I can’t remember how I heard of it, but I recently picked up a book by the British artist and writer David Batchelor called Chromophobia, published in 2000. Batchelor’s thesis is that color is “the object of extreme prejudice in Western culture” and that this has gone unnoticed. I was curious about this because, though I have had my flings with color, I choose to present my photographs mainly in black and white.
Here’s more:
Chromophobia manifests itself in the many and varied attempts to purge colour from culture, to devalue colour, to diminish its significance, to deny its complexity. More specifically: this purging of colour is usually accomplished in one of two ways. In the first, colour is made out to be the property of some “foreign” body — usually the feminine, the oriental, the primitive, the infantile, the vulgar, the queer or the pathological. In the second, colour is relegated to the realm of the superficial, the supplementary, the inessential or the cosmetic. In one, colour is regarded as alien and therefore dangerous; in the other, it is perceived merely as a secondary quality of experience, and thus unworthy of serious consideration.
Batchelor cites a number of artists and others in support of his notion. Probably one could find an equal number saying the opposite, but I’m not familiar with art criticism in this area. In photography, by historical accident of technology, black and white held sway until the 60’s or 70’s, but nowadays it’s almost all color, in “fine art” as well as other genres.
Does the idea of chromophobia ring true at all for you? Although I work in black and white, I feel that is for reasons related to what I want to convey, not because of any antipathy or disrespect for color. But who knows what prejudices lurk in the hearts of our rationalizations?
Interesting topic. It took me years to be comfortable with the fact that I am a colorist and that it’s OK.
When I first moved to NYC, people called me such and it felt like an indirect put-down. Like to have an interest in color is fluff. Or even just to be good at it…
This was years ago and things are not quite so dark now.
I think color can have all kinds of implications, especially if your forms are simple. Color can make it move.
eva,
Thanks for the input, sounds like your experience more or less validates Batchelor’s contention. I think I’d be thrilled to be called a colorist, but it seems beyond me at the moment. It’s hard enough to handle monochrome.
I am glad you wrote this – I love this book! It is one of those quirky, part theory, part random thoughts books that seems to defy definition.
In academia, you MUST learn black and white first – black and white design, drawing, photography, etc. then you can learn about color. So black and white is the “core,” the underlying structure of everything. And color is often considerd an addition but not essential. Of course academia is full of rules. I think it also has to do with color being so complex that to teach it alongside black and white is overwhelming for the student. But there is definitely a sense of it as the “other.”
I love the part of the book that talks about color being seductive, and in that way dirty somehow. And if something is dirty, it is that much easier to be critical of it as well. I like my dirty little world, thank you very much!
.. usually the feminine…the vulgar..the pathological !
Male birds and fish are often highly colorful to seduce the females of their species while the females indulge in their softer, more protective colors.
Various degrees are color blindness are more common among men than women(my anectodal observations).
This morning Troels considered color blindness a defect while I am wondering whether it is more interesting than that. Perhaps, it has some meaning with respect to phylogeny or whatever.
Colorblind men are good at seeing texture. Is seeing texture a biological advantage for males while being at good at color is a biological advantage for females?
Only because I respect Leslie so much will I think about reading the book (I love quirky random thinkers). I can hardly bear to read about another perverse prejudice within the art world.
Since I began (and continue) with color, I find rather amazing the idea that color could be thought of as “the property of some “foreign” body — usually the feminine, the oriental, the primitive, the infantile, the vulgar, the queer or the pathological. [Or] relegated to the realm of the superficial, the supplementary, the inessential or the cosmetic.” Strikes me as the notion of a poseur (or ten), maybe all black and white male photographers (just teasing, honest!!!) But of course, I am a foreign body, as defined in that sentence, so I guess it figures that I missed out on this problem.
Of course I took the design 101, black and white, class. But that was after I had done a lot of work with color, and it just seemed to fit into what I already knew about value and so forth. I also took Design 102, the “color” class and it was utterly boring — the instructor never told me that color is not just seductive, but “dirty.” Oh joy!
And for my third and last thought of the evening, I’m thinking I’m glad that I missed the entire controversy and am just coming in on the dirty parts. What pages were those again, Leslie?
Hmm…provocative.
Will be spending some time down at the library later this morning and I’ll check Artforum while there. I’ll count the ads to see how many associated images are in black and white.
I’m itching to jump to the defense of people like Rothko, Nolan, Frankenthaler, Stella, Van Gogh, Monet – but why? This Batchelor fellow is the one who needs to support his arguments.
Years ago the Cleveland Museum presented a show called The Colors of Ink in which the point was made that residing within the subtleties of Japanese sumi-e painting was a world of inferred color.
June,
I am flattered, but I had this sinking feeling after I wrote that part about color being associated with dirtiness (even whorishness) that I didn’t get that from Chromophobia. It has been a few years since I read it. Maybe Steve can advise on this, before you jump into reading it. If it is any help, the book is quite short and an easy read. There is another essay you might enjoy called something like “On Whiteness.” Of course I would have to dig around to find the author – something I read in grad school. A lot about race of course, but I think that is connected to our thoughts about color.
“can’t remember how I heard of it”
possibly me..
http://photo-muse.blogspot.com/2007/01/chromophobia.html
either way, I love to watch assumptions being jumped to on the basis of not actually having read something!
I’m with Leslie on this.
And it’s not a terribly heavy academic tome, nor an awfully complex argument.
But it is thought provoking and also quite light hearted
He takes an eclectic track through (western) art history back to the Ancient Greeks, through the academies, to Corbusier abandonment of colour after a fevered encounter with the Parthenon during his return from the “colourful” East and up to the present day, via the Wizard of Oz
but he also makes some important points about colour “theory”, language, colour, perception and so on.
It’s a quite short read and mostly not about some of the assumptions listed above :-)
Tim,
Very likely I did hear of it through you. I’ve been a fan of your blog since coming across it, and I think that had happened by the time of your post. So a retroactive thanks!
Silly as it may sound, I did it.
I looked at the first hundred ads in Artforum (and I wasn’t half way through the magazine yet) and am ready to report – with caveats.
Perhaps nine out of ten ads featured a color illustration or the names of artists known to use color. There was a significant gray area when it came to sculptors for which color might not be so significant and those advertisers seeking to save a buck with a black and white layout.
Color may be a lonely stepchild etc., but it sure appears to sell.
“looked at the first hundred ads in Artforum (and I wasn’t half way through the magazine yet) and am ready to report – with caveats.
Perhaps nine out of ten ads featured a color illustration or the names of artists known to use color.”
… you missed the point
Tim,
On your blog, you seem to quote (or paraphrase) Batchelor, saying that he describes “The essential difference between colour and colours (and where so much colour photography fails in recognizing that difference)”
What is that “essential difference?” Or is it essential to read the book to find out?
Actually the book sounds interesting, and I didn’t mean to sound as if I thought Batchelor was accusing me of being the colorful feminine other — I realized that he’s describing what some foolish pundits in the world have said or thought about color. I was a bit surprised (but shouldn’t have been) that Plato and Aristotle demeaned color. Weren’t the Greek statues from the golden age quite colorful?
Anyway, I’ll find the book and read it, but in the meantime, if you can enlighten me about “colour” and “colours” I’d ‘preciate.
Tim,
I may be missing the point you see, also. Is the ultimate evaluation in our society not what we will pay for something? Jay’s observation indicates advertising dollars are going to color, no doubt because advertisers think people respond best to color. My understanding is that color photographs are taking most of the collectors’ dollars these days. Are you suggesting this is analogous to, say, pornography that we covet and pay for but don’t really “respect”? Help me out here!
“I was a bit surprised (but shouldn’t have been) that Plato and Aristotle demeaned color. Weren’t the Greek statues from the golden age quite colorful?”
that’s the whole point – the colour was regarded as surface, superficial, added later. The true, ideal form was what is underneath (i.e. what we see and what is still artistically revered today about Greek statues) – which is one of Batchelor’s points on that
I may be missing the point you see, also. Is the ultimate evaluation in our society not what we will pay for something? Jay’s observation indicates advertising dollars are going to color, no doubt because advertisers think people respond best to color. My understanding is that color photographs are taking most of the collectors’ dollars these days. Are you suggesting this is analogous to, say, pornography that we covet and pay for but don’t really “respect”? Help me out here!
hard to do in a blog reply… and it’s been a while now since I actually read the book – although I dip into it now and again.
Essentially Batchelors point as I understood it is that there has been a deeply ingrained historic bias (through the history of western art at least) against colour going back at least to the ancient Greeks.
He skips through this history landing on certain illuminative points along the way.
He also shows how over the last century changes have taken place which have whittled away at this – Cezanne would be obvious for example – and touching on Warhol and Pollock and Stella et al, but despite all that the bias still lingers. You mention photography – it’s only since the 70’s that it was even rempotely possible to consider colour work as art (it was commercial, cheap, snapshots etc up until then). And probably only in the last 5-10 years max that it was treated really seriously as art. And only in the last 3 or 4 that serious “art” money was paid for colour photographic art.
And the attitude does still linger – my 6 year old is having it instilled in him at school – he really does have to learn to colour inside the lines – ensuring colour is still dominated by line…
So sure, it’s changed over the last hundred years, more rapidly over the last 50. But it’s still worth reading what he says as there’s a lot still lingering there, and it’s interesting and information.
(as are his takes on colour theory, the sociology and psychology of colour, colour and language and so on – like I said, for as small book it packs a lot in)
Despite the smallness of the book, he’s taking a pretty long overview.
On colour and colours – again, not easy to explain here in a few words. A small part would be the difference between treating colour as an essential “element” in it’s own right, indeed, possibly the most essential element in an picture/image – in fact the most elemental. (colour predating language, whereas line and for are related to language) etc etc… Colours is treating it as just tinted chiaroscuro etc
He has a whole little throw away section on colour is, colours are, but I can’t find it right now. You really have to read the book…
Frack – I had a whole post written out colour and colours, the colours ads thing etc etc – took me ages and it’s disappeared – you’ll just have to read the book!
okay – I’ll add a tiny bit of what I said. The basis of the book as I understand it is that there has been an underlying bias against colour in Western Art going back at least to the Ancient Greek. The book (despite being small) traces this line stopping at key illuminative points.
Despite the massive changes in the use of colour in art over the last hundred years, this bias still lingers. Someone mentioned colour photography – it’s a good example. Only “art” since the 70’s at best. Only big money, big museum show art in the last 5-10 years. (and in many ways the last 3-5).
My 6 years old son is, as we speak, being instructed to ensure he conforms and colours inside the lines – line and form (which are essentially the outworking of language) still dominate, despite colour predating language and being more elemental – but we’ve got to keep it under control…
On colour and colours – briefly, treating colour as basically tinted chiaroscura is one very small example – that’s about colours. Colour is more fundamental, more lemental. Colour is a curve, colours are points on a curve. Colours is really again, more about keeping colour – which is essentially beyond language – under control. Colour charts is colours… but really, read the book.
In photography, super saturated calendar photos of Antelope Canyon is colours. William Eggleston is about colour.
Tim,
Two of your comments were caught in our spam filter. That’s why they disappeared.
This happens occasionally, usually in batches. However, I de-spammed them manually. Hopefully the spam database will update and learn. In the meantime, if you are a registered user, you can log in. Registered users take advantage of the “always approve” function in moderation.
Very interesting discussion by the way. I usually find color more gauche than not. So I share the prejudice. I used to do totally lurid work, too. So it’s not like I’ve always felt that way. It’s just a swing of the pendulum for me.
I haven’t read the piece “On Whiteness” which was previously mentioned, but it got me thinking about what a friend said about all-white work….. I think it relates to what you were talking about here.
She felt some artists had worked it and worked it and for her, it got boring. She even said that Robert Ryman had hood-winked a bunch of people: “..and now he is doing it with eggshell alabaster…and now, it is with white acrylic on torn paper…” – she had a little art critic routine going. Hey, Ryman is God to many people and I was surprised – yet interested in what she was saying.
Not that she hated white on white. But she loved working with color and found that many of the people who had a hard time with her color filed into the White Army in no seconds flat, without questions. She saw it in her home town too, an adoption of white as very serious and of color as, well, maybe not.
Do you think this was part of the color-bias?
eva,
he has a whole fun section on a 19th C (I think) French academician called Blanc and his rules for use of colour (or more non-use). The whole thing about Corbusier being seduced by the ivory whiteness of the acropolis and abandoning colour in his architecture for white and so on
so essentially, in answer to your question, probably, yes.