Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
The philosophy of colour
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Message
Posted
It's as if colour is neither subjective nor objective. It hovers in between.
https://newrepublic.com/article/121843/philosophy-color-perception
However, physicists today discuss a curious new notion. The world may consist of of bundles of properties, so called tropes, consisting of colour and shape.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/physicists-debate-whether-world-made-of-particles-fields-or-something-else/
Anyway, it is clear that the notion of colour as entirely subjective is passé.
Mats
Edited
by 9230114
Posted
Colour perception depends on many things, including the receptors in our eyes - so to some extent it is 'subjective', in a rather rarefied way.
How useful it is to know this, of course, is something else again - but happily the baton has been passed by Syd to poor Michael Edwards, from whom we're now all expecting a considered reply. Over to you then, Michael.
(And the best of luck.)
You might find Michael Willcox, of the MW School of Colour, of some help - although his ideas predate those expressed in the linked articles: in practical terms, they're still the most useful bearing in mind the properties of paint as opposed to perception of colour.
Posted
I have an old pseudo psychology book, titled "What colour are You?" It suggests that we perceive colour/s according to our state of mind at any given time, I have never quite known what to think about it,. With regard to its use, I rarely can tell enquirers what colours I have used in any painting, nor do I see it in terms of colour name, but rather as a feeling or an emotion. I usually visualise a colour in my mind's eye and then work towards it..Admittedly this can muddy the waters in watercolour, certainly, and that I think is what helps to make it such a difficult medium. But that is by the way. There are of course, very real theories whereby colour is assigned to various emotions...Red in particular is associated with anger, Purple with depression (and Religion) Blue with spirituality and so on and in the main these simple theories hold a lot of truth. I wonder...Does the sun shine more brightly when we are feeling happy? Does the yellow affect mood? Or does it tend to make a depressed person even more miserable because they feel unable to get out and enjoy its benefits? A bit of a minefield, I would say. Plus a most interesting topic.
Posted
I thought it would interest you that scientists are more and more giving up on the "atom" and instead turn to what painters have known all the time, namely that "colour and shape" are the fundamental constituents of reality. It certainly gives credence to the abstract movement of early twentieth century, e.g. Malevich, Kandinsky, et al.
I think it is joyful to hear that it's not all in the mind, but that the grass really is green and the heaven really is blue.
Mats
Edited
by 9230114
Posted
Quite right that colour and paint are two different things - I would urge a visit to the Michael Willcox discussions on this, because he's pointed out before that many of the ideas about colour which the 19th century popularized, particularly the colour wheel, are just subjective invention. He's good on the "purity" question, pointing out that if we had genuinely pure colours, which we haven't, they wouldn't make the colour we expect when combined.
So read the links, but get yourselves a copy of 'Blue and Yellow Don't Make Green', as well - if this subject really interests you. It could save you money, incidentally - since when you realize what you can mix with just a dozen colours, the vast array of different hues available from manufacturers like Old Holland and Daniel Smith can seem grotesquely excessive. That's not to say that convenience doesn't come into this as well as mixing knowledge - I rely on quite a few of them. But you can get by with far fewer. Apologies, though, this isn't entirely relevant to the links - but then, they're not entirely relevant to the way in which we actually use colour, so I feel I can get away with it...
Posted
This is philosophy, not technique. I am aware that I think too much (as evident from my homepage) and that this hampers my artistic creativity. Matisse said that a painter should preferably cut out his tongue, because he shouldn't allow himself any other means of expression. But I can't help pondering what painting is, as such. I've already referred to James Elkins ("What Painting Is"), who sees painting as a form of alchemy.
Mats
Edited
by 9230114
Posted
Robert....referring back to your 'Nature of the beast' I find you one of the wisest beasts I have ever encountered, and it is always my priority to see whether you have responded, because we get balanced opinions and good sense from you every time. (character references supplied at highly competitive rates. by yours truly.) And yes, your proclamations can be a little tortuous at times, but I always know where you are coming from. Then I scuttle back to my naive little paintings which require neither colour technique (for want of a better word) nor philosophy, just straightforward fun and feeling. It has been commented on a lot recently, by friends, that I never paint faces, always a back view in my Quirkies..I do this because facial features are irrelevant..It is the attitude as portrayed in the stance which makes an impression on me, the archetypal (usually) older old man or woman. This is inherent in the feeling which goes into ones work, I think. Not sure how it applies to landscape, also I suspect I am straying from the subject of Colour Philosophy...and yet, perhaps not, because colour is emotive, and the eyes of a child see primary colours clearly and with delight. So perhaps I am just a childish old woman anyway...and oh boy it's FUN! so who cares!