06/10/2018

The Shady Past of the Colour Pink




If you didn’t believe in the power of pink before, you might after seeing Pink: The History of a Punk, Pretty, Powerful Color, now on view at the Fashion Institute of Technology. It’s a visual feast of 80 ensembles, from a Louis XV-era gown to a pussy hat from the 2017 Women’s March. The exhibition tells the compelling, polarizing history of the color pink in fashion and demonstrates the power of our clothes to shape, and be shaped by, society. As exemplified by one of the exhibition’s themes, “The Power of Pink,” the color tantalizes with its wild incongruity: while it’s often considered cutesy and delicate, pink can also be “fierce and feminist, punk and powerful.”



Divided into two galleries, the exhibition starts by addressing the elephant in the room: why pink tends to be coded feminine. The answer is not as cut and dry as you might expect: as color historian Michel Pastoureau once wrote, “There is no transcultural truth to color perception. It is society that ‘makes’ color, defines it, gives it meaning”. Pink, it turns out, was not always a “girl color.” In one of the exhibition’s remarkable displays are four historical costumes from the court of Louis XV, including a woman’s robe and three men’s outfits. Representing the theme of “Pompadour Pink,” after the pink-loving Madame de Pompadour, Louis XV’s official chief mistress, they date to 18th-century France, when the color was extremely fashionable among both men and women of the aristocracy. Thus the story of pink in Europe begins as a genderless color, associated with ideas of “elegance, novelty, and aristocratic splendor.” That started to change in the late-19th century Industrial Era, when men shifted to primarily donning black or other dark colors; women continued to wear the rainbow. The next two themes in the exhibition reinforce non-gendered, symbolic values of pink. An anecdote presented in one of the labels in “Pink versus Blue” describes how an American mother shopping for her son at Saks Fifth Avenue in 1920 would certainly have encountered divided opinions on the color. “Pink for the boy,” insists one sales clerk. “WHAT! Pink for a boy?” demands another. In this section, a group of pink and blue children’s clothes illustrate a great diversity of opinion in America during the 19th and early 20th centuries regarding which gender wears the pink color. This debate raged on until the Second World War, when pink was aggressively marketed as female by advocates of returning women to the domestic spheres. From then on, many shades of pink dominated women’s fashion, appearing each time with an intention to define or redefine womanhood.




                                              
      

The linear organization proved especially challenging in the introductory gallery, which surveys chronologically the history of feminizing pink. However, truly distinctive pieces can emerge from the spatial monotony of an assembly line. And to experience the changes in fashion in a linear progression gave me an “ah-ha!” moment: from the height of pink’s feminization in the 1950s, designers and influencers since then have been attempting to return pink to its beginnings as a multivalent color. The idea is neither revolutionary nor innovative, but feeling so proves just how entrenched our gender-coding is. The question of why pink is so divisive followed me long after I left behind the exhibition’s Pepto-Bismol-hued haute couture. The current trend to return pink to its multifaceted, non-gendered origins gives me a glimmer of hope that today’s society is not resistant to change, and that whatever direction the shifting winds of fashion blow next, pink will remain a punk, pretty, and powerful color. 

A Brief History of the Color Pink in Fashion, from the 1700s to Today. By Hannah Chan. Hyperallergic ,  October 1, 2018. 



                                                                     





The shady past of the colour pink. By Kelly Grovier.  BBC , April 19,  2018

  Pink is a double-edged sword. While red is raucous and racy, and white is prim and pure, pink cuts both ways. Long before the word “pink” attached itself to the pretty pastel shade of delicate carnations, as we define the term today, the London underworld enlisted it for something rather less frilly or fragrant – to denote the act of stabbing someone with a sharp blade. “He pink’d his Dubblet”, so reads an entry for the word in a 17th-Century dictionary of street slang used by “Beggars, Shoplifters, Highwaymen, Foot-Pads and all other Clans of Cheats and Villains”, describing a lethal lunge through a man’s padded jacket, “He run him through”. At what point the unlikely linguistic slide was made from mortal piercing to mellow pigment, no one can say for sure. But the enticing hue itself, by whatever name it was known before the assignment of “pink” to the colour chart in the 18th Century, has kept culture blushing since antiquity. Now seductive, now innocent, pink is coquettish and coy, sultry and sly. Remove pink from the palette of art history and a teasing dimension to the story of image-making would be lost. Edgar Degas’s Pink Dancers would fall flat-footed and Pablo Picasso’s pivotal pink period wouldn’t rise to the occasion.



 



A key moment in pink’s emergence as an essential element in the development of painting is the creation by the Early Renaissance Italian painter Fra Angelico in the middle of the 15th Century of his famous fresco in the Convent of San Marco in Florence, Italy, The Annunciation, which depicts the moment in the New Testament that the Virgin Mary is informed by the Archangel Gabriel that she will become the mother of Christ. Situated at the top of a staircase solemnly ascended daily by pious monks, Fra Angelico’s ground-breaking painting is one into which an observer’s spirit is summoned to levitate. Crucial to sparking that mystical lift-off in the fresco is the portrayal of the ethereal Archangel – who has himself mystically crossed planes of being to swoop into Mary’s material sphere. Never mind the polychromatic wings, what’s most surprising about Gabriel’s depiction is Fra Angelico’s decision to clad him in plush pleats of sumptuous pink. We know from a contemporary artist’s handbook on how to concoct pigments (Cennino Ceninni’s Il libro dell'arte, published a few decades before Fra Angelico painted his fresco) that pink had been traditionally reserved primarily for the rendering of flesh. “Made from the loveliest and lightest sinopia that is found and is mixed and mulled with St. John’s white”, Cennini explains, “this pigment does you great credit if you use it for painting faces, hands and nudes on walls”. By draping Gabriel in the lushest of pinks, Fra Angelico fleshes the Archangel out as a being of body and blood, breaking down the distinction between holy spirit and ephemeral flesh. Pink is the pivot that humanises heaven. No one would ever see the colour the same way again. In the ensuing centuries, artists would invoke pink as shorthand for the blurring of boundaries.

  



As the focus of Renaissance master Raphael’s Madonna of the Pinks, a sprig of blushing carnations handed to the Virgin Mary by the infant Christ, may seem unremarkable enough at first glance. In fact it amounts to a kind of miraculous wrinkle in the fabric of time. According to religious tradition, dianthus (the Greek name for the plant, meaning “flower of God”), did not appear in the world until Mary wept at her son’s crucifixion. The flower’s anachronistic appearance in Raphael’s scene, therefore, tinged with the future blood of the baby who holds it, mysteriously establishes a pink kink in the linear unfolding of the universe. Over time, pink would eventually blossom beyond the petals of its complex theologies to inflect a wider array of secular personality, all the while retaining its elusive allure and capacity to tease. By the 18th Century, pink was offering itself as the colour of choice for portraying high-profile mistresses, daring observers to deny its very legitimacy as a respectable hue. No painting embodies pink’s gradual pendulum movement from the spiritual to the secular more vividly than the French artist Jean-Honoré Fragonard’s exuberant The Swing, painted around 1767, between La Tour’s and Romney’s works. Here, a fabulous flounce of flowing rose is frozen in mid swivel as the swinging girl, pillowed in pinkness, flicks loose a silk shoe, attracting the titillated attention of any number of camouflaged male gazes hiding in the bushes around her. We’re a long way from the pink whisper of angels now.

  



In more recent times, pink continues to be seized upon by artists keen to confound our expectations of what notes or message the floral pigment can confidently carry. Having established a formidable reputation in the middle of the 20th Century as a first-generation Abstract Expressionist, eschewing figurative subjects entirely in the 1950s, Canadian-born American artist Philip Guston reached for pink in a dramatic turn back to representational art in the late 1960s. By then, the colour itself had undergone something of a commercial transformation in American retail culture, having begun the century as a shade more often associated with boys and masculinity than fairy princesses and little girls’ dolls. But by the time Guston began introducing a menacing cast of Ku Klux Klan-inspired cartoon goons, whose implausibly pale pink stubby hoods continue to menace popular imagination to this day, the colour had been re-commodified as delicate and feminine. Grabbing pink by the scruff for his unsettling scenes of a seedy Americana, Guston slaps Barbie across the chops. At the same moment that Guston’s provocative pink was poking the art world in the eye, scientific studies were underway by Alexander Schauss, Director of the American Institute for Biosocial Research, to determine whether manipulations of the colour could help control the behaviour of subjects surrounded by it. The result of Schauss’s investigation was the concoction of the psychologically subtle shade now known as “Baker-Miller Pink”, after the Naval correctional institute in Seattle, Washington where the pigment was successfully tested on the walls of inmates’ cells and credited with a significant calming of aggressive urges. Yet despite its ability to inspire docility, pink is still picking fights, challenging our perceptions to an aesthetic duel. Upon learning that the British artist Anish Kapoor had signed a contract giving him exclusive rights to a recently engineered colour known as Vantablack (the darkest shade ever devised), and the legal right to prohibit other artists from doing so, Kapoor’s younger contemporary Stuart Semple saw red. Emboldened by Kapoor’s black embargo, Semple began concocting a supremely-fluorescent pink paint he contends is the “pinkest pink” ever contemplated (“no one has ever seen a pinker pink”, he insists). As a poke in the eye of Kapoor, Semple has made his colour available at a small price to anyone in the world so long as they confirm that they are not Anish Kapoor nor friendly enough with Kapoor to share it with him. En garde, Kapoor. You’ve been pink’d.



See :
Anish Kapoor flaunts use of "world's pinkest pink" despite personal ban from its creator. By Eleanor Gibson. Dezeen, December 30 2016.



                                                                







After some psychologists were able to show that certain shades of pink reduced aggression, it was famously used in prison cells to limit aggression in inmates. Yet pink toes a shaky line. Is it a benign means of subtle manipulation? A tool to humiliate? An outgrowth of gender stereotyping? Or some combination of the three?



When most people read that some are using pink to reduce aggression, they probably think, “of course.” After all, from birth pink is appropriated to pretty little baby girls and blue is assigned to bouncing baby boys. In human psychology, we have come to connect the color to femininity and its corresponding gender stereotypes: weakness, shyness and tranquility.  But according to architectural historian Annmarie Adams, pink didn’t always automatically signal femininity. Pink became the default color for all things girly only after World War II. Before then, it was common for girls to wear blue, while mothers would often dress their boys in pink. Adams traces the switch back to Nazi Germany. Just as the Nazis forced Jewish people to wear a yellow badge to identify themselves, they forced gay men to wear a pink badge. Ever since then, pink has been thought of as a non-masculine color reserved for girls.
Once pink started to embody femininity, some wondered if it could be used to “tame” aggressive male behavior. Beginning in the 1980s, a handful of prison wardens painted holding cells in prisons and jails pink. The hope was that the color would have a calming effect on the male prisoners. The wardens were inspired by the results from a series of studies conducted by research scientist Alexander Schauss. Schauss had concocted a pink paint color that he claimed could reduce the physical strength and aggressive tendencies of male inmates. In his study, Schauss had subjects stare at a large square of pink paper with their arms outstretched. Then he tried to force their arms back down. He demonstrated he could easily do this as the color had weakened them. When he repeated the same experiment with a square of blue paper, their normal strength had returned. Schauss named the color “Baker-Miller Pink” after two of his co-experimenters, naval officers Gene Baker and Ron Miller. Baker and Miller were so impressed with Schauss’ findings that they went ahead and painted the holding cells at their naval base this shade of pink. They raved about the results and how it had pacified inmates. As word got around about the benefits of pink décor, psychiatric units and other holding areas were painted Baker-Miller Pink. Custodians reported quieter inmates and less physical and verbal abuse.

All this seems like a simple, cost-effective solution to calm inmates. However, a few years later, Schauss decided to repeat the experiments – only to find that Baker-Miller Pink didn’t have a calming effect on inmates after all. In fact, after conducting a test in an actual pink cell, he noticed no difference in inmates’ behavior. He was even concerned that the color could make them more violent. It should be noted Baker-Miller Pink is not a pale, gentle, pastel pink. Instead, it’s a bright, hot pink. Some 30 years later, psychologist Oliver Genschow and his colleagues repeated Schauss’ experiments. They carried out a rigorous experiment to see if Baker-Miller Pink reduced aggressive behavior in prison inmates in a detention center cell. Like Schauss’ later work, they found no evidence that the color reduced aggressiveness. That might have been the end of the discussion on the benefit of pink cells. But in 2011, a Swiss psychologist named Daniela Späth wrote about her own experiments with a different shade of pink paint. She called her shade “Cool Down Pink,” and she applied it to cell walls in 10 prisons across Switzerland. Over the course of her four-year study, prison guards reported less aggressive behavior in prisoners who were placed in the pink cells. Späth also found that the inmates seemed to be able to relax more quickly in the pink cells. Späth suggests that Cool Down Pink could have a variety of applications beyond prisons – in airport security areas, schools and psychiatric units. One British newspaper reported that prison guards were happy with the effects of Cool Down Pink, but prisoners were less so. The newspaper interviewed a Swiss prison reformer who said it was degrading to be held in a room that looked like “a little girl’s bedroom.”



 Herein lies the crux of the controversy. Opponents of the practice say that the implication that the color – with its feminine associations – will somehow reduce aggression is, in and of itself, sexist and discriminatory. Gender studies scholar Dominique Grisard has argued that the pink prison walls – regardless of whether they pacify – are ultimately designed to humiliate male prisoners. Famously, in the 1980s, the University of Iowa football team painted the visitors’ locker room at Kinnick Stadium pink. A 2005 refurbishment added pink lockers and even pink urinals. The reasoning behind using the pink shade, officially named “Dusty Rose,” was much the same as that of the prison wardens: The coach, Hayden Fry, believed it would curtail the aggression of the opposing players and allow the home team to gain a competitive edge. Yet like the prisons, this could be having the unintended, opposite effect. Some opposing players have reported being more fired up by the perceived insult of the pink locker rooms. And so the debate about the power of pink rages on. That hasn’t stopped some from trying to deploy pink to achieve tranquility in their homes. In 2017, model Kendall Jenner painted her living room Baker-Miller Pink – and raved about how it made her feel much calmer. Who knows how many of her army of fans have followed her advice. For my part – although I love pink – I shudder at the thought of a hot pink living room, no matter how powerful its calming effects.



Can pink really pacify? By Julie Irish. The Conversation , September 27, 2018.
 








Also interesting :


Films about luxury are often painted in exuberant colours, films about poverty in grey palettes. But a new generation of filmmakers in recent American indie films  claims pink for the underclass.

The Color of Money: Depicting Poverty from a New Perspective.  By Nicole Davis.  Mubi ,  September 24, 2018  



Researchers have found bright pink pigments in 1.1 billion year old fossils of cyanobacteria drilled in West Africa. 
Pink Was the First Color of Life on Earth.  By Jason Daley. Smithsonian , July 10, 2018.



                  

                                                      

No comments:

Post a Comment