburban condition and the suburbs as a state of mind. But I

still find myself pulled at times between the question of black and

white or colour. While I have always tended towards colour, every now

and than something causes me to think that perhaps black and white

would be better.

 

Today I was looking through Adams' "The New West". While in some ways

the black and white seems to well suit his anger at what he saw

happening in the American West (and I think he perhaps prefers trees

to people...) I can't help feeling that the B&W also makes it look

somewhat quaint. For sure it is now a dated document (1974?), so that

in my own mind the use of black and white ties it more to the work of

a bygone era - Owens' "Suburbia" and even Frank's "The Americans".

 

I look at modern depictions of this same subject - Bob Thall's "New

American Village" or Nicholas Nixon's work on Boston and I still

can't shake the feeling of it still feeling a little quaint and

date. Perhaps the "timelessness that B&W tends to suggest is

inappropriate for the modern city?

 

Prefacing his section on "The City" Adams says "Here no expediency is

forbidden. A new house is bulldozed to make room fro a trailer

agency; sidewalks are lost when the street is widened; shrubs die in

the smog and are replaced by gravel. Read the eschatological chaos of

signs"

 

"Read the eschatological chaos of signs" can this rapture be shown in

B&W or only, truly, in colour?

 

 

tim

I'd say it really depends. I've always (very) generally felt that black and white works best when there's something actually *happening* in the photo (could be silence or stillness as well). The lack of color forces the viewer to focus upon shapes, lighting etc. But there are many exceptions and I'd say you can either shoot concurrently in both or just shoot color and print on panalure when b&w is needed.

 

It all depends upon what you want out of the shots. I think the answer may lie in the work itself once it's under way. Maybe you should get out there and stand in front of some subjects and, without taking any pictures, imagine the images in both color and b&w. At any rate, once you've made those first few (successful or somewhat successful) images that say what you want, I think the answer will be obvious. There are dozens of photographers that have successfully shot various parts of modern city life in b&w from 35mm to 8x10 etc. over the years (Evans, Tice, Riis etc.).

The idea that b/w is 'dated' looking compared to color is rather silly. This idea derives from the idea that advertisemnts and TV commercials define the world. Is using a view camera outdated? is using *film* obsolete? Can only the very latest digital video camera do the job? It's NEW! It must be the best!

The artist, making a statement, is free to choose *whatever* tools are available to express their idea, or describe their subject. This means that no method is wrong, if it's effective. From charcoal sketches to a three-hour Hollywood epic, free-jazz or poetry, any medium to communicate is as valid as another.

I work in color and in b/w, and would never want to have to choose only one. The artist may chooose one for a given subject, or both; I suspect that a stronger end result may come from using one media; but there ain't no rules if it works.

Good question! My $.02 would be that is all depends on the mood that you want to convey, if any.

 

Living in NYC, I'm an extremely happy B/W shooter, and only feel tempted by color if I pass by Times Square or if I'm shooting at dusk or dawn.

 

 

I admit that shooting Times Sq in b/w may well be dull or boring, knowing that there is such an abundance of lively colors. And the muted colors of cityscapes / skylines at dusk add a lot of atmosphere to an otherwise plain monotone shot.

 

Mark

"It all depends upon what you want out of the shots. I think the answer may lie

in the work itself once it's under way. Maybe you should get out there and

stand in front of some subjects and, without taking any pictures, imagine the

images in both color and b&w. At any rate, once you've made those first few

(successful or somewhat successful) images that say what you want, I think the

answer will be obvious. "

 

Actually, it isn't - I've been shooting B&W and colour back to back on the work for a little while now - but maybe that's just me... Which of course, is why I'm posing the question.

"The idea that b/w is 'dated' looking compared to color is rather silly. This

idea derives from the idea that advertisemnts and TV commercials define the

world. Is using a view camera outdated? is using *film* obsolete?"

 

A year or two I would have agreed whole heartedly with you and argued strongly for what you say. But now - I really have yet to find some B&W work on the modern, contemporary, city (I'm not talking "street photography") that does not feel as if it somehow conveys that feeling. That the use of B&W is a deliberate choice to somehow distance the reality - Adams' "eschatological chaos" of the modern city and suburbs. Perhaps there are exceptions?

 

As for Riis, Evans and Tice (etc.) well, certaily Riis never had the choice of colour (nor did Evans in some ways). As for Tice, for me he is a good example of using B&W to make the modern city look more timeless and less alineating than it is, reminding me of new versions of Hopper's "Nighthawks" (which, irinically is in colour...)

<B>Can the modern city be photographed in B&W?</B><BR>

<I>By this I mean the modern North American city (on the whole).</I><P>

Sure. Just do it from 40,000 feet with a wide angle lens! :o)<BR>

(Sorry. Couldn't resist.)

"Actually, it isn't - I've been shooting B&W and colour back to back on the work for a little while now - but maybe that's just me... Which of course, is why I'm posing the question."

 

Well maybe that's your answer - keep shooting both. Print those color shots in b&w as needed. That should solve your problem if you shoot primarily in color.

 

There are people out there approaching the modern city - mixed media artists, video artists, architectural photographers, sculpters etc. and maybe even b&w shooters (haven't seen any myself but that doesn't mean they don't exist). In any case, they all use the proper tools for their particular vision. Without examples of your work, it's hard to really grasp your dilemna. I don't think any particular subject lends itself to b&w or color. It's the way you shoot it that will necessitate one or the other. I know you wanted to avoid 'street shooter' but I'd also suggest you check out Daido Moriyama's work in Japan. Closest thing I can think of to 'eschatological chaos of signs'.

It can definitely be shown, I think. Unlike AA's ultra-smooth pictures, I like to push b&w by 2 or 3 stops to really yank the grain into the picture. The grittiness adds a level of, well, stress, for lack of a better word, that helps convey city life quite well. Or at least downtown San Francisco life.

 

(c:

 

James

to simplify and generalise somewhat, picking up on one thread that has been mentioned - is it possibly to photograph the modern city in black and white without it becoming, implicitly or explicitly, an appeal to nostalgia? (whether to the 70's, the 50' or the 30's...)

Tim;

 

Rather than an appeal to nostalgia, perhaps the B/W image, especially using "traditional" B/W materials, represents a sign-post, or stake in the ground.

 

For instance, compare Atget's Paris with contemporary Paris, using the same basic materials and process. Perhaps a poor analogy, since you referred specifically to the American City, but the same basic principle applies.

 

Its the scientific method. To find out what has changed about the American City, use as little changes as possible in the process. That way, the differences one sees are those of the subject matter, and perhaps context.

 

Thinking further, I suppose context is the biggest thing that has changed about the city, or rather, the artistic representation of same. Even in classic B/W style, what's missing is the cultural context of Modernism within which the "modern" city was first documented.

 

To use a cinematic example, "Metropolis" expressed a vision of the "modern" city from 1929, through the lens of modernism. Every time I view that film, it continues to exist in that context, even though modernism as an "ism" is supposedly dead. Perhaps the "modern city" is more a state of mind than a matter of temporal validity. Is the New York City of 2003 "modernist" in the "Metropolis" sense, or are we only in a search for a document of its "current" state (modernist in the temporal sense)?

 

Perhaps the root of your question is more centered on the roles that B/W and color photography now play in documentation. My hunch is that, excluding obvious homages to particular historical styles, B/W remains a valid stake in the ground for documentation of long-term changes of state. But not the only valid form.

Tim,

 

George Tice's book Paterson is an expressive and beautifully realized collection focused on a modern industrial city. His more recent book Urban Landscapes is also filled with masterful images of urban experience. Photography is an imaginative art (that is, photographs prod imagination) as well as documentary in nature, so there is much fine black and white urban work yet to be done. I think the key is that one must maintain affection for one's subject without glossing over its problematic aspects.

Just see any of Horst Hamann's books.

 

http://www.horsthamann.com/ok/events.html#

look up work by bob thall.

<p>Your dual (color and B&W) approach is the best way to go, Tim. Sometimes, B&W will focus the viewer's attention on the real essence of the image, a message that might be lost or confused by the addition of color. At other times, the color <i>is</i> the subject - that is to say, color makes up much of the character of the neighborhood, or the scene. Using either B&W or color alone would be too restrictive.</p>

<p>Thus, I'd say no, the modern North American city cannot be photographed (appropriately) in B&W . . . alone.</p>

I beleieve there is room for both .

I think B/W contributes to the desolation and alienation that

modern architecture in some cases suggests ( see cocporate

buildings , or just merely commercial buildings ...

colour would be suited in my opinion , to show the crass

commercialism as business signs , and such ....

But that is just my view ....

It's a provocative, if unanswerable, question.

 

Right now, there is a lot of emphasis in architectural photography on color and detail. I'm thinking particularly of the work of Robert Polidori, which I quite like, and which I think is the best of this trend. Perhaps this is because there is also a greater emphasis on color in architecture in recent years, as opposed to structure, as was predominant in the 1960s.

 

On the other hand, B&W has the potential to draw attention to line and form in a different way than color can, and I don't think the interest in line and form is going out of style. It will just take the ability to see in a new way, in spite of the "datedness" of the materials, and to find the essence of the line that is sometimes overshadowed by color.

I also live in NYC. While he may be a bit contrversial due to success, look at Thomas

Struth. He did b/w pix of NYC and other modern cities, then switched to color, which

I think are more powerful. I do really like the b/w pictures, but the color ones seem

to have more emotional strength. In the current mentality, it seems like b/w has a

certain nostalgia, either for the 40's-70's or for Atget, while color is more "trendy",

but I don't think that is bad. After learning b/w in California in the 70-80's, I think

my color work in NYC is better.

Tim,

 

My $0.02.

 

I think Ralph's got the line on it. For me a photograph is "un-reality" or lack of reality. A photograph can be color or b & w. We, most of us, see in color. A photograph is 2 dimentional. We see the world in 3. A photograph can have areas of selective focus. Our eyes see everything in focus - near to far. Nor can we compress distance as a long lens does nor expand distance as a wide angle. (Ever do a close-up portrait with a wide angle?)

 

A photograph, by it's very nature is un-real. It permits the photographer to be an artist and not just the recorder of what was in front of the lens. The photo artist uses everything at his/her disposal to impart his/her feeling or impression on the subject scene.

 

For me, b & w photography does not limit expression, but permits me to show how an image "felt" to me as art. Many times the same scene, in color, distracts my eye from the "feel" of the image. Sometimes color is the right media for a particular image.

 

Okay, I'm startying to ramble here. Hopefully someone out there got what I'm trying to say. I'll bet most will.

 

I'd rather be making images than try to explain why.

"I also live in NYC. While he may be a bit contrversial due to success, look at Thomas Struth. He did b/w pix of NYC and other modern cities, then switched to color, which I think are more powerful."

 

A good example I think, from work I am familiar with - certainly I find the colour work much stronger.

 

 

"Thinking further, I suppose context is the biggest thing that has changed about

the city, or rather, the artistic representation of same. Even in classic B/W

style, what's missing is the cultural context of Modernism within which the

"modern" city was first documented.

 

To use a cinematic example, "Metropolis" expressed a vision of the "modern"

city from 1929, through the lens of modernism. Every time I view that film, it

continues to exist in that context, even though modernism as an "ism" is

supposedly dead. Perhaps the "modern city" is more a state of mind than a

matter of temporal validity. Is the New York City of 2003 "modernist" in the

"Metropolis" sense, or are we only in a search for a document of its "current"

state (modernist in the temporal sense)?"

 

While I used the term "modern" in the small m sense of contemporary, I wasn't doing so entirely - there is a slight reference to the Modern/ist city in there as well (and to a photogrphic response to it).

"Its the scientific method. To find out what has changed about the American

City, use as little changes as possible in the process. That way, the

differences one sees are those of the subject matter, and perhaps context."

 

The whole re-photographic survey idea - which in a way, while attractive, has been done to death I think,

 

But tied into the whole re-photogrphic mob was the New Topogrphics. I think much of the colour city work has came, in some was, out of the new topographics work - perhaps in the same way they were challenging Modernist landscape photography, much of the new colour work is/was a challenge to Modernist city/urban photography? Hmmm hadn't quite thought of it like that before.

Lets try that again

 

"Its the scientific method. To find out what has changed about the American

City, use as little changes as possible in the process. That way, the

differences one sees are those of the subject matter, and perhaps context."

 

The whole re-photographic survey idea - which in a way while attractive, has

been done to death I think,

 

But tied into the whole re-photographic mob was the New Topographics. I think

much of the colour city work has came, in some was, out of the new topographics

work - perhaps in the same way they were challenging Modernist landscape

photography, much of the new colour work is/was a challenge to Modernist

city/urban photography? Hmmm hadn't quite thought of it like that before.

Following is a selection from an interesting discussion on the smae topic on a different list (N.B. - this is not me - it's a quote from elsewhere)

 

"Seems to me, these days, as in right now, b&w speaks of the past (hard

to make an exception), color does not, necessarily.

 

I think in the 21st century the whole color b&w thing has been turned

upside down. In the past, b&w was bare bones, the truth, the one and

only, substance over surface -- modern. Very cool. Loved it, still do.

But, moving along, tick tick tick, now and onwards, "everyone" has a

digicam, color galore is the default, and here is my point: b&w has

become " my artistic choice -- ain't I cool, man, push this button and

no color! "

 

Once upon a time b&w was the default, color was a sort of a pretentious

add on. In this century the coin has flipped. ;-)

 

It may be because b&w is, and will remain, 20th century, and we've all

moved past that.

 

I'm not saying throw anything away, abandon this or that. I'm only

saying: we cannot ignore the new world of perception change brought

about by digicam city, which is washing over the photo landscape, like a

titlewave. It's in color. B&W is, well, an option. A Photoshop filter

 

I'd like to clairfy, lest I be unclear...

 

Now and from here on, b&w invokes the past, up to and including the 20th

century.

 

Color rules this century, b&w becoming an "effect" within it."

Tim,

You say that color "rules this century". I'd agree that print for print, color prints outnumber B&W prints by a wide margin. The word "rule" as used by most teenagers implies a sort of "better than" or superior stance. I do not agree with the "color rules" part at least in a semantic sence. B&W conveys a very different visual experience than color - I have yet to learn which one is "better".

Really, I think you are "thinking" too much about it. Some images just need to be done in color to make the most of it. Other images require black and white. When in doubt, do both and decide later.