On a fundamental level, without some tone contrast, all you have is a solid color. Even Rothko varies his tones. And even if he didn’t, the viewing conditions would give it, at the very least, some slight contrast.
So contrast’s important, and I think about it a lot and always have a lot to say about it. But what made me think about it just now was this photo up on the Fashion Gone Rogue site:
A beautiful, simple portrait. But what jumped out at me was the contrast of those zippers against both the soft skin and against the soft quilt fabric of the jacket. I’m not saying it’s earth-shattering, but try to imagine the same photo, but without those zippers. Or with the zippers, but with a thick leather jacket. When I do, a completely different feeling comes to me.
Now maybe using a jacket with zippers wasn’t a conscious use of contrast, and maybe it shouldn’t and couldn’t have been conscious, but instead was a gut feeling (it is art, not science, after all). On the other hand, maybe it could have been conscious.
But however it happened, the subtly of the contrast here really helps (I hope) to amplify the illustration of what contrast can do for a picture.
