Thanks Dave. Your words are very kind and I am humbled and honored to be in the same paragraph with those two artists
.
Speaking of Renoir I just watched a movie his son Jean "The Grand Illusion". Jean was an amazing film maker.
Wow, his son is a film maker? That's quite interesting, I didn't know that but believe I saw that film many years ago. Definitely worth another look. Guess artistic genes do run in a family.
I hope no one minds my expressing my own personal feeling about B&W imagery in general, some of which was derived from earlier training. If relates to the two images I just previously noted but if it's better to post elsewhere, please let me know.
What I find interesting about the B&W medium in general as opposed to color, is B&W is stripped bare of the color element which by it's vary nature can draw a viewer into an image...even though the subject matter may or may not hold interest or is well composed. For example, say a mundane building, brown or gray color building is photographed, it may say nothing and hold little interest.... but the same mundane building in pink may make a terrific photograph, especially if the building is a conservative run of the mill building that no one in a million years expects to see in "pink".
In contrast (no pun intended), although B&W images can often rely on tonality or texture, often times to be a successful image, it's content alone must be strong. It doesn't have color by which we're conditioned to see in everyday things, in order to draw the viewing into the image...so it 's content often has to be especially strong to be successful. Strong doesn't necessarily have to relate to drama or serious, it can be humorous, satirical or simply relate to a scene of everyday life for us to relate to...but it has to be strong in one or more of these categories in order not to loose the viewers interest.
(recent edit)-->Think of the movies in the silent era and the "missing element" and how it relates to B&W imagery. The reason the actors and actresses relied on exaggerated facial expressions and body language, was in order to replace/substitute the missing elements of sound and speech with which we ordinarily connect to in everyday life. If they didn't present these missing elements or did so in a very unconvincing way, that particular silent film probably wouldn't succeed and seen by many as boring. Sort of the same analogy could be applied to B&W imagery. By removing the color element, the focus now is on content and both how strong it is and the way it's presented.
Sometimes I'm bemused by those that simply turn their color images in to B&W or take B&W photo's and think by the very nature of the B&W medium, that it instantly turns the image into an artistic one. In my opinion and to the contrary, it often weakens it, as little or no thought is given as to why on many levels, the image to others might hold little or no interest, other than the color element has been removed. It therefore needs those elements by which I just mentioned to provide it the "lift" of creative content in order for it be a successful B&W to a wider range audience. This explanation is of course an oversimplification. I found both that image of Ashwin's as well as Allen's to strongly hold some of the key elements which make a successful and interesting B&W image...as have other B&W images posted in this monochrom thread.
Dave (D&A)