Thursday, May 21, 2009

black bird


I'm in black and white mood.
I often like photos without colors.
We tend to see the colors we want in them.
Or maybe not?

Now, I'm not one of those who say color is not
as good or artistic as black and white.
When I look at old b/w photos or old b/w film clips
I many times wish they were in color.

We have that strange idea that after photography was first
invented the world was all in black and white for a while.
Whether the motif was in fact a colorfully dressed in silk
Siamese king in a tropical setting or
Andrées disastrous balloon expedition to the North Pole.

Everything was monochrome.
Black and white. White and black.

Or worse; some had pastel-like colors
n added to make them appear as color photos.

Before photography people were in color.
Even technocolor, although it took a while for
Kodak to get there as far as film stock went.

The Dutch masters show that noblemen
and peasants alike dressed
in rather colorful garb.

A visit to any museum that puts old clothes on show proves
that both men and woman were more like peacocks than
even the most colorful inhabitants of Christopher Street
in New York are today.

The photo of the black bird was taken on a trip to the Dead Sea.
It's actually a rather vibrant place despite its lack of greenery.
The landscape constantly shifts depending on the time of the day.
The sun gives it every color from pale grays in the midst of the day
to rich golden tones closer to evening.
Shadows constantly change the landscape.
And as we know, shadows are not shades of black,
they are in color too.

You don't see a lot of animals.
Scorpions hide under rocks and blend in.
As does the snakes.
Birds are dark.
The mountain goats or deer are brown like the sand
and seem to shift colors with the light.
Blending in.
The dessert isn't giving life.
You'll have to survive.
Adapt.

What I see in the dessert are patterns and shapes.
It's all very graphic.
With my eyes.

2 comments:

Lally said...

Incredible shot man. But I think you meant "adapt" though "adept" works in a more interesting and evocative way, so maybe you did mean that.

Tore Claesson said...

thanks man, i've also tried to correct some other mistakes. it ain't easy for a dyslectic man to write.