New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

No Shrinking Violet

How Impressionist painters made an unusual color all the rage

Violet wisteria flowers resting on a purple towel.

Violet wisteria flowers resting on a purple towel.

Allen Tager

When Russian-American artist and cognitive scientist Allen Tager thinks about his childhood in the Soviet Union in the 1960s, his memories are violet-tinged. “We had one ink color, violet,” he reminisces, “and it was kept in glass jars that tipped over constantly. My hands, school uniform, and textbooks were perpetually covered in violet stains.” Outside of the classroom, in contrast, violet was inexplicably absent from household objects and other everyday items. Years later, when Tager fell in love with the paintings of Russian artist Mikhail Vrubel (1856–1910), his fellow art students dissuaded him from creating “a similar violet harmony” and asked him to repaint the violet shades in trendier purple tones.

The ostensive unpopularity of violet versus purple nagged at the back of Tager’s mind for much of his life, eventually setting him on a 20-year journey across 193 museums in 42 countries. Tager’s search traversed time as well as space, compelling color examinations of paintings from ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia to their contemporary counterparts—and every era in between. On his quest for violet, Tager scrutinized 139,892 works of art, using 1,500 Munsell color chips as standards. The results, published in a 2018 paper, were startling: barely any artworks produced before the early 1860s featured the color violet. Even old masters such as Jan Brueghel the Elder (1568–1625) and Jan Brueghel the Younger (1601–1678), who specialized in painting flowers, did not bother with the hue. 

Then, the 19th-century arrival of French Impressionists in the art scene transmuted the dearth of violet in a cultural explosion. Violet burst forth in paintings and was ultimately embraced by the garment industry, becoming ever more present in ordinary clothing and other textiles. Some 50 years after critics accused Impressionists of “violettomania,” the color became established in artists’ palettes. The process by which violet entered all spheres of life took more than a century, Tager asserts, and only achieved full potency in recent times.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


But why do so few paintings, pre-Impressionism, include violet? Tager and color scientist collaborators Eric Kirchner and Elena Fedorovskaya venture that the explanation is neither the use of ancient roots in older paintings nor the introduction of cheaper pigments in the 1860s. Did the rarity of violet in nature play a role? Or the confusion about the terms “purple” and “violet” among speakers of English and other languages? The answer to the quandary, much like the color violet in old masters’ paintings, remains elusive.

Stephen Macknik is a professor of ophthalmology, neurology, and physiology and pharmacology at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in Brooklyn, N.Y. Along with Susana Martinez-Conde and Sandra Blakeslee, he is author of the Prisma Prize–winning Sleights of Mind. He is also author of Champions of Illusion, along with Susana Martinez-Conde. Follow Macknik on Twitter @stephen_macknik

More by Stephen Macknik

Susana Martinez-Conde is a professor of ophthalmology, neurology, and physiology and pharmacology at SUNY Downstate Health Sciences University in Brooklyn, N.Y. She is author of the Prisma Prize–winning Sleights of Mind, along with Stephen Macknik and Sandra Blakeslee, and of Champions of Illusion, along with Stephen Macknik.

More by Susana Martinez-Conde
SA Mind Vol 32 Issue 5This article was published with the title “No Shrinking Violet” in SA Mind Vol. 32 No. 5 (), p. 44
doi:10.1038/scientificamericanmind0921-44

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe