Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T21:53:44.300Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Construction of Colorimetry by Committee1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Sean F. Johnston
Sean F. Johnston
Affiliation:
Department of HistoryUniversity of York, U.K.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper explores the confrontation of physical and contextual factors involved in the emergence of the subject of color measurement, which stabilized in essentially its present form during the interwar period. The contentions surrounding the specialty had both a national and a disciplinary dimension. German dominance was curtailed by American and British contributions after World War I. Particularly in America, communities of physicists and psychologists had different commitments to divergent views of nature and human perception. They therefore had to negotiate a compromise between their desire for a quantitative system of description and the perceived complexity and human-centeredness of color judgment. These debates were played out not in the laboratory but rather in institutionalized encounters on standards committees. Such groups constitute a relatively unexplored historiographic and social site of investigation. The heterogeneity of such committees, and their products, highlight the problems of identifying and following such ephemeral historical “actors”.

Type
Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 9 , Issue 4 , Winter 1996 , pp. 387 - 420
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

An earlier version of this paper was presented at a seminar of the History & Philosophy of Science Division of the Philosophy Department, University of Leeds, in March 1994. I would like to thank Geoffrey Cantor and Graeme Gooday, as well as two anonymous referees, for providing very helpful criticism, and David Macadam for informative correspondence.

References

Abney, William de Wiveleslie. 1891. Colour Measurement and Mixture. London: Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge.Google Scholar
Abney, William de Wiveleslie. 1913. Researches in Colour Vision and the Trichromatic Theory. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Bachelard, Gaston. 1933. Les Intuitions Atomistiques. Paris: Boivin.Google Scholar
Barr, James M., and Phillips, Charles E.. 1894. “The Brightness of Light: Its Nature and Measurement”, The Electrician 32:524–27.Google Scholar
Bijker, Wiebe E., Hughes, Thomas P., and Pinch, Trevor J., eds. 1989. The Social Construction of Technological Systems. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Boring, Edwin G. 1950. A History of Experimental Psychology. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Bouguer, Pierre. [1760] 1961. Traité d'Optique sur la Gradation de la Lumière. Translated by Middleton, E. W. K., Toronto.Google Scholar
Bouma, P. J. 1944. Physical Aspects of Colour. Eindhoven: N. V. Philips.Google Scholar
Bridgman, Percy W. 1927. The Logic of Modern Physics. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Brightman, R. 1934. “The Dyestuffs Industry in 1933.” The Industrial Chemist, January: 18–21.Google Scholar
Burnham, Robert W., Hanes, Randall M., and Bartleson, C. James. 1963. Color: A Guide to Basic Facts and Concepts. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Cahan, David. 1989. An Institute for an Empire: The Physikalisch-Technische Reichsanstalt 1871–1918. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cahan, David, ed. 1993. Hermann von Helmholtz and the Foundations of Nineteenth Century Science. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Norman R. 1928. An Account of the Principles of Measurement and Calculation. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
Carnt, P. S., and Townsend, G. B.. 1961. Colour Television: N.T.S.C. System, Principles and Practice. London: Iliffe Books.Google Scholar
Chevreul, Michel E. 1858. The Laws of Contrast and Colour. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
CIE 1924, 1932, 1935. Compte Rendu de la Commission Internationale de I'Éclairage.Google Scholar
Cochrane, Rexmond C. 1966. Measures for Progress: A History of the National Bureau of Standards. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce.Google Scholar
Collins, H. M., ed. 1981. Knowledge and Controversy: Studies of Modern Natural Science. Special issue of Social Studies of Science 11:1.Google Scholar
Collins, H. M., ed. 1982. Sociology of Scientific Knowledge: A Source Book. Bath: Bath University Press.Google Scholar
Collins, H. M. 1985. Changing Order: Replication and Induction in Scientific Practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Colorimetry Committee. 1920. “1919 Report of the Standards Committee on Colorimetry”. Journal of the Optical Society of America 4:186–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, H. M. 1929. “Communication from the Colorimetry Committee of the International Commission on Illumination”. Journal of the Optical Society of America 19:15–17.Google Scholar
Collins, H. M. 1953. The Science of Color. Washington, D.C.: Cromwell.Google Scholar
Crawford, Elisabeth. 1992. Nationalism and Internationalism in Science, 1880–1939: Four Studies of the Nobel Population. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danziger, Kurt. 1992. “The Project of an Experimental Social Psychology: Historical Perspectives”. Science in Context 5(2):309–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Danziger, Kurt. 1994. Constructing the Subject: Historical Origins of Psychological Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Debus, A. G. 1962. “Solution Analyses Prior to Robert Boyle”. Chymia 8:41–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
“DrLoyd, A. Jones — Ives Medalist for 1943”. 1944. Journal of the Optical Society of America 34:59–65.Google Scholar
Englehardt, H. T. Jr, and Caplan, A. L.. 1987. “Patterns of Controversy and Closure: The Interplay of Knowledge, Values and Political Forces”. In Scientific Controversies: Case Studies in the Resolution and Closure of Disputes in Science and Technology, edited by Englehardt, H., Jr., and Caplan, A. L.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forman, Paul. 1980. “Scientific Internationalism and the Weimar Physicists: An Ideology and Its Manipulation after World War I”, Isis 64:151–80.Google Scholar
Gaster, Leon, and Dow, J. S.. 1920. Modern Illuminants and Illuminating Engineering. 2nd ed. London: Pitman.Google Scholar
Gaukroger, Stephen. 1976. “Bachelard and the Problem of Epistemological Analysis”. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 7:189–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gooday, Graeme. Forthcoming. “Instrument as Embodied Theory”. In Reader's Guide to the History of Science, edited by Hessenbruch, A.. London: Fitzroy Dearborn.Google Scholar
Guild, John. 1926. “A Critical Survey of Modern Developments in the Theory and Technique of Colorimetry and Allied Sciences”. Proceedings of the Optical Convention, 1:61–146. London.Google Scholar
Guild, John. 1928. Collected Researches of the NPL 20.Google Scholar
Guild, John. 1934. “The Instrumental Side of Colorimetry”. Journal of Scientific Instruments 11:69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halbertsma, N. A. 1963. “CIE's Golden Jubilee,” Compte Rendu de la CIE, 15th session.Google Scholar
Harrington, Anne. 1991. “Interwar ‘German’ Psychobiology: Between Nationalism and the Irrational”. Science in Context 4:429–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hay, David R. 1846. A Nomenclature of Colours, Applicable to the Arts and Natural Sciences, to Manufactures and Other Purposes of General Utility. Edinburgh: Blackwood.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helmholtz, Hermann. 1925. Treatise on Physiological Optics. Translated by Southall, J. P. C.. New York: Optical Society of America.Google Scholar
“Helmholtz's Treatise on Physiological Optics Vol. 2.” 1925. Journal of the Optical Society of America 1:369–74.Google Scholar
Homburg, Ernst. 1992. “The Emergence of Research Laboratories in the Dyestuffs Industry, 1870–1900”. BJHS 25:91–111.Google Scholar
Hughes, Thomas P. 1986. “The Seamless Web: Technology, Science, Etcetera, Etcetera”, Social Studies of Science. 16:281–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Illuminating Engineer. 1928. 21:106Google Scholar
Ives, Harold. 1932. “Irwin Gillespie Priest”. Journal of the Optical Society of America 22:503–8.Google Scholar
Jackson, Myles W. 1994. “A Spectrum of Belief: Goethe's ‘Republic’ versus Newtonian ‘Despotism’”. Social Studies of Science. 24:673–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
James, William. 1892. Psychology. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Sean F. 1994. A Notion or a Measure: The Quantification of Light to 1939. Ph.D. diss., University of Leeds.Google Scholar
Johnston, Sean F. 1996. “Making Light Work: Practices and Practitioners of Photometry”. History of Science. 34:273–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Loyd A. 1937. “Colorimetry: Preliminary Draft of a Report on Nomenclature and Definitions”. Journal of the Optical Society of America 27:207–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Loyd A. 1943. “The Historical Background and Evolution of the Colorimetry Report”. Journal of the Optical Society of America 33:534–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
JOSA. 1940. “Cooperation among Color Experts”. Journal of the Optical Society of America 30:573.Google Scholar
Judd, Deane B., and Kenneth, L. Kelly. 1939. “Method of Designating Colors”. Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards 23:355–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judd, Deane B., and Kenneth, L. Kelly. 1940. “The Munsell Color System”. Journal of the Optical Society of America 30:574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katz, David. 1935. The World of Colour. London: Kegan, Paul, French, Trubner & Co.Google Scholar
Kelly, Kenneth L. 1974. Colorimetry and Spectrophotometry: A Bibliography of NBS Publications, January 1906 through January 1973. NBS Special Publications 393. Washington: D.C.NBS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kevles, Daniel J. 1971. “Into Two Hostile Camps: The Reorganisation of International Science after World War I”. Isis 62:47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ladd-Franklin, Caroline. 1893. “On Theories of Light Sensation”. Mind, n.s., 2:473–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latour, Bruno, and Steve, Woolgar. 1979. Laboratory Life. The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Beverley Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno, and Steve, Woolgar. 1987. Science in Action. Cambridge, Mass,: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lovibond, Joseph W. 1897. Measurement of Light and Colour Sensations. London: George Gill & Sons.Google Scholar
Lovibond, Joseph W. 1915. Light and Colour Theories. London: E. & F. N. Spon.Google Scholar
Luckiesh, Matthew. 1915. Color and Its Applications. New York: Van Nostrand.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacAdam, David L. 1970. Sources of Color Science. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
MacAdam, David L. 1994. Personal communication, 4 February.Google Scholar
Mirowski, Philip. 1992. “Looking for Those Natural Numbers: Dimensionless Constants and the Idea of Natural Measurement”. Science in Context 5:165–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mirowski, Philip. 1994. “A Visible Hand in the Marketplace of Ideas: Precision Measurement as Arbitrage”. Science in Context 7:563–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, H. D. 1952. Colour in Theory and Practice. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Munsell, Albert H. 1907. A Color Notation. Boston.Google Scholar
Nickerson, Dorothy. 1940. “History of the Munsell Color System and Its Scientific Application”. Journal of the Optical Society of America 30:575–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NPL. 1920, 1921, 1922, 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930. National Physical Laboratory Report for the Year 19xx. Teddington.Google Scholar
O'Connell, Joseph. 1993 “Metrology: The Creation of Universality by the Circulation of Particulars”. Social Studies of Science. 23:129–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olesko, Kathryn M. 1993. “Precision and Practice in German Resistance Measures: Some Comparative Considerations.” Workshop at Dibner Institute, MIT.Google Scholar
Paul, Harry W. 1985. From Knowledge to Power: The Rise of the Science Empire in France, 1860–1939. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pestre, Dominique. 1984. Physique et Physiciens en France, 1919–1940. Paris: Editions des Archives Contemporaines.Google Scholar
Pickering, Andrew R. 1981. “Constraints on Controversy: The Case of the Magnetic Monopole.” In Collins 1981, 63–93.Google Scholar
Pickering, Andrew R. 1984. Constructing Quarks: A Sociological History of Particle Physics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Pinch, Trevor J. 1985. “Towards an Analysis of Scientific Observation: The Externality and Evidential Significance of Observation Reports in Physics”. Social Studies of Science. 15:3–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinch, Trevor J. 1988. “Understanding Technology: Some Possible Implications of Work in the Sociology of Knowledge.” In Technology and Social Process, edited by Elliot, B., 70–83. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, Lewis F. 1929. “Quantitative Mental Estimates of Light and Colour”. British Journal of Psychology 20:27–37.Google Scholar
Schaffer, Simon. 1988. “Astronomers Mark Time: Discipline and the Personal Equation”. Science in Context 2:115–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaffer, Simon. 1989. “Glass Works: Newton's Prisms and the Uses of Experiment.” In The Uses of Experiment, edited by Gooding, D., Pinch, T., and Schaffer, S.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schaffer, Simon. 1992. “Late Victorian Metrology and Its Instrumentation: A Manufactury of Ohms. ”In Invisible Connections: Instruments, Institutions and Science, edited by Bud, R. and Cozzens, S. E., 23–56. Bellingham, Wash.: SPIE Optical Engineering Press.Google Scholar
Sismondo, Sergio. 1993. “Some Social Constructions”. Social Studies of Science. 23:515–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Southall, Jeremy P. C. 1932. “Leonard Thompson Troland”. Journal of the Optical Society of America 22:509–11.Google Scholar
Swijtink, Zeno G. 1987. “The Objectification of Observation: Measurement and Statistical Methods in the Nineteenth Century.” In The Probabilistic Revolution: The Objectification of Observation, Measurement and Statistical Methods in the Nineteenth Century, edited by Kruger, L., Daston, J., and Heidelberger, M., 261–86. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Troland, Leonard T. 1922. “Report of the Committee on Colorimetry for 1920–21”. Journal of the Optical Society of America 6:527–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Troland, Leonard T. 1929a. “Optics as Seen by a Psychologist”. Journal of the Optical Society of America 18:223–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Troland, Leonard T. 1929b. Psychophysiology. Vol. 2. New York: Van Norstrand.Google Scholar
Turner, R. Steven. 1994. In the Eye's Mind: Vision and the Helmholtz-Hering Controversy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varcoe, Ian. 1970. “Scientists, Government and Organised Research: The Early Years of the DSIR, 1914–16”. Minerva 8:192–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Varcoe, Ian. 1974. Organising for Science in Britain: A Case Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Walsh, John W. T. 1926. Photometry. London: Constable.Google Scholar
Walsh, John W. T., and Marsden, A. M.. 1989. History of the CIE, 1913–1988. Vienna: CIE.Google Scholar
Williams, Mari E. W. 1994. The Precision Makers: A History of the Instruments Industry in England and France, 1870–1939. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wright, William D. 1944. The Measurement of Colour. London: Hilger & Watts.Google Scholar
Wright, William D. 1981. “The Historical and Experimental Background to the 1931 CIE System of Colorimetry.” In Golden Jubilee of Colour in the CIE, 2–18. Bradford: Society of Dyers and Colourists.Google Scholar