 |
 |
Well, From someone, like me mostly interested in a-cromatic lines, I really think that what separates the existing flux of light wave lengths spectrum are words. There is a linguistic moment in which you stop saying blue, and… you can’t start saying green and… you finally can start saying green. In the large spectrum of indecision between green and blue, color behaves like a flux. Inside the indisputable greenness or blueness, light behaves like musical notation. Pythagoras identified for the first time in human history a relation between aesthetically reception, numbers and dimensions by defining musical harmonies. This relied on pressing a musical cord exactly in a measurable point. Pythagorean musical proportions only worked on those precise divisions. From this discovery a theory of proportions (how a part is related to whole?; how a part is related to another part?) was elaborated and lasted until our days. This is to say that sound is also composed of wavelengths, by mathematical definition indivisible but clearly arithmetically divisible. Naming colors is of the same sort. By defining proportions in sound calling it music, Pythagoras defined aesthetical categories, by calling names to light wave lengths we do the same. Naming colors is an aesthetical theory. We can not define this linguistic aberrant strive in another way. Saying: this stuff is blue is the first and ultimate theory about color. Eduardo Corte-Real PhD Associate Professor [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> [cid:D06107DC-6991-422C-90A3-827D3E65BE27] Av. Dom Carlos I, nº4, 1200-649 Lisboa, Portugal T: +351 213 939 600 [cid:image009.png@01D14E3A.80B12DE0] No dia 19/02/2016, às 13:58, Gunnar Swanson <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> escreveu: I hesitate to drag people down another epistemological rabbit hole but color is neither a spectrum nor a set of things so the simple answer is: No. (Although I’d be interested in answers to Martin’s questions.) Gunnar Gunnar Swanson East Carolina University graphic design program http://www.ecu.edu/cs-cfac/soad/graphic/index.cfm [log in to unmask] Gunnar Swanson Design Office 1901 East 6th Street Greenville NC 27858 USA http://www.gunnarswanson.com [log in to unmask] +1 252 258-7006 On Feb 19, 2016, at 4:17 AM, Salisbury, Martin <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Could you elaborate on what those 'strong reasons' are? When trying to get to the bottom of how many colours are distinguishable by the human eye, we tend to encounter those dreaded words,'experts estimate ...' followed by any anything from 100,000 to 10 million. And of course perception of colour varies from individual to individual. I am wondering whether you mean that, even if we can't know something, we should pretend that we do in order to facilitate theory? [snip] On 19/02/2016 08:42, "Terence Love" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Is it better to assume as an axiom in making design theory that colour always comprises a set of fixed colours rather than assuming colour as being a continuous spectrum? There seem to be strong reasons in theory and practice to make this assumption, and that it is possible calculate exactly how big the set is (i.e exactly how many different colours) for each design scenario. ----------------------------------------------------------------- PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]> Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design -----------------------------------------------------------------