> “The problem with colourisation is it leads people to just think about photographs as a kind of uncomplicated window onto the past, and that's not what photographs are,”
> “Colourisation does not bring us closer to the past; it increases the gap between now and then. It does not enable immediacy; it creates difference.”
I don't find either of these stances intuitive, but the article doesn't help. A simple follow up question of "why?" would have gone a long way. The technology is clearly explained -- there is interpolation happening -- but clearly the opinions expressed by these historians are philosophical in nature. It's worth having the discussion but the article doesn't go far enough, IMHO.
> “Colourisation does not bring us closer to the past; it increases the gap between now and then. It does not enable immediacy; it creates difference.”
I don't find either of these stances intuitive, but the article doesn't help. A simple follow up question of "why?" would have gone a long way. The technology is clearly explained -- there is interpolation happening -- but clearly the opinions expressed by these historians are philosophical in nature. It's worth having the discussion but the article doesn't go far enough, IMHO.