‘Mixing blue and green is almost a must.’ Credit: Penny Morrison
The outcome of combining blue and green
I can do a detailed quoting of the book as I go. Here are a few points (gross generalities) to get started. Page 9: “Among other things, you will discover that yellow and blue do not make green, that the artist’s primary colours, pure red, yellow and blue, do not exist and that vitually everything that has ever been written about colour mixing has been inaccurate.” (Italics are mine for emphasis) Page 9: “I realize that most creative people will resist coming to terms with the theoretical side of colour mixing.”
“To this I would have to say that we have not gained control through earlier methods.” Page 11: “Colour only ever exists in our brain, we are, fortunately, able to convert certain types of energy into a sensation of colour.” “Artists, by their very nature, often avoid most things to do with science.” Is there only subjective color? Without the human brain, there would be no color? I don’t know if that is true. And is this true about artists as a class, opposed or disinclined toward science and technology? Page 21: (following much explanation of paint films, pigments and light absorbtion/reflection, these points are made) “You will be well ahead of me by now and have worked out just why a mix of pure red and pure blue would produce black.”
The flaws in our traditional way of thinking about colour mixing are starting to show.” The generalities above are just the tip of the rhetorical iceberg Mr. Wilcox mines in an attempt to substantiate his arguments and off-beat theories. The thing I wonder about right away is what sort of poor education in color did Michael Wilcox receive, and why didn’t he take initiative to find the correct sources of color theory and mixing? To this point in the book, he has presented a muddle of incomplete or erroneous scientific theory of light and pigments. His conclusions, while not completely wrong, are serving as a foundation for a remarkable, if inaccurate, view of color and mixing. Mr. Wilcox makes point of fact from obvious fallacies, which seem to rhetorically appeal to the type of audience he describes: one who is not inclined to facts of science. I can certainly bring more points to light as I progess through the book. But the text is so riddled with the partially true premises, that some is very hard to unravel without going through the book page by page. One of my greatest joys in reading the Munsell “Student Book” was the high percentage of true information and demonstratable theory — at least 90%, one of the highest ratings I would give for color theory books for the average (non-scientific) reader. This book by Mr. Wilcox, so far at least, I would only rate at around 50% valid or accurate — about the same as the general color theory book one is likely to encounter in school. I’ve been pleased to see on this forum, especially over the last few years, people seeing the differences that specific pigments and manufacturers can make on their colors. Combined with that, there seems to be a more eager “hands-on” approach to doing color mixes with the colors on the individual artists’ palette. I think we can thank Richard Schmid in part for this, with his inter-related color charts popularizing the idea of compiling a reference of palette colors and their mixtures. Even on a small scale this is a valuable exercise. The inclusion of the Munsell color chips, even in the Student set, gives us an objective comparison to the colors in our subject and the colors being mixed on the palette. All this information I mentioned here, even if only understood these matters from a theory standpoint, seems to directly contradict Mr. Wilcox’ assertion that , “This approach cannot work because we are all equiped with a very poor colour memory. We quickly forget all but the most general features of a colour as soon s we look away from it.”
June 4, 2009 at 3:45 pm #1119716
It doesn’t take being a ‘mathematician’ to understand that whether the numbers are 8 bits or 16 bits or 32 bits or double precision floating point 64 bits is irrelevant. The concepts only make sense in 0 to 1 space.
O-k-a-y, but I can tell you that most people have no understanding of what even the “0 to 1 space” bit means. Anyway, my point is that as standard RGB colour notation should be used here because that is how it is commonly understood and used so as to prevent confusion and needless digression.
The basic problem is the this thread comes out swinging, with phrases like ‘mess’ and ‘snake oil,’ for something which is entirely reasonable and largely correct.
That’s one opinion. I’d agree the basis of the book is reasonable and useful. But as far as largely correct, I’m afraid that’s far from the case (many of the salient points are touched on in the links above). Einion
D o y o u k n o w i f y o u r c o l o u r i s o f f i n h u e , v a l u e , c h r o m a . . . o r a l l t h r e e ?
Colour Theory & Mixing forum WetCanvas Glossary Search Tips Advanced Search Acrylics forum Acrylics – Information Kiosk
June 4, 2009 at 7:14 pm #1119760
Default
O-k-a-y, but I can tell you that most people have no understanding of what even the “0 to 1 space” bit means. Anyway, my point is that as standard RGB colour notation should be used here because that is how it is commonly understood and used so as to prevent confusion and needless digression.
Photoshop has three different bit depth modes. They ship standard. Only one of them represents white as 255. The majority of them in standard Photoshop – fully two thirds of them – do not. One of them, the 32-bit mode, represents white as 1.0 So there are as many modes in standard Photoshop that call white 1.0 as there are that call white 255.
as far as largely correct, I’m afraid that’s far from the case (many of the salient points are touched on in the links above). Einion
Why ‘blue and green should never be seen’ is outdated, absurd and just plain wrong
‘Mixing blue and green is almost a must.’ Credit: Penny Morrison
Arabella Youens investigates the old adage that ‘blue and green should never be seen’ — and finds that it’s simply not true.
‘Irises, bluebells and forget-me-nots have long demonstrated that blue and green look beautiful together,’ points out Nina Campbell, who has recently launched Parvani, a fabric and wallpaper design featuring peacocks, flowers and paisley shapes in a blue and green colourway. ‘I was taught that they shouldn’t be seen together, except on a faerie queen,’ she says, ‘but you only have to look at the Black Watch tartan to see that it’s perfectly fine to mix them. It’s the tonality that is most important,’ says Mrs Campbell.
She particularly likes the addition of an acidic green into the mix, which adds a sharpness to a scheme. ‘What’s much more challenging is pairing red and green. It’s difficult to avoid that sort of scheme looking too Christmassy.’
One theory is that the saying derives from a seafarer’s tradition that that the hulls of boats should not be painted green lest they become invisible when capsized. Historical paint consultant Patrick Baty of Papers and Paints in Chelsea believes that the origins of this mantra go back to the colour wheel, where blue and green sit side by side. He gives short shrift to the idea that they don’t work together.
‘Rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools,’ he says. ‘Look at some of the ceilings by Adam and you see that the two colours have been used happily together for centuries.’
Christopher Farr’s Carnival in green, used on a cushion.
