Friday, May 25, 2018
The Backest Black
My previous blog reminded me of a piece I published several years ago, adapted here.
In the sometimes rarified world of art and artists, there has emerged a controversy that I think serves to illustrate a greater truth, that of artistic freedom and the power of the artist to illuminate injustice and spur social change.
World-famous artist Sir Anish Kapoor has acquired the exclusive rights to a type of carbon-based pigment called Vantablack, “the blackest shade of black ever made,” according to numerous articles published in Smithsonian Magazine, the Daily Mail, Artnet News, The Huffington Post, etc.
Without trying to explain the arcane science behind this pigment (which is actually not exactly paint, but tiny tubes of carbon that need to be applied wearing a gas mask), suffice it to say that the substance is so light-absorbing that the human eye cannot look at it and distinguish the kind of shadows which help the brain to interpret shapes. The example shown in all the reports is that of a crumpled piece of tin foil covered with a layer of the pigment. You cannot see any shapes—the foil appears flat. Addressing the furor regarding Kapoor’s exclusive rights to Vantablack, artist Christain Furr commented “This black is like dynamite in the art world. We should be able to use it. It isn't right that it belongs to one man.”
For a little art-historical perspective (before we get to the social justice part of this commentary) artists throughout the centuries have tried to monopolize or be associated with particular colors.
A blue pigment made from lapis lazuli, only found in Afghanistan, was highly prized and exorbitantly priced. Eighteenth century painters like Joshua Reynolds paid enormous fees to use a deep black paint called “Titian’s shade.” In 1960 the French artist Yves Klein patented a vibrant blue called “International Klein Blue,” but did not keep it for his exclusive use.*
Current events remind me of an exhibition I held a few years ago. Forbidden Colors asked artists to consider the use of color both objectively as a way of arousing certain feelings in both artist and observer, and metaphorically exploring artists’ responses to various forms of censorship or political pressure.
The show takes its name from a 1980 Israeli law forbidding art of "political significance," which banned artwork composed of the four colors of the Palestinian flag: red, green, white and black. Palestinians were arrested for displaying such artwork. The ban was lifted after the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993.
The significance of this ban is enormous. I am often reminded of Picasso’s words,” Art is not made to decorate rooms. It is an offensive weapon in the defense against the enemy.” Red, green, white, black. Colors that exist in the world, independent of human intervention, possessing such power that an authoritarian government seeks to ban their display! Color possessing such power that the mere sight of red, green, white, black, could incite riot, rebellion, demands for justice, hope, despair, nationalism, pride, love.
Great artists instinctively understand this power. They are willing to pay any price, make any sacrifice, to be able to penetrate the gaze and touch the soul with a dab of cerulean blue or the deepest black.
Art is a strong weapon in the fight for justice, for the rights of patrimony, peace, freedom.
Art continues to hold our gaze; it forces us to look, and hopefully, to see.
Colors cannot be forbidden. My hope is that not only Anish Kapoor but repressive regimes everywhere will look into that blackest black and see not the depths of despair but the infinite freedom that is the birthright of all humanity.
*(For more on this subject, read Color: A Natural History of the Palette by Victoria Finlay or
Blue: The History of a Color by Michel Pastoureau.)
at May 25, 2018
My previous blog reminded me of a piece I published several years ago, adapted here. In the sometimes rarified world of art and ...