Chromophobia

FOCI

by David Batchelor

Chromophobia - a fear of corruption or contamination through colour - has lurked within Western culture since ancient times. This is apparent in the many attempts to purge colour from art, literature and architecture, either by making it the property of some "foreign" body - the oriental, the feminine, the infantile the vulgar or the pathological - or by relegating it to the realm of the superficial, the inessential or the cosmetic, which in many cases amounts to the same thing. In Chromophobia, David Batchelor analyzes the history of, and motivations behind, chromophobia, from its beginnings through examples of nineteenth-century literature, twentieth-century architecture and film, to Pop art, minimalism and the art and architecture of the present day. Batchelor suggests how colour fits, or fails to fit, into the cultural imagination of the West, exploring such diverse themes as Melville's "great white whale," Le Corbusier's "journey to the East," Huxley's experiments with mescaline. Dorothy's travels in the Land of Oz and the implication of modern artists' experiments with industrial paints and materials.

Genres: Art, Nonfiction, Philosophy, History, Theory, Art History, Design

125 pages, Paperback

First published September 1, 2000

Reviews

[Alok Vaid-Menon · Rating 3 out of 5]

Why do we regard wearing black and white is more professional and formal than wearing color? Why do we continue to gender vibrant colors as feminine? Scottish artist David Batchelor coins the term “chromophobia” to capture the ways Western psyche seeks to renounce color, homogenize it, remove it of its complexity and depth. He argues that a fear of corruption or contamination from color haunts Western culture.

Western society has made us associate color with otherness, excess, irrationality, and chaos. Black and white on the other hand is projected as neutral and serious. This fear of color is perhaps best encapsulated by the German writer Johann Wolfgang van Goethe who once wrote: “savage nations, uneducated people, and children have a great prediction for vivid colors…people of refinement avoid vivid colors in their dress, and the objects that are about them and seem inclined to banish them altogether from their presence.”

Batchelor reviews an extensive body of scholarship in art history and philosophy to show how chromophobia is enabled by displacing color to the realm of a “foreign” Other (the feminine, the primitive, the queer, the pathological, etc.) bestowing it with this projective power to invade, overwhelm, infiltrate, annihilate. This is a similar and mutually informing process whereby Western culture continually imagines itself as threatened by “non-Western sensuality.”

According to Western colonial aesthetics, whiteness is whereas color does. Therefore, color must be controlled, classified, and contained.

[Fulya · Rating 3 out of 5]

The only thing that I would say about this book is, I wish Batchelor had written a long long essay out of the last two chapters rather than writing this whole book.

[Soumya Shyam · Rating 3 out of 5]

David Batchelor exposes some key truths about how colour in recent history is experienced, purposefully trivialized and in essence, feared by men in power; especially those of a higher social class and...well, white.
The book has some great cornerstones but at the same time I could not fully enjoy it because I found the writing to be extremely all over the place. There are some sudden brilliant ideas in it which also seem to vanish in thin air within the same page; they aren't explored further. Batchelor jumps from one half-explained idea to the other repeatedly, quotes one philosopher after the other and quite arbitrarily so. It makes the phenomenon of chromophobia feel much more built on random words from individuals rather than cultures as a whole.
Batchelor also uses a lot of, in my opinion, unnecessarily pompous language. It gives the book a very 'bulshitty' vibe which is sad because the ideas in it are pretty amazing. I feel they could do with some better articulations so that they become more accessible.

[WURLD · Rating 3 out of 5]

i got what i needed out of this, i’m just not big on art history specifically (but it’s good if that’s what you’re into!)

[Rubén Ruleo · Rating 2 out of 5]

Cromofobia es, para mí, un ensayo fallido. Un ensayo que parte de una premisa espectacular: "la carga cultural que tiene el color (el color como concepto) en nuestra sociedad y en el arte", pero en la que, el autor, no es capaz de sacar todo el partido.

Esto se debe, desde mi punto de vista, a su sesgo de clase y género. No es capaz de ver el potencial de sus propias tesis. Por ejemplo, expone una idea súper potente: la vinculación intrínseca del color con la otredad.

El color, desde el punto de vista de la cultura occidental, es decir, desde el punto de vista hegemónico se ha relacionado con lo femenino, con lo infantil, con lo "primitivo", con lo LGTB, con lo "vulgar". El color está vinculado con toda la disidencia del sistema clasista, racista, misógino, homófobo, tránsfobo y adultocentrista en el que estamos.

Por lo tanto el color es accesorio, irrelevante, es más, es tentador, es peligroso porque distrae de la forma, de la pureza del blanco y de la línea. Esta "cromofobia" ha estado en la base de toda enseñanza artística academicista y ha sido la triunfadora de todos los debates pictóricos sobre la forma y el color. El color (la disidencia, la otredad) se debe someter a la forma (al sistema, al statu quo), la función del color es servir, ser útil y sumiso, a la forma.

Dejarse llevar por el color y que este sea el aspecto central de la obra, sólo hará de esta pieza algo vulgar, hortera, simple, nada elevado ni profundo. Pero también esta asociación está presente en la vestimenta y en el maquillaje. Usar mucho color es hortera, está mal visto, no es elegante.

Todo este análisis que hace Batchelor me parece súper revelador y tremendamente interesante. Sin embargo, el autor, despacha estas ideas en breves paginas y se centra en unas implicaciones más filosóficas que pragmáticas, entre otras cosas debido a sus referentes casi todos señoros de pro. Además en muchos casos no se sabe cuándo analiza o crítica las ideas de estos referentes o son los pensamientos del propio Batchelor.

En cuanto al propio texto, aunque la prosa es bastante buena, la organización del texto y de las ideas no me llevaban hacia conclusiones claras sino que más bien eran nexos para ideas, muchas de ellas, interesantes pero sin una gran conclusión clara.

En definitiva, me quedo con mis propias divagaciones sobre el texto, usándo su posicionamiento como herramienta de análisis más que con el texto en sí que, como decía, es más bien fallido.

Para concluir y siguiendo con esta vinculación metafórica, llenemos nuestras vidas, nuestras caras, y nuestros cuerpos de color. Seamos unos pavos reales, horteras y estridentes, que eso también es disidencia.

[Siona Adams · Rating 1 out of 5]

Incredibly boring and pretentious. I picked this from a list of books for an assignment in one of my art classes because the topic sounded interesting. And maybe it could’ve been had it been written by someone who was concise and could get the point across in 10 pages rather than 25. Realistically this could’ve been a 10-15 page paper rather than a 125 paged book. Would not recommend at all.

[Julyssa · Rating 1 out of 5]

Chapters 4 and 5 were the least frustrating chapters of this book, like a pretentious veil had finally been lifted (briefly). Otherwise, thoughts felt incoherent and some just unnecessary. It was just overall an unpleasant read.

[Eman Naseer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating read that provided a historical and philosophical context to western cultures’ aversion to color. It was so interesting to read about the ways in which the west uses color to “other” - something I’ve felt in my own personal experiences. It was very validating to understand the cultural and intellectual underpinnings that formed these long-standing and culturally relevant ideas regarding excess, vibrance and maximalism.

[Carla]

Pues no lo leí completo, solo la primera mitad que es lo que necesitaba para el ensayo que estoy escribiendo. Me ayudó bastante y me pareció muy interesante, pero de momento no tengo intenciones de leer los últimos capítulos así que ya lo dejo marcado como leído.

[Dominika Žáková · Rating 2 out of 5]

To, že som skoro dva mesiace čítala stostranovú knihu o farbách, vraví za všetko. Úvod a záver ponúkli sľubné myšlienky a zbytok bol bohužiaľ ubíjajúci.

[Laura · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is how my reading experience went with Chromophobia:
Chapter One: Crap. I hated this book.
Chapter Two: ok. . . blablablab
Chapter Three: AH HA! because of this chapter I now hate ch. 1 less
Chapter Four: And now I hate ch. 2 less
Chapter Five: pretty good stuff

This book read backwards to me. I didn't either understand half of what the author was saying, hopefully not because of my own stupidity, but because he didn't make sense. But as the book went on, I felt I understood it more and more, by reading further I understood previous chapters better. It was an odd read, and one I did for a class. But, I had never actually thought about COLOR in such a way before, or that it had such a significant background other than being paint, or decorative. Interesting the way color is explained by a phobia or phillia, between a fall from grace or a fall into something in general. Its a good read, which leads to an examination of your own artwork, at least it did in my class.

[Troy · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a fantastic little book that goes against the Western philosophical tendency to attack, revile, or belittle color. This book is accessible and readable, and full of interesting arguments.

But if you're looking for intellectual rigor, search out this book's Ur-text: Jacqueline Lichtenstein's The Eloquence of Color: Rhetoric and Painting in the French Classical Age. Unfortunately the book is hard to find, but it's worth it.

[Lindsay Miller · Rating 3 out of 5]

Batchelor adeptly weaves together some curious trends in our complex relationship with colour. The recurring themes certainly get you thinking, but are best taken with a grain of salt, as the examples brought into this dense little book don't always say what he thinks they do as surely as his eloquence might incline one to believe. Insightful, but not revolutionary.

[Patricia · Rating 1 out of 5]

Other far superior books that I would recommend reading instead of the poorly written, disjointed, and over-reaching Chromophobia: Richard Dyer's White or Toni Morrison's Whiteness and the Literary Imagination.

[Dasha · Rating 3 out of 5]

A jargon-laden piece of work but highly rewarding nonetheless. I now have a variety of new terms to use while defending eccentric uses of colour.

[Maye Ruiz · Rating 5 out of 5]

Un libro para chiquitiarse, para subrayarlo todo y leer un puñado de libros más a partir de.

Un libro para cromófilos… aunque los cromófobos son quienes más lo necesitan.

Chromophobia, de David Batchelor, es una obra que interpela a todos aquellos que le temen al color, revelando cómo a lo largo de la historia occidental el color ha sido injustamente relegado, asociado a lo primitivo, lo infantil o incluso lo vulgar. Aunque es un libro de nicho —ideal para artistas, diseñadores y quienes trabajan con el color—, su lectura tiene el potencial de desafiar prejuicios más allá de estas disciplinas.

Como interiorista declaradamente cromófila, encontrar este libro fue casi un acto de justicia: un “anti-gaslighting” para reafirmar que, efectivamente, el color despierta reacciones profundas, tanto de atracción como de rechazo. En palabras de Goethe:

“Cabe mencionar que las naciones salvajes, la gente inculta y los niños sienten una especial predilección por los colores vivos; que los animales se excitan hasta la ira por ciertos colores; que la gente refinada evita los colores brillantes de sus atuendos y en los objetos que les rodean, y parece inclinarse a desterrarlos por completo de su presencia.”

¿El color es infantil, salvaje o simplemente demasiado? Quizás sea hora de dejar de verlo como algo accesorio o amenazante, y empezar a reconocerlo como el poderoso medio expresivo que es. Para quienes temen al color, este libro es un reto; para quienes lo aman, una celebración 🌈

[ZindagiForEva · Rating 3 out of 5]

A interesting look at the phenomenon of western culture and patriarchal structures' perspective of color as a contaminate of the pure. There is a lot to think about and unpack here, I felt this book on touched the surface, but I'm glad it did and I'm glad I read it!

[Tittirossa · Rating 2 out of 5]

Deludente. Un saggio di cui non capisco se potermi fidare, non tanto per la profondità degli enunciati, quanto per la mancanza di una correlazione di impianto. Batchelor mette insieme dotte riflessioni e acute argomentazioni, ma tutto quello che sceglie e tralascia non viene ripreso in alcun modo. E quello che sceglie non è un pezzo dell’argomentazione ma l’argomentazione stessa.
Cromofobia è la negazione/non uso/repulsione verso il colore (inteso come cromie altre dal bianco/nero), mi aspettavo qualcosa di più solido in termini storico-argomentativi, e invece …. mah.
Ad esempio, la parte sulla cosmetica in ottica di cromofobia (intesa quest’ultima come genere culturale e non come patologia) alla fine si risolve in: il make up viene visto come contro/anti natura.
Se aggiungiamo che la fluidità espositiva non è proprio il suo cavallo di battaglia, il mah raddoppia.

Ps: inoltre il libro non contempla la contrapposizione bianco-nero data dalla stampa, che appare dolorosamente agli occhi per una tipografia (Bruno Mondadori) oltre lo scadente: il retino del nero spande, le lettere sporcano la pagina, come zampette di ragno, come finissima polvere di carbone. Uccide gli occhi, da leggere.

[Freya Stewart · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very good informative read, made me think of chromatic and a-chromatic colour from a different perspective. My favourite passage from the book is a quote from William Gass on the relationship between colour names and colours.

"The word itself (blue) has another colour. It's not a word with any resonance, although the 'e' was once pronounced. There is only a bump now between the 'b' and 'l', the relief at the end, the whew. It hasn't the sly turn which crimson takes halfway through, yellow's deceptive jelly, or the rolled down sound in brown. It hasn't violet's rapid sexual shudder, or like a rough road the irregularity of ultramarine, the low puddle of mauve like a pancake covered with cream, the dissaproving purse to pink, the assertive brevity of red, the whine of green."

This passage had me muttering the colours slowly to myself repeatedly on the train and all the passengers were looking at me very strangely

[Edith Serkownek · Rating 5 out of 5]

Chromophobia is a brilliant book-- deceptively brief, it took me much longer to get through than I would have thought because I had to stop and pull apart--mentally chew-- almost every paragraph. While I am neither an art historian nor a semiologist, this book took me into these fields and helped me to think about the myriad of ways in which western tradition expresses fear of the other. I love this work.

[Kate Kosek · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book cited a lot of interesting ideas, unfortunately most of them were from white men. The writing was a bit pretentious and seemingly disconnected at times.

[Ana · Rating 4 out of 5]

A long and impassioned essay on how people scorn color - a critique of society that must be made. Can we keep making this argument, please, over and over?

[tessa s · Rating 4 out of 5]

I sat down and read this in one sitting this evening, Batchelor does a fantastic job laying out pieces of historical context regarding the Western and white supremacist view of white as pure, clean, and true. Dialectically, he then lays out that color is associated with race, homosexuality, unruliness, and untruths.

I enjoyed this short essay collection, and that Batchelor cited his sources well. The nerd in me wishes I could see a scoping review or a similar document to track the reasons why specific pieces were chosen from the western literary canon.

Favorite Parts from my Favorite Chapters:

Chapter 2. "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, 22 CHROMOPHOBIAthe 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. Colour is dangerous, or it is trivial, or it is both. (It is typical of prejudices to conflate the sinister and the superficial.) Either way, colour is routinely excluded from the higher concerns of the Mind. It is other to the higher values of Western culture. Or perhaps culture is other to the higher values of colour. Or colour is the corruption of culture."

Chapter 4. "The idea that colour is beyond, beneath or in some other way at the limit of language has been expressed in a number of ways by a number of writers. At the beginning of Colour and Culture, John Gage refers briefly to ‘the feeling that verbal language is incapable of defining the experience of colour’"

Chapter 5: Color is socially constructed, for example, the russian language has 2 words for blue [as english treats red and pink as separate colors].

In a world where the spectacle (This is me bringing in Society of the Spectacle that I read earlier in the week) is reality, where seeing is believing; Chromophobia points out the subjectivity in even that which we consider the factual fabric of reality. Thus, unraveling the way we think about color or the lack thereof within media, public/private spaces, politics, and art.

[Madeleine M · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting short introduction to the aversion to color held by many elite Western men of the last three centuries.

Goethe: "...it is also worthy of remark, that savage nations, uneducated people, and children have a great predilection for vivid colors, that animals are excited to rage by certain colors; that people of refinement avoid vivid colors in their dress and the objects around them, and seem inclined to banish them altogether from their presence."

Barnard Berenson: "It appears...as if form was the expression of a society where vitality and energy were severely controlled by mind, and as if color was indulged in by communities where brain was subordinated to muscle."

And the king of design psychopaths, Le Corbusier, said that color was suited to "simple races, peasants and savages."

My, what a lot to unpack! David Batchelor doesn't do much unpacking, though. This isn't a deeply researched book, and he although he touches on the overlap between white supremacy as a system of racist oppression and white supremacy in interior decoration, you'd have to go to other books for more extensive analysis. He also doesn't get into class (interesting how at least two prominent men lump "simple races" in with peasants from their own countries) or gender. To what extent was this belief in the moral superiority of form to color a male phenomenon? We'll never find out from Batchelor, since he quotes and/or names almost no women. I also wondered whether some of the aversion to color was a result of aniline dyes developed and overused in the mid-19th century, but again, you'll have to find another book to discuss all that.

[Nettles · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm going to be honest, I used parts of the first 3 audiobook chapters to help me go to sleep when I had insomnia asdsjdj

This book doesn't really pick up until the 4th chapter for me, but that's when it gets good. Our modern society has a strange obsession with white spaces and purity, and this book aims to investigate that. The first 3 (and half of the 4th) chapters show examples of color used in different media and what it means in that media, but felt subjective, unfocused, and hard to extrapolate large ideas from small samples. Once the book dives into anthropological studies of color and culture, I was in.

The actual section about chromophobia (the obsession with whiteness) is rather small. I think I would have liked the book to expand on ideas in the last two chapters and their larger implications more than dive into examples and the minutia of the first 3/4ths of the book

[moosisai]

ma ei oskagi mingit hinnangutnagu anda,, väga kujundlik?????!??!?!? ja raskesti lahti kodeeritav...

enyweys bakhtin suitsetas oma käsikirja ära, sest tal said rullimispaberid otsa (teine maailmasõda jneee)

[ianridewood is on Storygraph · Rating 3 out of 5]

Great new term, but needs work on the landing: for an interdisciplinary theory on colour, the theorization is colourblind and the citations monochrome.

[Thoka · Rating 1 out of 5]

DNF… great topic but the author needs to be hugged more.

[migdala · Rating 5 out of 5]

one of the best things i've ever read. colour will continue to be one of my favourite things to ever be

[Jacques Coulardeau · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is surprising from the title onward, both forward and backward. No matter how you take it you are going to be both excited like hell and disappointed like standing in front of the gate of the Messianic Jerusalem. There is so little to see there. But I read it from cover to cover and I guess I am going to make a few remarks. For me “color” and “colors” are not to be debated. I have known Daltonian people who were entirely colorblind and for them, the world was nothing but a palette of grey or greys all huddled around between white light and black night. I could not even imagine it. And color is for me everywhere. In my latest dream, last night, bright green leaves were falling from I don’t know where and those who picked them up could enter some kind of a means of transportation to go home, but where is home? A long way away, like Tipperary.

No, color is not a philosophical concept despite the color revolutions that lead nowhere. Color is a physical phenomenon. “Color may be a continuum, but the continuum is continuously broken, the indivisible endlessly divided.” (page 86) Yes of course, and this continuum can be exploded by simple refraction. To negate color/colors and reject it/them is as absurd as to reject light. Colorblindness is a handicap, just like plain blindness. To reveal color and colors, you just need to refract a beam of light in a refracting prism of glass, and you can then see the continuum and the various stripes, which have no clear limits, of what we consider different colors. And I will start from there. Light is a vast band of wavelengths that vary by so little a difference from one wavelength to the next that you cannot really say you have shifted from one color to the next, at best, from one hue to another. Is one nanometer the possible change? Why should it be since this nanometer is a measurement invented by man and not naturally available in nature?

Note the limit between ultraviolet and violet is fuzzy, the same way as it is between infrared and red. This is due to the human eye. Officially ultraviolet and infrared are invisible, but they vary with various individuals. This is typical of the vision of colors. What is blue for some is green for others and in many languages and cultures blue and green are one color, like for the Mayas who have only one word for “blue,” “green,” “blue-green,” and “first,” and the word is “YAX.”

YAX (yax) (T16) 1> adjective "green" 2> adjective "blue" 3> adjective "blue-green" 4> adjective "first."

It corresponds to the color of jade, a sacred color because it is the rock from which sacrificial knives are made. The same color can be found with other Indians in America, and it is turquoise for us. Strangely enough, these stones, or these minerals are sacred and as such cannot be fooled around with. We can clearly see that this non-distinction between blue and green is then connected with cultural elements, some being religious. To shed blood, including one’s own blood, was seen, by these Indians as a religious act, feeding the Gods with the blood they gave us to create our species. Such examples are neglected or minored by the author, like the two basic colors in Vietnamese, wet and dry. Colors are a natural phenomenon vastly studied in the physics of light but the distinction or separation between two colors is vastly cultural and thus variable. But, once again, to reject color and colors is nothing but a psychiatric or psychological handicap because our eyes are naturally able to capture the wave variations in light. How big a variation is the real question, and we probably are not all equal?

In the various professions that deal with color and colors, the wavelength of the standard hue of each color is clearly defined. If we consider what I have just said, it is clear that white is not really a color since the wavelengths of all the colors, of the entire spectrum are necessary to produce white. In other words, and in a way, white is a play on words and wavelengths. In the same way, black is not a color since it is the absence of light, hence it does not have a wavelength. But it is not that simple. In nature, any object or item, alive or mineral, absorbs the wavelength corresponding to its or their color/colors and reflects these radiations and we catch them and that’s how an object, or an animal, or anything is that particular color. Black absorbs no radiation at all, and white absorbs them all. Black does not reverberate a wavelength that does not exist and white reverberates them all.

There are some variations in basic colors. In painting three colors are basic: red, blue, and yellow, but black and white are seen as colors. In Video and cinema or TV art, the three basic colors are red, blue, and green. And in these industries, they may have surprises. In the film Batman Returns (1992) Batman and the Penguin could not be on the set together. So, they filmed Batman first and the Penguin second. The lights had been set for Batman who is dressed in Black. When the Penguin finally arrived on the set underground, instead of appearing in white, his costume appeared to be orange. All the lights had to be reset for the camera to capture the white costume of the Penguin as being white. The chief light engineer explained in a professional magazine what he had to do. What we are speaking of here is pure physics. But before, we were speaking culture, and to speak of the basic colors in various arts and artistic practices is first of all cultural. We can even wonder why we only state three colors. For the Mayas, there were three, four, and five basic colors, all connected together as the five cardinal points.
[...]
What is surprising is the “objective” tone of David Batchelor who is telling an enormous crime against humanity that went on with genocide and systematic exploitation of more than 80% of the world as if it were a simple story about how the West was chosen by the highest authorities in the cosmos to conquer and dominate the whole humanity. And he does not hesitate to push his fishing corks and hooks up to the year 2000. And it is the same story with Mikhail Bakhtin, Theodor Adorno, Roland Barthes, Julia Kristeva, Salman Rushdie, and Ludwig Wittgenstein. And he dares conclude on this very segregational theme of his with a quotation from Johann Wolfgang von Goethe:

“… it is also worthy of remark, that savage nations, uneducated people, and children have a great predilection for vivid [My emphasis] colors; that animals are excited to rage by certain colors; that people of refinement avoid vivid [My emphasis] colors in their dress and the objects that are about them and seem inclined to banish them altogether from their presence.” [Note 13: Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Theory of colors, trans. C.L. Eastlake (Cambridge, MA and London, 1970), p.55] (page 112)

Charles Lock Eastlake committed this translation in 1840, and that makes it slightly questionable 180 years later since we do not speak the same language any more. The original by Goethe himself in Zur Farbenlehre, 1810, is the concluding section 135 of the first part of the book, “Erste Abteilung - Physiologische Farben.”

135. Endlich ist noch bemerkenswert, dass wilde Nationen, ungebildete Menschen, Kinder eine große Vorliebe für lebhafte [Meine Betonung] Farben empfinden, dass Tiere bei gewissen Farben in Zorn geraten, dass gebildete Menschen in Kleidung und sonstiger Umgebung die lebhaften [Meine Betonung] Farben vermeiden und sie durchgängig von sich zu entfernen suchen.

I will not question the equivalence between “wild” and “savage” though “savage” carries a derogatory meaning in its Latin root. I will question the couple “uneducated – of refinement” for the German couple “ungebildete Menschen – gebildete Menschen.” The concept of “refinement” carries a positive meaning that rejects “uneducated” into some derogatory meaning. The German couple is more objective about one single concept, the first word negative and the second word positive. I insist it is the same concept, “unconstructed – constructed” or “uneducated – educated” or “unelaborate – elaborate,” the idea that on one side some process of complexification did not take place and on the other side it did take place. Maybe education leads to refinement, but refinement is a positive behavioral term whereas educated is the positive side of the negative side of the same concept, that of education. But the main objection to this translation comes from “lebhaft.” Though “vivid” is connected to the Latin root for “life,” it is not directly connected to the standard English concept of “life,” and the German version uses the word twice and its root is “Leben,” the verb or the noun. The translation uses a word that refers to the flashy brightness of the colors, not the fact that they are directly connected with life as is implied in German where the adjectival suffix “-haft” means “endowed with,” in this case “endowed with life.” Goethe was often using his words with great care. When in the concluding verses of the Second Faust he says the future of man is woman, he uses for “woman” the old neuter root “das Weib” instead of the more modern feminine root “die Frau” and in this case again in the form of the adjective “weiblich,” amplified as the fourth rhyming “-liche” line ending. These four rhymes are the echo of the final stage of Faust’s soul’s salvation by four women, Mater Gloriosa presiding over three “Büsserinnen” (penitent women): Magna Peccatrix, Mulier Samaritana, and Maria Aegyptiaca.

CHORUS MYSTICUS:
Alles Vergängliche
Ist nur ein Gleichnis;
Das Unzulängliche,
Hier wird's Ereignis;
Das Unbeschreibliche,
Hier ist's getan;
Das Ewig-Weibliche [Meine Betonung]
Zieht uns hinan.

I was surprised by the fact that the note attached to section 135 of Zur Farbenlehre is not given by David Batchelor, though this note from the 19th-century translator clearly implies Goethe did not like this conclusion and at the time, developments, in science particularly, were more circumspect.

Goethe’s book contains various illustrations on colors and how to obtain them from light by refraction with a circular approach to the set of basic colors like in the two following images at least inspired by Goethe. We can note how the three basic colors in painting and video art build a David’s star and that cannot be a coincidence (though the way it works is not pre-determined, from David to color or from color to David?).

But read the note and you’ll see that even then it was not that clear white was the supreme dominant color, though, of course, the fact Batchelor demonstrates is true: in the colonial and imperialistic vision Europe developed in the 19th century after the Independence of the USA and when European countries decided to colonize Africa, and Asia, more or less abandoning Latin America to the USA, provided they did not touch Canada, is absolutely true and dominated by the supremacy of the white race, hence of everything white.

“NOTE I.— Par. 135. The author more than once admits that this chapter on "Pathological Colors" is very incomplete and expresses a wish (Par. 734) that some medical physiologists would investigate the subject further. This was afterward to a great degree accomplished by Dr. Johannes Müller, in his memoir "Über die Phantastischen Gesichtserscheinungen." Coblentz, 1826. Similar phenomena have been also investigated with great labor and success by Purkinje. For a collection of extraordinary facts of the kind recorded by these writers, the reader may consult Scott's Letters on Demonology and Witchcraft.[ 1] The instances adduced by Müller and others are, however, intended to prove the inherent capacity of the organ of vision to produce light and colors. In some maladies of the eye, the patient, it seems, suffers the constant presence of light without external light. The exciting principle, in this case, is thus proved to be within, and the conclusion of the physiologists is that external light is only one of the causes which produce luminous and colored impressions. That this view was anticipated by Newton may be gathered from the concluding "query" in the third book of his Optics. [1] See also a curious passage on the beatific vision of the monks of Mount Athos, in Gibbon, chap. 63.” (Quoted from Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. Goethe's Theory of Colors (Kindle Locations 4952-4965). Kindle Edition.)

This note opens up questions that should have been considered by David Batchelor but that would have forced him to consider the imperialistic and colonialistic approach for what it was, and still is, a crime against humanity after being a crime against science. The West in its 21st century twilight needs more courage to morally evaluate and historically assess its responsibility in the present political, economic, and environmental crisis.

Dr. Jacques COULARDEAU