Actually, I would beg to differ on that one. While it's not an official term, lack of detail is referred to by - at least the writers I know - as "beige prose". Without detail, words are just that - Words. One feels nothing for the story if they don't know what's going on, if they can't envision it. A few adjectives can make all the difference.
While it's not an official term, that's just it. It's not an official term. As in, people look down harder on purple prose than beige prose. Example? Ernest Hemingway's writing is probably as beige as you can get, but it's often seen as classic because his writing style is straight and to-the-point. There's no fluff, so all of his points are stark. Granted, it's not to everyone's tastes, and some people even claim it's boring. However, it's still more acceptable from a critic's standpoint than, well, the tackiness that is purple prose.
Also, it's completely dependent on the situation as well. Hemingway got away with it because what he was trying to say
needed to be basically stripped down to the essentials. In other words, it may not be a good idea to use that kind of technique for chapters upon chapters of dense material, it's okay in a situation where you're more reliant on the tone built by having a lack of adjectives and straightforward prose. Conversely, there's no such thing as a situation where purple prose can be applied and pulled off except in the case where the piece is meant to be humorous because purple prose is inherently over-the-top.
In short, my point was that there are times where it's completely okay to use straightforward language, but there
aren't times where it's completely okay to find yourself on the
opposite end of the spectrum (unless you're writing humor that's meant to sound over-the-top). Does that make more sense?
Also, to respond to your question concerning things like blond versus wheat, the thing is, a reader should be able to discern what general colors things like blond hair is like. Simplifying it to just say "blond" also has the added advantage of giving your reader a little bit of wiggle room -- i.e., a chance to exercise their own imagination, add details to their own mental picture of a person, and connect a little more with the story by being forced to fill in a
few details. You can't hold a reader's hand all the way through a work. While it's okay to describe things now and then, the happy medium
is to give them general descriptor words instead of saying something like, "The boy with the wheat-colored hair fixed his sapphire orbs on the emerald grass." The latter example is considered borderline purple because aside from being the kind of writing you'd find in Suefic, it also conjures rather awkward mental images. (I mean, first off, it sounds overdramatic, and second, it's more likely that your reader will think of wheat fields
before thinking of hair when they should just be thinking of hair first, if that even makes sense.)
I apologize for being blunt about it, but yeah, readers (from what I've experienced, in any case) generally have an easier time swallowing simplistic prose than over-the-top writing loaded with paragraphs upon paragraphs of descriptions of mauve, velvet curtains. Moreover, on the principle of Occam's razor, it's generally easier to go with the simplest explanation, to put it frankly. It means you're more reliant on
what you're saying instead of the packaging on the
outside. Yes, how much description you use depends on the tone you're trying to evoke, but never prioritize it over what you're saying. Furthermore, if you can say it in simpler words, say it in simpler words. Even just saying something is blue can pack more of a punch than saying something is sapphire-colored in more situations than one would probably think. (At the very least, you can avoid insulting your readers' imaginative capabilities.)