If you've never seen the movie, "Mr. Blandings Builds His Dream House," you may find the following short scene about color selection of interest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZwOGVWqHAw On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 3:04 PM, William Conger <[email protected]>wrote: > One of my favorite topics to teach was basic color theory. The first > lesson > encouraged students to forget all those romantic names for colors, like pea > green, sky blue, and apple red. I also stressed forgetting the name purple. > Colors are identifiable only in relation to other colors. If you have one > red > and then another red that differs from it, it is possible to adjust either > one > to match the other quite closely. Or if you see a red object, you can > match its > color with a pigment quite closely but it requires altering that red > pigment, > usually. Pigments are altered by other pigments and by tinting and > shading and > by their opposite colors. Any admixture of one pigment to another reduces > its > brightness or saturation, the degree of color it is. So if you add white > to a > red you will raise the value of the color by tinting but you'll also > reduce its > brightness. If you add to that a bit of green, the opposite of red, then > you > will gray the color as well. My admonition of purple as a color name is > due to > its ambiguity, designating any violet between red and blue, a whole third > of the > color wheel. Better to say red-violet, violet, or blue violet. That way > one > knows precisely where a color is in relation to other colors. Also colors > are > often modified by value, being lighter or darker than their pure hue. > > Color theory is as simple as basic algebra. It can be very objective but > never > perfectly so, > > I could have beginning students mix and match color pigments like experts > in an > hour. All things we see in color can be reduced to one of the three > primary > colors, red, yellow, blue. Look at something near you that seems like a > muddle > color. As if it is primarily red, yellow, or blue. It will be one of > those. > Then it's simply a matter of adjusting it, There are only three direct > ways to > adjust a pigment color. Add white, add black, add its opposite color. > Maybe all > three are needed. A fourth indirect way is by simultaneous contrast or by > surrounding a color with its opposite. If you have, say, a very pale > yellow > carpet, a 'tan carpet' it is yellow. Add white, then to reduce the > yellowness, > add some violet (which also darkens it). A few trials and you'll have it > exactly as you see the carpet at a given time and light. One can even make > up > simple formulas for matching or mixing color (as the wall paint people > do). The > point is to recognize that color can be stipulated in quite objective > terms with > given pigments and percentages of mixtures of opposites and black and > white. If > youcan see it you can match it, no romantic terms needed. > > Now that I think about it, color theory is as close as you can get to an > aesthetic idealism in practice. There is the concept of a perfect red > paint, > meaning all the redness that a pigment can be, but no one can mix it > perfectly. > Thus in practice color theory is an ideal guide but the guide requires > that all > colors be perfectly matched to their opposites to fulfill the requirement, > say, > that in a pure green there is no red; in a pure yellow there is no violet; > in a > pure blue there is no orange. > > I love color theory; I detest market-place color names. Any color pigment > could > be accurately named by listing the percentages of other colors in it. > wc > > . > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: joseph berg <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Sent: Sat, September 1, 2012 5:58:23 PM > Subject: Re: Aesthetic Ideal > > On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 7:57 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > In a message dated 8/31/12 6:49:54 PM, [email protected] writes: > > > > > > "I take it Cheerskep agrees with my statement where I mention that any > word > > will > > elicit some meaning. When a person responds to a word by saying it's > > meaningless, he is right to the extent that all words are in themselves > > meaningless. In another sense he is saying that he doesn't understand the > > context with word addresses. But in his brain many meanings for the word > > have > > already reached consciousness" > > > > Agreed, in large part. William, our wording is not "wrong"; but it tends > to > > obscure a distinction I was trying to stress. Instead of saying, > "Cheerskep > > agrees that any word will elicit some meaning", I'd say, "Cheerskep > agrees > > that any word will elicit some notion." > > > > I know I'm not going to eradicate the word 'meaning' from all discussion. > > It is too ingrained in our way of talking. So I figure I'd better > > accommodate > > my phrasing. > > > > I know that many people will insist on saying the likes of, "Whatever > comes > > to my mind when I hear a word is the word's 'meaning for me'." So I use > the > > phrase 'meaning for me' - with the understanding that it's my phrase for > > the notion occasioned by hearing/reading an utterance or scription. > > > > That "notion" is not to be confused with any mind-independent, "real", > > "correct" THE MEANING OF the "word". > > > > I disapprove of seeming to use the same word for two different things, > but > > experience tells me that, when advancing a radically new theory, it's > best > > to do it while using as many familiar words as possible. Otherwise you > risk > > coming across as plain old wacky. I'm not sure of this, William, but I > > think > > it's possible you and I are the only members of this forum who believe > > words > > do not have an intrinsic, mind-independent "meaning". > > > > > When it comes to words and meanings: > > - Some men dont have the vocabulary to describe emotions clearly. Heres > an analogy. My wife can easily distinguish between sea mist, pea and grass > green paint. To me they are all just light green. Olive and forest green > are dark green to me. I recognize the various shades, but I dont have > different names for them. So maybe the girlfriend is saying sea mist and > the boyfriend is saying light green. They both might mean the same thing, > or not, but the boyfriend cant explain it any better. He literally doesnt > have the vocabulary to describe it any better. > > > http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/carolyn-hax-reader-advice-on-be > ing-in-love/2012/08/30/7b85dab2-e71f-11e1-a3d2-2a05679928ef_story.html
