Colour, and how to live with it

A colourist who works across cosmetics and interiors on why the same principles govern both, and why almost everyone tests paint colours in the wrong place.

Our guest has an unusual career, having moved from cosmetic formulation into architectural paint. Her argument is that the two disciplines are closer than either industry admits, because both are ultimately about how a pigment behaves under light that the maker does not control. The practical consequence is that context beats swatch. A colour chosen under retail lighting, held against a white card, tells you almost nothing about how it will read on a north-facing wall in February or against the skin of the person wearing it. She recommends the same test in both fields. Live with the colour in the actual conditions, at several times of day, for longer than feels necessary. In cosmetics that means natural light and no mirror in a shop. In interiors it means a large painted board moved around the room across a week.

We cover undertone at some length, since it is the concept that causes the most confusion and does the most work. Two greys that look identical on a chart can sit completely differently in a room because one carries green and the other carries violet, and the same is true of a foundation against skin. The discussion of trend cycles is sharper than expected. Colour forecasting is a real commercial function with real lead times, and by the time a shade reaches a high street shelf the decision behind it is roughly two years old. Knowing this makes it easier to ignore. Her closing position is permissive. Most people are far more cautious with colour than they need to be, largely because they treat every choice as permanent. Paint is not permanent, and neither is a lipstick.