Please read Intro only (pp 7-10). Comment with a 2 paragraph response (thoughtful, intelligent, etc.)
24 March 2008
John Gage's Colour and Culture
Please read Intro only (pp 7-10). Comment with a 2 paragraph response (thoughtful, intelligent, etc.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
This introduction was insightful in terms of thinking about the power and utility of color and how color presents itself not only as a philosophical problem but an unanswerable question. Cage notes Melville and his comments on color being bottomlessly resistant to nomination. I feel this is an accurate account, because to many, color does attach itself to its own specificity and visibility. For instance, observing the color red alludes to wine, blood, apples etc. The feeling produced by the color is unique to the viewers perspective. However, in terms of art history, color seems to be theoretically tied to literature. The characterization and connection of color to outlets such as race, feeling, gender, activity and passivity are references to which i know little about. Although, I do know the sight of yellow and red make people hungry, the appropriation of color is a simple thing until subverted. By this I mean the misuse of color for a specific purpose.
I am finding the relevance of color having a vivid life outside the realm of art within my own work. While reading this text I began to ask myself the reason for choosing a color besides the fact that they are complimentary or appropriate. The connections made through color and people can be both scientific and artistic. Is this to say our expressions and perceptions of human creativity are just another scientific algorithm yet to be unlocked and reproduced? The article points out the science of art and the controversy surrounding the term in ways of art theory being pigeonholed by rhetoric and intellectual literature. I feel that there is a point to where we should explore color and all its possibilities but I am wary of over complicating perception. But maybe we should, maybe that is our duty as artists.
-Nick
I do agree/believe as visual artists we should complicate perception, but how you challenge viewers is your choice as a drawer, painter, video maker, or filmmaker. However, I wanted to see where I stood socially before accessing myself to color theory. In my early work, if color is musical timbre, I was banging pots and pans, maybe still scratching some chalkboards. Color is very important in the visual arts. John Gage writes, “If deconstruction sees nothing beyond that ‘text’, colour at least can afford an instant where text falls short of any close engagement”. Visual artists use concepts. Concepts are the building blocks of theories. Color (blue) is a scientific. The concept of color and the nomination of blue, says nothing about the meaning or difference to red or yellow. Color theorists link a set of concepts (colors) with statements meant to explain why and how certain things – Color Scheme, for example - occur. Neutral gray is characterless and indifferent, but add any type of hue and it thrills and transforms it, according to Johannes Itten’s The Elements of Color. Color, achromatic or discernable, is a building block of art.
I would be interested in reading further on the contradictions of Meso-American color systems (Chapter 7: Color Colorado). I am curious of how culture is nominated by color and how it is a social construction. Surely the first film of its kind (at least in my generation) that explores this phenomenon brilliantly is Spike Lee’s “Do The Right Thing”. After the violent death of Radio Raheem and the subsequent activism against discrimination, the Korean Immigrant who owns the corner grocery store, replies to the crowd, “I am black, you and me the same”. In the novel Caramelo, by Sandra Cisneros, she explores the Mexican culture and its relationship to racism to the more indigenous, darker appearance. As a painter, I have to render color in a static environment. If color, achromatic or discernable is a building block of art, then the choice of how I render it may reveal or question hierarchal thinking.
We have to thank the inability of objects for not being able to absorb all seven wavelengths and allowing us to see these beautiful colors. Knowing that we don’t see the true color of anything, we should not care about the colors associated to objects, but we do. We interpret color in three different ways of visual, emotional, and cultural based on our false observation, and disregard the scientific facts. In regard to color, science has done its part but art is limping behind.
Coincidently, my thesis project is based on color, so I have recently done some research about it. Surprisingly, I found colors are of philosophical interest for two reasons. The first reason is that colors play an important role in our social, personal and epistemological lives. The second reason is that trying to fit colors into accounts of metaphysics, epistemology being the nature of knowledge, and science leads to philosophical problems that are hard to resolve. Having found complexity and sometimes paradox information about color, I am looking forward to read entire Gage’s book and hope like the introduction, his “attempt to expose and explore historicity of color” sheds some light on the obtuse subject of color.
I would agree with Cage that any "semiotics of color must be historically contingent." This approach, he states further, will be best for a unifying vision, for color perception in color language and for a discussion of color in art and literature in Western visual art in his first three chapters.
Color is phenomenological. It is seen through the lens of culture. What white represents in one culture will be different to others.
Color has a life outside of art. Race and gender codes appear in terms of color understanding. Skin tones delineate racial positions
As a painter, I tend to use a limited palette. I take advantage of the active and passive colors and look forward to where the hot spot of color will pop out in the composition. Color can be the instrument for reading the drawing. What the color means to the viewer can change the artist's intent and message if he or she has an intent i.e. red will evoke a strong emotion. So the artist must be aware of his audience. Is pink always feminine? Does color have a spiritural impact as Klein insisted with Klein blue? It would be interesting to see what Cage says about Seurat's color harmonies that were designed to produce a feeling of serenity.
Reading this, I think of the writings by Roland Barthes concerning photography, particularly his discussion of an element he terms punctum, essentially defined as a detail or visual element in a photograph that “pricks” the viewer, grabbing our attention, and helping the image to surpass mere representation and touch something poignant yet indefinable within the viewer. I can imagine color schemes functioning in a similar way, being carefully coordinated to do so for a particular audience, whether the artist is conscious of it or not.
Just as the punctum of an artwork can be different for each person, so certain hues and intensities can hold very specific associations that are dependent upon the viewer. Colors can carry temporal as well as cultural associations, and many films implement a specific color palette to evoke a time period. One recent example is the film Zodiac, which rather heavy-handedly uses an inordinately large amount of yellow in a large number of scenes, appearing everywhere: from wall paint, to dress shirts, and even spice racks. Once you are aware of its presence, it becomes almost laughable how it squeaks its way into virtually every scene. It is not a “bright, happy” yellow of a smiley face or banana, but the dull, mustard yellow that is associated with the 1970s (along with avocado green), the time period in which the majority of the film is set.
Similarly, a film such as Jacques Tati’s Playtime is dominated by variations of gray. Additionally, most other colors in his palette have some sort of mix of gray in them. In this case, gray is used as a universally recognizable element of the sterile interiors of modern buildings that carry a dull uniformity, often only distinguishable by crucial signage to indicate their purpose.
Using color palettes today to evoke a past era or certain cultural associations seems common practice in both entertainment and advertising, and usually follows cyclical patterns, with certain hues falling in and out of fashion. Such a technique seems much more suited to graphic design than fine art.
I am wary of placing too much value on a largely scientific or ‘empirical’ approach to interpreting any art form or element thereof, since to me it seems to be reductive and neglectful of other perspectives. Though it may provide interesting insights for a certain audience such as historians and designers, I think it is less useful for artists and their audience.
There is a danger of explaining too much for the viewer and diminishing the pleasure and experience of discovery; like DVD commentaries, once a color scheme is explained and consciously exposed to a viewer, it seems to become an inescapable limitation in interpreting the piece. Equally troublesome is the danger of the artist over-designing their artwork from the beginning, eliminating chance and happy accidents, and making everything a little too neat and over-orchestrated. It has been widely observed by many aestheticians that the best of all artworks are those in which the piece in question can, in and of itself, almost “possess” its own maker and seemingly guide its own creation to an unpredictable result which is more than often superior to the artist’s original plans and intentions.
John Gage's introduction points to some troubling and exciting realities within the past's characterization of color. He states that his book "presents many cases where words have been felt to be less than adequate to the task of characterizing colour" The interaction with color resides most effectively within the phenomenological. This considers Art's use of color to be outside of philosophical characterizations. Theories of thought which rely heavily if not only in the written word cannot accurately or even partially characterize color. Art becomes, as Gage suggests, the most suitable tool in perceiving color.
This does not throw out the advancements science has developed with regard to understanding the simple mathematical and physical properties of color. There is just the recognition that everything is not simplified through the lenses used within other bodies of knowledge. To reduce the experience of color, viewed through a work of art, set up by an artist with specificity, to words, can be seen as problematic and limiting.
This methodology needs to concern itself with all the aspects of the artmaker, unlike typical scientific analysis which excludes many specific bits of information, such as funding or emotional state of researcher which may color the way statistics are both read by the audience or derived by the scientist.
Gage finishes his introduction with the suggestion that there is resistance to both science as art, and art as science. I see this a an important point within any understanding of the atmosphere in which both art and science exist. Science has built its reputation through hard, epistemological research. Art is something close to the heavens, a practice for only few with talent...both of these polarized views are of course flawed and have become loosened from their opposite ends of the spectrum yet there is still resistance to look at both as being fluid along a shared continuum. Completely similar and overlapping while still remaining individual and equally important, Gage's support for this discussion brings up the ability for both art and science maintain their own identity and still help explain one another. Freeing these bodies of knowledge from the notion that Art is special, poetic, elusive and science is factual, hard, mathematical.
The thesis of Gage's book is apparently "to expose and explore the historicity of colour", that is, the authenticity of the history of color. He suggests that an art-historical approach is best for coming to "a unifying vision, because of the close engagement of practising artists and craftworkers in colour-perception". I am conflicted about this for a few reasons. One, he realizes in a paragraph on page 8 that studying semiotics of color through local historical contingencies means studying phenomenologically the color in question, which seems to be what he is trying to avoid because personal perception is just that--personal--and therefore always varying. He seems to me to be trying to avoid phenomenological perception. Two, deciding that the best way to approach the matter (through art history) is unfair to those who do not engage in it. In other words, to give practicing artists and craft workers the upper hand in determining an "authentic" history is a slight to those who see and experience color but are not identified as artists or even just art historians. Artists are not the only people who see or experience color, nor are all artists so knowledgeable in the history of art. What of artists who are color blind? Should they be disregarded because their sight is not as "pure" and their feelings towards the colors they can see are not as valid? Everyone experiences color and can have an opinion about it; we all see art throughout our daily lives. Unless a work in completely black or white or gray, is the only correct interpretation of it that of an artist or art historian? To suggest that artists and art historians are the best to interpret color's history is to suggest that they are the best to determine color's future. That is like saying only social historians have the correct interpretation of human history and are the only people who know the right way to lead humanity into the future. Their information and views are valuable but not absolute. I feel this is the case with color, yet is hard for me to gather whether Gage supports one idea wholeheartedly and not another as his paragraphs make many statements only to point out their weaknesses a few lines down. He knows that color has a life outside of art, and that even within the art world it cannot be understood only within art history and theory. However, he writes in such a way that I feel he thinks the only realm outside of art is science, which is important but not exclusive. Is there more to the world than art and science? Some argue that everything is art; is science a form of art? Some argue science can explain everything; is art a science that can be studied? If so, can it be studied adequately through color alone?
Gage's further investigation into the deconstruction of color is a significant attempt into a non homogenous theory. A study of philosophy, science, art and symbolism can become a recipe for something new. A mix of theories can open something we haven't realized yet. Although my personal preference is to put color under the scrutiny of a microscope where color has physical properties interacting in the eye, i also think color evokes emotion. Newton's color prism was a definitive answer to color's properties: its all wavelengths. Color-circles or color-wheels are of considerable application in this context but still cause confusion between physics and art. Art differs greatly between science because we run on broken rules, to the artist color takes a multiplicity of meanings and forms.
"If color is to yield meaning, it must be named."
The meaning of color comes from us: as an individual and as a culture. And from these labels comes the theory. Some good, some bad: the red, purple, and orange revolution. I think symbolism is best used when categorizing information and making it easily accessible or by pointing to its importance by not making it accessible. The CTA has an easy color code to remember, each train line has a different color and all bus stops have blue signs. The cultural significance of color can show your political affiliation, whether your republican, democrat, or green. These political colors stand for something and that could lead to an affinity with your peer or a hatred of them. So go on Gage and do your thing, the more we study color and its associations the more material we have to mash and mix things up to create our new language.
rafael
I'd be interested in reading more about how the third chapter (Colour in Art and its Literature)re-defines the order of the history of color in relation to art. As it states; the history of color is first explained in literature or with text from the present to the past which history does not. I'm curious to see how the meaning of color has changed from the present to the past. As in all areas of life, meanings change over time. The spectacle of color has different meanings to art, culture, and gender. As the introduction points out, there are scientists out there that would love nothing more that to unify a study of color, as opposed to two separate but related perceptions, I don't find unity of those theories effective. Interesting yes, but color is not like math or the periodic table. It just has too many meanings to begin to justify one specific meaning to one color at a time. It would be impossible.
I am of the belief that the artists' intent of a piece is only accented by color which then gives the color meaning. Color is not only tied to literature and art but again to gender, race, culture, and age. The relevance of the decade you were born in is just as important now, as the culture one was nurtured into. Again, this is why the meaning of color changes during the course of history.
- LINDA
While reading John Gage’s introduction to “Color and Meaning” I found myself agreeing with most of what was said. I see the unification of the two to be important in terms of understanding how color is interpreted outside the art historical context. I began to think about color’s life on it’s own outside of art and how it can change the way you feel about certain objects even setting the mood for the day. I do however wonder about the complications of the science of art such as the language problem that is also inherent when studying color and would like read further about the science of art and how he thinks that would lead us to a better understanding of color.
The more I work with color photography the more complicated color becomes to me. Reading this introduction has been helpful to me in beginning to think about how to address some of those problems especially in terms of the art historical approach to studying color. The use of color in advertising over the years changes and builds off of what was before it. This reading has led me to believe that a more in depth study on these subjects would greatly benefit my understanding and use of color in my work.
The relationships between color perception varies from person to person. According to John Gage, the need for color association and interpretation is heavily dependent on ones ``specific contexts in which it is experienced.`` Therefor it is accurate to say that color is a social, philosophical and idealogical construct of the mind operating differently throughout cultures. In this case the color red wont share the same meaning when we step outside of a western context. Color theorist were interested in how color interaction attachés itself to cultural meaning. A student of color theory learns how to formulate specific color relationships to convey certain emotions on individuals. Her/his ultimate goal is to link a set of specific hues with concepts in hopes of explaining why and how certain colors either relate or disagree with one another.
The purpose of science inquiry, supposedly is to figure out distinctions from truth and non truth. Its basic foundation lies in proving an idea to be concrete and real or false. Color relationships exist through optics, as well as cultural signifier´s weather one recognizes it or not. Since color and context go hand in hand I'm interested in the ways certain cultures construct meaning's based on color, and most importantly how those meanings manifest itself in our daily lives.
Its interesting to me to think about race as a construct because of how the world bases many of its theories, assumptions and stereotypes on race through color. A few examples that use color theory for classifying the other have included early daguerreotypes, black codes, and the brown paper bag test. Historically science and art history have played a major role in how western cultures perceive color and human interaction. As a Black person living in this country I´m constantly reminded of my color, my blackness. I can count at least 20 vivid racist moments in my life that stand out. So it bothers me that a significant amount of artist choose not to talk about color as it relates to the construction of race, especially since we share the same world although not the same realities. I make art about these constructed relationships because I'm forced to deal with them, even when I don't want to. I think I subconsciously make cultural specific art to force other to think or deal with my everyday realities to a certain degree.
I think that John Gage’s historical approach to understanding and explaining the meaning and symbolism of color is far more interesting than those expressed by the philosophers Melville and Derrida. Gage argues that an art-historical approach to color offers the best opportunity for a unifying vision because of closely related perceptions of color by the artists. Gage’s book also deals with the historical contingency of color perceptions, along with the technological constraints of studying color in the visual art of the West, and the global iconography of color.
Gage argues that context and the historical significance of a certain color has an immense effect on how the color is read by the viewer. This understanding then leads to the way the work as a whole is interpreted. A work’s meaning, therefore, can change drastically depending on the cultural background of the viewer as well as their knowledge of the symbolism of color throughout history.
Understanding that color is a symbol that can be read in many different contexts is important for me as an artist. The notion that a color can be interpreted differently based on your age, culture, religion, class, and gender is especially interesting to me. I think that in order to be a successful artist you must have a good understanding of how your work will be read by different people, including the colors used or in some cases, the lack of color used.
-Keri
Since we perceive everyday objects in color, it is easy to overlook certain connotations that they may have. But from an artist's point of view color is key and the interpretation lies heavily in color choice whatever medium used. Cage makes this distinction between color existing on its own and color existing in a historical art context. But where does color exist on its own? Is Cage referring to nature or referring to the economy where advertisers have developed their own language of color? Regardless, an artist has to take everything into consideration. Historical, political, natural, or commercial, each has its own language of color. Every cultural aspect is embodied in color but its what the viewer picks up on within his or her own experiences and existence is what is valid. It is the role of a good artist to lead his or her viewers down the path of the connotation he/she is referring to which can be one or more associations as well.
Most people are not aware of color as having its own agency because of how it already exists in the world. Children experience color differently than adults do because it is less tainted and may exist as a sense that they may apply with their own imaginations. As a child I learned at a very young age that pink was for girls and blue was for boys. I enjoyed coloring books, where I would always give objects their correct color associations. But what changed my thinking was a children’s book called Mr. Silly about a character who lived in Nonsenseland where everything was upside-down or backwards. Here the trees were red and the grass was blue. Every year the town had a competition to see who could have the silliest idea. Mr. Silly painted all the trees in the town green and won the prize. This made me question first how different objects would be experienced in different colors and also how people experience colors differently.. How do people who are colorblind interpret the world? A simple children’s book had encouraged me to break past the limits of already established color associations. In my work as a photographer I am very sensitive to color and separate colors to identity. But as a painter I am too distracted by the overall outcome of colors working together. This intro helped me to understand everything I was already aware of in photography but pointed me to treat my paintings the same.
What first caught my attention in Gage's introduction was the separation of color from art. It may seem like a simple distinction, but I think it is commonly forgotten. Visual art might rely on colors existence, but
colors do not require art. Color exists naturally based on different
wavelengths of light. While I think it is obvious that color can invoke phenomenological experience, knowing that there is a science behind its existence questions(for me) perception both physically and emotionally. How have these wavelengths occurring in certain patterns, given similar inspiration for so many works? Are the individual artists experiencing a shared feeling? Is the experience based on a projection from their cultural surroundings, or does the culture imitate mass perception? How can different colors have such different meanings in other cultures?
On another note, I'm glad that the introduction mentioned "..the recent historiography of art has tended to limit theory to rhetoric." Having read different essays by artists as well as theorists and philosophers, it seems that persuasive language is the most powerful tool. I myself have fallen subject to questioning my beliefs on art from seductive writings, that upon further inspection hold small regard to the topic. Though I think it is important to be constantly in search for pros and cons of different theories and beliefs, it is easy to get wrapped up in the romanticism of language.
Gage’s introduction provides us with several points of examination including historical use, meaning, science, psychology and language in the field of color and the concerns that arise in each of these areas of discussion. I was particularly taken, however, by the notion (not one supported by Gage’s claim) that color could be classified or a meaning determined based only on cultural use, historical use, etc…
The notion that color can be used as a language of sorts is as troubling as the assertion that language or words themselves are autonomously functioning parts of a seamless and properly functioning system. The reality of language itself (regardless of the dialect) is that languages are only held together by a collective agreement and are riddled with inherent failure. The vagueness, misunderstandings, misinterpretations, and problems in language translate when applied to the field of color and the meaning of colors. The word “dog” “for example conjures many different yet correct images of a dog for any number of viewers just as the word “red” provides us all with limitless versions of the red.
Science in some ways has defined colors (pantone system, CIE, computer/internet color numbers, etc…) but they will always fail to contain the same sort of meaning as the color itself as they are dependent on the viewer’s eyes and their individual experience both for interpretation and recognition.
Colors are seen through the eyes of the viewer and the viewers various filters. Such filters can be physical, experience based, culturally established, or otherwise. These filters will affect the way in which each viewer will see and perceive colors (both their physical qualities/science and their psychological and cultural meanings)
Gage's book asks whether color is just a physiological reaction or a sensation that is caused from different wavelengths of light on the receptors in our eyes. According to the works he refers to in this introduction color can be both of these. The scientific definition of color does not outweigh the physiological reaction the brain experiences when viewing different colors. He states that color has a life outside the realm of art, color cannot be understood simply by looking to art and what theorist think it to be. These things should be considered but one should also consider the scientific side of color.
Science provides factual evidence that whatever sensation one experiences from viewing a certain color is coming from somewhere and it is not simply something that is imagined. The feeling that one receives from looking at a certain color is subjective but it tends to be dependent on the significance that a certain culture has placed upon it. Both science and culture define what we call color. S.Barnes
Gage presents some complicated and contradictory philosophies and studies of color between science, history, and art backgrounds. Scientific exploration of color certainly lacks ability to explore real individual perception and cultural influence as a whole, while artists may be, in my opinion, relying on a narrow motive for their study.
I think Gage's discussion of rhetoric and the how there is potential to over complicate the subject was quite important. I couldn’t quite come to terms with Adami’s claim that color is an ‘instrument for reading drawing, as the voice is an instrument for reading writing’. I began to question whether the form and the color seen within it are, indeed, separate entities. If color is perceived differently in different contexts or even by different eyes/minds, where does it stand?
In my practice color is like vocabulary. When it’s put together in a painting it creates a color scheme in which an artist can use like a writer uses vernacular. But in my current work color is trace, and at times absent. This leads me to wonder where, or what, is the vernacular when color is not used in creating artwork. What is artwork without a vocabulary?
I feel like this introduction speaks to color as a specific trait for painting. Artists of the moving image must deal with color differently because the transitions that Melville suggests can possibly exist within the same work - and the language of communication is inherently different.
I find this whole introduction to be a net. When cast it captures large ideas full of contingent histories of their own, but what slips through the holes are the “spread of children's games” that are as much a part of art as the semiotics that follow. To go totally astray - without golf, there’d be no golf commentary.
Joe Baldwin
Perhaps the great nexus of all of these facets of color theory and its histories is in the market and the graphic arts. Advertising utilizes the science of color and art applications for very specific effect. Psychological theory was actively referenced and studied as advertising and communications became professionalized in the early 20th century. Artist have crossed into the realm of poster making and advertising for at least 200 years. Culture is the goal of marketing, to direct it, to actually become it.
The preponderance of advertising, products (including media as product) and the near absolute consumer identity of our modern world is an overwhelming director in the ways that color presently works.I am very conscious of the power of the market to absorb ideas and subsequently re-shape them. This is the ultimate 'spirit of the times' and is a cause of present cultural homogenization. Culturally specific or historically specific notions of color survive only so long as the market finds it advantageous to do so.
Luke
One of the ideas I respond to in this introduction is the scientific reference to the “form” of color as unified vibrations of the ether. I tend to think of color as a perceptual experience, an experience that circumvents my scientific understanding of color as a reflected wavelength of radiation and is processed in my brain as a site on a sort of relativistic map; a property or a quality of a thing’s “thing-ness” that relates it to other things I’ve seen/experienced. It links to other sites on the map that are associated with pleasure, normalcy, convention, codes, symbols, feelings, identification, etc. I usually only take special notice when it charts a new course because I see a color in conjunction with an object or experience that is unexpected, or when it links to pleasure. But I find the science fascinating, as the path that color and light take link me bodily to objects and to the source of light, ultimately, outer space and to eons of history is a complex “field” of vibrations with lots of routes, intersections and diversions. Also, then light is the instrument of color, or the vehicle of our perception of color, in the way that Adami ascribes color to drawing, and it is this instrument that some artists are then drawn to: The “light” in the south of France or some other region or context for perceiving color that brings about revelation, a new course on the map.
I recently had an experience in the naming of color when we re-painted our living room. We always laugh at the pretension or the absurdity? of the color names in our Benjamin Moore color chart even though I’m familiar with attempt to contextualize or connote meaning in this way. So our living room recently went from a very cozy and autumnal “audabon russet” to a surprisingly more expansive and lighter than I envisioned “revere pewter”. I almost easily see now how color could come under the scrutiny of deconstructionist theory; It is a vehicle for meaning that is slippery in the way that language describes reality, it is not the thing it describes. Color is a property or an aspect of something that can be altered in translation or greatly affected by context, so how does this affect our understanding?
Post a Comment