Honestly, after reading that description of the study, it really doesn't seem much more nuanced to me. Maybe just a little. As much as I hate to say it, Fox's take seems mostly accurate. The study description at the link is highly repetitive and full of filler words, but here's essentially what I got out of it:

>The research project [...] studies [...] white pigment [...] in a historical, aesthetic, and critical lens — focusing on how the pigment transformed surfaces in art, architecture, and design

At this point, I wasn't really sure where it was going. White pigment transforms surfaces by making them white, right? Maybe some art history study kind of thing?

>The primary research question is: What are the cultural and aesthetic changes instigated by titanium white

Aesthetic changes? Again ... it's white paint, it makes things white. Cultural changes? Still not really sure where this is going.

>NorWhite connects challenging topics - whiteness, technological innovation, and mass-exploitation of natural resources - in a single case study

Definitely getting weird vibes at this point. The first claim seems to indicate that it's some kind of art history study. Then the second claim ties in some sort of nonspecific "cultural changes" with the aesthetics initially mentioned. And now, we've gone from "focusing on how the pigment transformed surfaces in art" to "whiteness, technological innovation, and mass-exploitation of natural resources". At this point, the term "whiteness" could potentially still be being used to refer to the pigment; but we've definitely taken a different direction.

>Whiteness is one of today’s key societal and political concerns [...] seek to cope with our racial past

Ah, they've clarified that they do indeed use "whiteness" specifically to refer to race.

>It was not until the Norwegian chemist Dr. Peder Farup (1875 – 1934) together with chemist and industrialist Dr. Gustav Jebsen (1861 – 1923) discovered an advanced chemical method [... full paragraph about the pigment chemistry]

Oh I see, there's a scientific aspect as well.

>By weaving together historical, critical, aesthetic, and artistic methods

Oh ... I guess not. That was just a description of the discovery; the actual study seems to exclude anything science-related.

Picking apart all the filler, the only things that it seems to clearly reference as aims of the study are a) some kind of nonspecific aesthetic study on the color white? and b) the impact of white paint on racism. So Fox's characterization of the study "finding out if white paint is racist" isn't precisely accurate, it's pretty clear that the study is focused on drawing connections between race and white paint.

I initially thought that this was funded through tax dollars, which I'd classify as a misuse of funds. But what I find odd is that it actually seems to be funded by companies that manufacture the pigment. From this perspective it makes sense for the study to be primarily motivated by marketing purposes, but I can't figure out why a paint company would want to tie their product to racism. My best guess is that the lack of cohesiveness in the study's aims arises from this; it's possible that the sponsoring companies wanted the study to be a PR piece focusing on the history and aesthetics of their product, but someone else involved (government perhaps? not sure) also wanted to tie "racial whiteness" into it.

Regardless, it looks to be a terribly non-cohesive study, seemingly without any defined objective or purpose. Just something about the aesthetics of white paint, and something about how white paint ties to race.

And a Snopes fact check about the study.

>The project does not seek to find evidence that the present day use of white paint is racist, but to investigate the possibility that the invention and commercial success of titanium white paint contributed to socially toxic views around race. To that point, Halland describes archival research showing "advertising posters from the 20s that connect the color white to human purity, and thus also to skin colour."

Seems like a legitimate study that explores the intersection of racism, marketing, and art history. This is how academia works, folks: people explore ideas and write papers about them. It furthers our understanding of the world and how things are related.

[deleted]