Sorry, I was going to add this to the already-too-long post below, but I'd thought I'd spare you. I converted this image from a magazine to black and white when I scanned it in. And, looking at it again tonight, I'm amazed how little black/dark there is. A couple of chairs and a tambouret. A seat cushion. A few pops in the pattern on a pillow and in the flowers and furniture legs. Except for the large pillow on the foreground sofa, there's very little in the way of medium tones as well. I thought there'd be more.
It strikes me that it is no accident that the mass of dark (the chairs and tambouret) are a grouping, instead of say, a sofa, and that the designer has placed them most deliberately there. First, the mass is not as solid as a sofa would be. There is air and light around it (and quite a bit of it too. Those are not Lazee-boys!). Second, it's placed right between the two seating areas: the dark makes them act like a divider, a wall--but one you can visually walk through. They're physically and visually a dividing line between the two spaces. Nice.
And look at all the texture! From hard glass to the softest, fluffiest rug, I'm amazed by the subtle tonal variations and interest they give the room. The objects are pale--but they are all a different shade of pale because each material reflects the light differently. It's not as apparent to me in a coloured photograph that this is happening: but it's very clear in black and white. I tend to ignore texture--I think, perhaps wrongly--that it is out of my price range. But perhaps not. I don't think I should ignore it anymore.
No comments :
Post a Comment