![[Feed]](http://www.sahelidatta.com/mf/ui/feed-icon.gif){kind=icon}
Garish vs. Vibrant: Socioeconomic and Cultural Factors?
I noticed the following notion rattling around in my head: Emotional intensity is considered socially acceptable only up to a certain threshold level. To go beyond that is considered vulgar or ostentatious. This translates into specific sensory modalities. In particular, describing color in terms of hue, saturation, and brightness, only colors up to a certain maximum saturation are considered to be in good taste in interior decoration or fashion design. This maximum level of saturation may be somewhat higher for lower brightness levels (i.e., for darker colors). Colors beyond the maximum level, especially in schemes involving two or more such colors, are considered garish. This same aesthetic threshold may also apply to written style: the hyperbole of "purple" prose versus the understatement of mainstream literary fiction, which is more like a pale watercolor wash. But what appears garish to one person may appear rich and vibrant to another. In particular, my impression is that the "old money" upper classes in the United States would tend to have a lower threshold of tolerance for saturation or emotional intensity.
I can think of a number of reasons why this might be so. People with "old money" may be more likely to be descended from puritanical religious traditions which frown on emotional show. Or, they may be more likely to come from more northerly latitudes (e.g., northern Europe vs. the Mediterranean), where the colors of nature are less vibrant for most of the year, and thus their vision may be adapted to a lower intensity level. Or, they may associate good taste with the Old Masters, whom they have seen only in their faded contemporary versions. (The restoration of the Sistine Chapel demonstrates that the original pigments used by Renaissance artists were much more vibrant than what we see today.) Or, with ample leisure in their upbringing, their visual system may have become more attuned to fine discrimination of subtle differences in colors, and such a sensitive system may find fully saturated colors overstimulating. Or, they may be more guarded in their emotional dealings because expression of emotion can lead to vulnerability, and those with more power have more to lose.
The funny thing is, I don't know how this notion entered my head in the first place, or whether it is widely shared. Considering its economic importance for advertising/marketing, I would think it should be easy to find research on this subject. Experiments could display swatches of various colors and measure neural or physical correlates of valence and arousal; my hypothesis is that the valence would switch from positive to negative for very saturated, bright colors, and the threshold level would be correlated with socioeconomic and cultural background. In "Why We Think Blue Is Calming: Color-Mood Associations As Learned or Innate", Diana Vining of the University of Pennsylvania surveys the literature. From this paper it seems that not enough evidence exists as yet to support or refute my hypothesis.
Comments (8)
hi there! very interesting post -- maybe this explains why non-puritanical christian descended populations, like in africa, asia, and latin & south america wear brightly colored clothing and heavy jewelry?
Posted on Feb-05-2007 | Link
When you say "old money" upper classes in the United States would tend to have a lower threshold of tolerance, it begs the question, "Lower than what?"
There are groups in the United States who have, generally, even lower tolerances for emotional exuberance. The Kennedys are considered rather flamboyant in some circles... Minnesota Lutherans come to mind.
A more careful such ranking than I have time to ponder might shed light on whether the blue bloods' conservative taste comes from their money, their [ancestral] religion, their climate, or whatnot.
Posted on Feb-05-2007 | Link
I love the breakout of possible explanations! But now I'm wondering: is it really so consistent that we can speak of (geneological) groups? I would expect some level of generational reversal, as teenagers look for ways to be unlike their parents.
Posted on Feb-06-2007 | Link
Hm, I don't think the "emotional intensity" explanation translates across cultures. For instance, I believe that some Chinese families can give your New England blue bloods a run for their money, in terms of promoting stoicism, discipline, and denial of more hedonistic pursuits. Yet red and gold, two very bright colors, are the central colors of their culture. Red is the color of fortune, not garishness, and gold is regal, and "classy."
Posted on Feb-06-2007 | Link
Namita: I didn't know about the partiality of the Christian segments of those populations to brightly colored clothing and heavy jewelry, but if so that would also be an interesting phenomenon to measure and explain.
Robin: Lower than - Berkeley? Funny you should mention the Kennedys. I was generally thinking of WASPs, which the Kennedys technically are not, although they would tend to fit in with other East Coast blue bloods. The Minnesota Lutherans are an interesting example - one doesn't think of them as being particularly wealthy, so that would eliminate a couple of the explanations.
Scotto: People do rebel in their teen and college years, but I think they have some tendency to revert later in life. Furthermore, their unconscious idea of what the standard of good taste is may remain fixed even while they're rebelling. They often conform with their peers while rebellling against their parents. There's a difference between dressing loudly on purpose and dressing colorfully because the alternative seems drab.
EC: Yes, I definitely think this would vary among cultures. In other times and places saturated pigments might be a marker of wealth, since only the upper classes could afford them. In the Roman empire, only the emperor could wear purple. But your example of breaking the link between saturation and emotional intensity is particularly thought-provoking.
Posted on Feb-06-2007 | Link
Didn't Joseph Kennedy make most of his money in the 20s? That doesn't sound very old.
Posted on Feb-12-2007 | Link
Also, I just remembered, what about the Cape Cod red twill pants of summer? Red, but "tastefully" faded, to show that the old money is being preserved? They are still garish, in their own right.
Posted on Feb-12-2007 | Link
high-level people draw their power from their ability to see and manipulate the web of society around them. preferring colors that were good, smooth fits with the scheme of visual things in the grand scheme of meaningful things would be sensible. a new color that couldn't be integrated or cunningly contrasted would be mark you as indelicate.
Posted on Mar-19-2007 | Link