About Light and Dark

In the beginning, there was darkness, then God created light.  So goes the creation story of Abrahamic religions. Before even making the sun, which came on the fourth day, there was light. Before the light, darkness and chaos. The light was called good.

The light was called good, and light has long been associated with good. Does that then make the darkness bad?

Often, yes. A dark day is not considered a good one, nor are dark times. Light and dark, as used to represent the dichotomy of good and bad, helps us tell stories and communicate. It is part of our cultural language, a metaphor that extends through visual, written, and musical artworks.  

While these depictions can be useful to convey meaning, this light and dark - good and bad - association is limiting, and can also be damaging. Sentiments that “black is bad” are reflected in racism and racial biases. A 2016 review of multiple studies saw this bias when participants associated good or bad actions with headshots, or when reviewing surveillance footage[1] illustrating a reality that many know from firsthand experience.

There are, of course, meanings beyond the tired moral affiliations. Light can be blinding, sterile, vapid. Dark can be mystical, soothing, cozy, elegant. High contrast between lights and darks can be dynamic, moody, iconic.

In the visual art world, the chiaroscuro technique, using contrast between light and dark to give a form shape and volume to better represent the three dimensional world (often simply referred to as “shading”), is strongly associated with the Renaissance, though it was employed long before then. On a purely functional level, this is what gives our world its dimension.

Literally and metaphorically, it is the contrast between light and dark that shapes our world and gives it depth.

Ashleigh Altemann

[1] Alter, A. L., Stern, C., Granot, Y., & Balcetis, E. (2016). The “Bad Is Black” Effect: Why People Believe Evildoers Have Darker Skin Than Do-Gooders. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42(12), 1653-1665. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216669123