[BAS Newsletter] Portraits and politics

[Adrian Fowle]

I don't actually spend my life glued to Jackson's press releases, but
they have another very interesting article here:

https://www.jacksonsart.com/blog/2020/07/16/redefining-skin-and-flesh-colours/

Many paint manufacturers are changing the names of colours previously
called "flesh" or "skin".  This seems to miss the point to me - the
"flesh" names all refer to Caucasian skin and I cannot see a problem
with calling that colour "Caucasian Flesh" if you want one. The problem
is that the ranges do not also include "Indian flesh" or "Afro Caribbean
flesh" colours etc.

The manufacturers have chosen different names to replace "flesh",
amongst them "peach". I'm not much of a portrait painter, but I don't
think I could really describe myself as peach coloured, and I'm not
really the same colour all over. My one attempt at a portrait of an
African lady required all sorts of different colours. ( I think she
hides the finished painting at the back of a cupboard - it's that good.)

Changing a name from "Indian Red" to "India Red" will just get the
grammar police after that company.

Rather than "redefining" flesh colours, perhaps we should drop them and
learn to paint portraits by observation. The best portraits I have
painted are three self portraits in quite fauvist colours. I would
recommend that for a piece of fun that won't offend anyone else if you
don't get it right.

If you are confused by the reference near the end of the article to
"Black 8030 Skin", "Montana Black" is the product range, and "Skin" is
what they are objecting to.  Montana have white, black and gold ranges
in spray tins amongst others.

Adrian


-- 
*

Adrian Fowle
Chairman, Bromley Art Society.

www.bromleyartsociety.org.uk and www.bromleyartsoc.org.uk

*