QUESTIONS ABOUT OLIVER
SACKS'S AN ANTHROPOLOGIST
ON MARS
© Donald Richardson, 1999
I have a number of problems with the chapter in Sachs's book
which deals with the case of a colour-blind painter who is referred
to as 'Jonathan I'.
'Jonathan I' is described as a painter of the contemporary New
York abstract school who completely lost his colour vision at
the age of 65 due to an accident. One of the illustrations of
the artist's work is a competent abstract picture in tones and
shades of black and yellow, which Sacks says is from the 'later
phase' of his work.
However, this picture could only have been painted by a completely
colour-blind person under extremely specific circumstances because,
once 'Jonathan I' had the yellow paint on his palette, he would
not have been able to distinguish it from the black and black-and-white
mixtures (greys) of the same tonal value on it (prior to this
he would, of course, have been able to read the name of the colour
on the tube). Similarly, once these paints had been applied to
the canvas - so 'Jonathan I' would not have been able to control
the juxtaposition of the black and yellow tones as it is evident
the person who painted this picture did.
Every experienced painter is aware that every chromatic colour
and its tints/tones has a tonal equivalent in black-and-white
terms (this is demonstrated in every black-and-white photograph).
So 'Jonathan I' could have deceived Sacks by reporting that he
sees all colours as patches of grey even if he didn't, and Sacks
would have had no way of detecting such a deception.
But the addition of yellow to that picture in the competent way
it has been used proves that deception.
What would have been the artist's motivation to deceive Sacks
in this way? We can only guess; but a 65-year-old painter who
had been part of the New York school of the 1950s-1960s and who
had not achieved the fame and wealth of a Newman or Rothko could
well be motivated to act in this way. Also, it is likely that
a successful insurance claim could be made by a painter whose
career had been affected so adversely in this way. (But an insurance
investigation would surely have detected the fraud on the evidence
I have given above - unless it depended upon Sacks's judgment
and opinion.)
So - did 'Jonathan I' paint the picture? Or did someone else
do it? Or is 'Jonathan I' not colour-blind at all? Sacks never
considers any of these possibilities in his chapter.
Finally - Sacks refers to the painter as 'Jonathan I' allegedly
to protect his anonymity. But the illustrations in the book are
signed 'Isaacson' and any curious collector would have been easily
able to trace the artist through the New York gallery network.
And Sacks admits that 'Jonathan I's' sales increased following
his revelation of the artist's condition.
So - what's going on here?
(This article was sent to newspapers in Britain and Australia
but never printed.)
|