In the comments to the previous "Fun Facts" posts, Moose wrote:
It's easy to trivialize what the colorist [of Nadar's Liszt portrait] has done. I too find the color overdone. Or perhaps just odd in a photo of that obvious vintage? Would an oil painted portrait with the same colors seem overdone?
Also, there's a reason so many old B&Ws with people in them were toned. I wonder if the original of this image might have been. Pure B&W, as this is on screen, is unkind to our faces.
The colorist has also done something quite good, correcting the unpleasant highlights in the eyes. Nadar was one of the first to experiment with electric lighting—and it wasn't quite right here.
Herewith some alternative amounts of color, and the nicer eyes dropped in so you can see the effect.
Here's Moose's link—take a look. A very nice job.
Of course, I can see the point of discussing this—it's an interesting question aesthetically, and discussing just this sort of thing can help people calibrate their own feelings and tastes towards color in general, not just "colorization."
Personally, whether fortunately or unfortunately, I have an ethical reaction to such issues that tends to supersede further discussion—it's that the creator of a work of art retains "moral ownership" of his or her artwork, and for other people to modify it is, on an ethical level, disrespectful.
It doesn't even matter if Nadar had wanted the image to be in color but didn't have the means to make it so. He controls the version he releases, and the "real" image is the one that respects the work he saw and put his stamp of approval on.
I was interested to learn that this is one of the reasons Josef Koudelka is releasing so many publications now. He is reportedly appalled by what's being done with Cartier-Bresson's archive and doesn't want the same thing done to his work after his death. That is, he considers the work to be his (moral ownership) and not for other people to sully or change or confuse—or exploit—after he's gone.
The opposite argument can be made in many ways, and I'm sensible to that. Copyright law allows for "transformative" uses that extends in rare cases up to straight copies (Richard Prince, who I don't approve of) and mere selection (Michael Wolf, Jon Rafman, and Doug Rickard et al., whose work I do approve of), and of course "sampling" is common in music (I can see the reasons why, but I've always been uneasy with it—cf. the latter chapters of Perfecting Sound Forever ).
In my world, you can't colorize any B&W original respectfully. Or rather, no one but the original creator can do so. Of course, there's a whole 'nuther level to the argument, namely the degree to which an original is art. Is an old film noire "B" movie really "art"? Did its makers have sufficient intentionality that the original should be respected? I'd err on the side of "yes." I realize counterarguments could indeed have persuasiveness.
I'm not saying my position is "correct" or that you should agree with it, but I like coming down on the side of the artist, as his or her ally in seeing that his or her intentions are respected. It's part and parcel of who I am, and what I do. I'm aware that other people swing to the other side of the spectrum.
Still, shunting ethical "ownership" objections aside entirely—that is, assuming for the sake of discussion that you were the creator of the picture or were advising the creator, as in a crit—Moose's colorizations can be discussed on an entirely aesthetic level, and it would indeed be interesting to do so. Which do you prefer?
I think you can guess my choice. :-)
Mike
(Thanks to Moose)
Original contents copyright 2015 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:
No featured comments yet—please check back soon!
