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

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

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

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe