於1930年至1940年代中期，鄉土色彩此一議題在殖民時期臺灣視覺藝術建構在地認同的過程中發揮了兩種功能。它一方面為西洋風景畫與東洋繪畫提供一理論架構，另一方面它亦為一種教育架構，連接許多藝術家及其作品。然而，我們必須謹記的是，鄉土色彩這個概念在發展的過程中亦不斷受到質疑。 本文將檢視高風景畫中鄉土色彩的興衰，道先分析此概念如何在質疑聲中發展，最後並為某些藝術家詩人與批評家所排斥。其次，本文將從「大東亞共榮圈」出發，就政治宣傳如何影響臺灣於日本帝國版圖中的定位，從更宏觀的角度論述此一議題。最後，本文的討論將思考「在地生產」之邏輯，藉以澄清「在地」的意義。 此一批判分析將會揭露真正的「鄉土色彩」。因此，殖民臺灣強烈且鮮明的色彩彷彿因為論述的變遷而朦朧了起來。

The local color issue served two functions regarding the formation of local identity in colonial Taiwanese visual art from the 1930s to the mid-1940s. in addition to being a theoretical framework for Western-Style landscape painting and Toyoga (Eastern-style painting), it was an instructive framework linking various artists and their woks. However, it is important to keep in mind that the local color concept was constantly being challenged at the same time that is was being developed. In this examination of the rise and fall of local color in Taiwanese landscape painting, I will firstly anayze its disputed development as an idea that was eventually denied by some artists, poets, and critics. Secondly, I will look at the issue through a wider lens known as the Great East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, in which political propaganda influenced how Taiwan was positioned on the Japanese imperial map. Finally, this discussion will conclude with a consideration of the logic of “local product,” which will further clarify the meaning of “local”. This critical analysis will expose true “local color.” The strong and bright colors of colonial Taiwan therefore are as if blurred by the transition of discourses.