Stereotyping Through Use of Colour

I am going to show you two versions of the same image (both versions I have personally altered to suit this blog post), and then ask you who would generally prefer which version.



But before I do, I will just mention:

John Berger's Ways of Seeing, has inspired this a little. His theories on manipulating an image to create different meanings left me pondering on Stereotypes, and how different versions of images appeal to different target audiences because of preset customs and beliefs. So, I guess, this blog entry is another that should be linked to his theories.





So. Ready?




Take a look:




I'm sure you can guess what I'm thinking about, here.

In terms of Gender, who would prefer which colour??





If you thought 'pink = female' and 'blue = male', you are stereotyping straight away.

Thanks to modern culture and society, it has become an unwritten rule, almost, that anything 'pink' has to be targeting females. And for a man to drive around in the pink version of the Audi R8 Spyder above would be 'embarassing'.

In reality, there is no reason at all why a guy couldn't drive this car. If, for example, they actually liked the colour, they would be more than welcome to purchase this version. However, I can guarantee people would stop and stare, and because of the way people stereotype, a lot would even talk behind that person's back, whispering false accusations and assumptions about their character and sexuality.

It is wrong, and it is unfair.

It is stereotyping.

For the majority of males, regardless of whether or not they like the pink coloured version, they would refuse to buy it, refuse to even consider test-driving it purely out of ... for lack of a better term - fear of damage to their street-credability. Despite the fact owning a car like this would cost near £150'000 and would suggest they are immensely successful and impressive, the colour would leave people wondering, and this could be damaging to that person's reputation.

Similarly, for a girl to drive the dark-blue version would leave passers-by considering their sexuality, too. Consider them to be tom-boys or the likes. Personally, I love that colour and would take the blue version over the pink one, any day. So here is me, ripping the theory of stereotyping clean away; I am a girl, and would not prefer the pink version.

But if it came down to it, and they had a lot of both money and reputation at stake, I reckon a lot of car-buyers would think very carefully about the colour of the car they choose before driving out of the saleroom.

Ways of Seeing - Manipulation of Meaning Through Reproduction

Reference to:

Berger, J. (1972) Ways of Seeing. London. British Broadcasting Corporation and Penguin Books.

"... as soon as the meaning of a painting becomes transmittable, this meaning is liable to become manipulated and transformed. It is no longer a constant; It's changed by the camera that moves, by the words put around it, by the music played over it." - John Berger, Episode One, Ways of Seeing.


I'm playing here, so bear with me. This is a section of an image. Little to see, really - it's a covered roadway and walkway; looks to be evening time, if we consider the lighting, and the fact the buildings in the background have lights on.


Then the screen pans across slightly to reveal a little more....

By highlighting the section in red, the eye is automatically drawn to the section of interest. I am also trying to - both physically and metaphorically - highlight the fact that there is an image inside another image. The use of colour is the same - it is the same time of day as the rest of the image, same location, same everything. But by adding in that little bit more, the meaning of the image changes, and the main focus of the image is altered.

The image has gone form being a boring scene of a road, a barrier, a few distant buildings and a pathway, to show something far more interesting; ghostly figures walking toward the camera.


As Berger suggested, by manipulating a reproduction of the original image, I have adjusted the meaning of the image to show one thing, and then altered it again to reveal something else; the first image shows only a small section of the true image, despite being the larger section. By taking away the ghostly figures, the meaning was changed. But cleverly, by putting it back together, the eye is now automatically drawn to the most interesting section in the full image above: now that I have isolated the ghostly figures by highlighting the area in red first, I am instantly drawn to that same area on the original version because I know that the figures are there.

This can be altered even further. I am thinking thrillers and horror movies, where the camera pans painstakingly slowly across the scene - in this case, from left to right to build suspense, as the ghostly figures are on the right. Adding in a low, chilling score to heighten the anxiety and tension would improve it, as well.

Of course, you could then completely spoof the supposed 'spooky' feel of the image by adding in a hilarious score and zooming the camera all over the place. The meaning would be altered, and the genre of the image would change from horror to comedy. Thus, Berger is quite right in suggesting reproduction of imagery is leaving room for manipulation and alteration of the originally intended meanings.