(Disclaimer: Even though I have recently applied for a job at The Guggenheim Foundation and was never contacted, I am specifically not singling them out as a form of retribution.

You could replace Guggenheim with any museum of art that deals with modern art and or has a particularly long residence within a single building.

Clarifying conflict-of-interest upfront).


I have been particularly interested in [color=red]color[/red] as of late. Not just color as a cultural construct or color as a feature of vernacular architecture... but the history of color as a product, icon and unifier.

In some aspects, choice in color maybe tied to availability of color. The pursuit of color, though, has lead to some arguably foolish choices-- both in expense and in material choices.

The modern era has brought us a great expanse of colors-- literally millions of tens of millions of colors. Not just colors but also a variety of finishes, too.

But just as in previous times, our very modern pursuit of color didn't come at a cost. Many of our modern (as in 16th century onwards) and Modern (as in 20th century onwards) colors and finishes are incredibly toxic.

From mercuric sulfide as vermillion red, all varieties of cadmium pigments, chrome yellow as lead chromate et cetera... all decorate objects new and old.

And they are all extremely toxic, especially their powdered dry form. Not just paints that have this problem... everything from fabric dyes to wood finishes to glazes to metal-lined glass to pewter contain all sorts of 'exotic' (read: poison) materials.

And it's not just colors and finishes, some materials that are chemically inert are not without a slight risk.




However, looking back on all the varieties of colors and all the materials used in art...

I'm frankly surprised no one has declared any of them to be Superfund sites. They're clearly not even being 'perceived' as contaminated.

They are contaminated. And they're showing that contamination off!

Every Picasso, Renior, Van Gogh, Hoffman, Matisse, Candinsky, Pollock and Rauschberg is literally one giant smear of cancer waiting to happen.

And we're not just limited to painting either. Many architectural icons are not too clean themselves.

We may worry about lead on interior walls but we never stop to think whether or not that cheery lime green front door is really some horrific combination of ground uranium glass and cobalt blue.

This seems to be a bit of a double standard-- we celebrate art but decry environmental damage. I'm not immediately claiming that museum mile is automatically a toxic waste dump... but it is not not-toxic either.

So, is color worth it? Can you design without using it relying on the uncolored? If you use color, are you willing to consider the baggage that comes with it?

Should the use of toxic color be chastised?

And more importantly, how does one deal with toxic decorations in historic architecture-- replace, renovate, remove. preserve, rope off?