The Day I Saw Van Gogh’s Genius in a New Light • Hacker News Board

Re: The Day I Saw Van Gogh’s Genius in a New Light

#41

Post by JoeAltmaier » Mon, Dec 12, 2011, 3:03 PM UTC

ebbv wrote: post #36

I think the modified versions look worse in every case, and I question the author's sanity. You can only appreciate Van Gogh if you can make his color choices more "normal"? So you'd only appreciate Picasso if you could use photoshop to reconstruct his paintings? Take the work as it is. Attempt to understand it on its own terms. That is how you grow as a person.

Hm. But to folks with different color vision, they 'are' different paintings. Neither view is 'normal'. An attempt to reconcile views on the same painting is entirely rational.

Re: The Day I Saw Van Gogh’s Genius in a New Light

#42

Post by pbhjpbhj » Mon, Dec 12, 2011, 3:16 PM UTC

ertdfgcb wrote: post #5

danko wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Concur wholeheartedly. Van Gogh's unusual color choices are a feature, not a bug. The author asserts that the muted color pallet for 'The Harvest' imbues the painting with an autumnal glow. For me, it removes the element of the painting that I find most interesting. The other comparisons fall along similar lines. Of course, this is art, and it's not truly possible for either of us to be 'wrong'. Taking a new perspect…

Yes, I think it would be quite interesting to have a museum exhibition where a high quality print of a original Van Gogh is displayed next a high quality print of the filtered version. I would defiantly pay to see that I wonder if any other famous artists saw their work differently than the rest of us?

Definitely.

If you have problems with this word then it may help to think of it as De[finite]ly - and tie that in your mind to "finite" meaning "measurable".

(Sorry to be a spelling nazi but the use of the 'a' in defiantly indicates this is not a typo.)

Re: The Day I Saw Van Gogh’s Genius in a New Light

#43

Post by Vivtek » Mon, Dec 12, 2011, 3:21 PM UTC

gregschlom wrote: post #17

I'm color-blind and I see absolutely no differences between the original and the modified images. So I assume this is working.

Same here - I actually checked the comments to be sure this wasn't a joke, actually. It's just a series of identical pictures to me. I guess I'm a born Van Gogh fan.

(I did a wall mural once involving a large green sea monster; I had a friend tell me when the shadows were getting red so I could compensate back to "normal-brown" - they all looked fine to me.)

Re: The Day I Saw Van Gogh’s Genius in a New Light

#44

Post by ajuc » Mon, Dec 12, 2011, 3:43 PM UTC

If I don't see the difference between these images (ok, some parts are slightly brighter), does that mean I have color deficiency too ?

Re: The Day I Saw Van Gogh’s Genius in a New Light

#45

Post by afterburner » Mon, Dec 12, 2011, 4:05 PM UTC

mechanical_fish wrote: post #37

I suspect that this whole exercise is moot. However one adjusts their color spectrum, I'm still staring at tiny digital reproductions of paintings on a fairly cheap LCD monitor. One of the things I've learned by reading a book on art, and then wandering around various art museums looking at the very art that was pictured in the book, is that paint is different from ink or pixels . You can look at a poster print of a…

A great example of this for me was that modern art painting that is just a specific shade of purple or violet (I forget the name, might be "shade #456" or something). It would look like total BS on paper, but displayed in the gallery it had this very strange effect, like a black hole, or weird dead zone, a matte presence that was a distinct experience.

Re: The Day I Saw Van Gogh’s Genius in a New Light

#46

Post by jberryman » Mon, Dec 12, 2011, 4:26 PM UTC

mechanical_fish wrote: post #37

I suspect that this whole exercise is moot. However one adjusts their color spectrum, I'm still staring at tiny digital reproductions of paintings on a fairly cheap LCD monitor. One of the things I've learned by reading a book on art, and then wandering around various art museums looking at the very art that was pictured in the book, is that paint is different from ink or pixels . You can look at a poster print of a…

Right. I'm curious where he got the images. Certainly you just have to google image search "van gogh starry night" to see the huge array of color balance "interpretations" you'll find on the net.

That said, I did think it was interesting how for instance in the sunflowers, there are a few highly-saturated parts (the centers of the flowers) that pop in the originals, but blend into maybe a more coherent image in the version with the color deficiency simulation.

Re: The Day I Saw Van Gogh’s Genius in a New Light

#47

Post by afterburner » Mon, Dec 12, 2011, 5:00 PM UTC

cicero wrote: post #38

I am partially color deficient, although I don't know the classifications given in the article. I was told it was "medium red-green" several years ago. The modified images look the same to me, except for the last two. In the Cafe Terrace, the sky looks more purple to me in the original, and in the self-portrait, the background swirls look more purple to me in the modified version.

I have normal colour vision and I experienced the same thing with those two pictures, a purple to blue shift. (I also saw differences in the others.)

Re: The Day I Saw Van Gogh’s Genius in a New Light

#48

Post by gcb » Mon, Dec 12, 2011, 5:18 PM UTC

So you argues he painted wheat the color you see wheat, even though he does not see it in real life the same color as you see?

Now I'm confused.

Re: The Day I Saw Van Gogh’s Genius in a New Light

#49

Post by gruseom » Mon, Dec 12, 2011, 5:40 PM UTC

jpdoctor wrote: post #39

mechanical_fish wrote: post #37

I suspect that this whole exercise is moot. However one adjusts their color spectrum, I'm still staring at tiny digital reproductions of paintings on a fairly cheap LCD monitor. One of the things I've learned by reading a book on art, and then wandering around various art museums looking at the very art that was pictured in the book, is that paint is different from ink or pixels . You can look at a poster print of a…

> I'm still staring at tiny digital reproductions of paintings on a fairly cheap LCD monitor. If you've seen the originals, there is a 3D quality that is also lost. He had a way of sculpting the paint on the canvas, which I've never seen in any reproduction.

Yes! I noticed that too when looking at a Van Gogh in person. He had built it up using a lot of paint - almost like what you see when a small child uses way too much finger-paint. The physical texture of it was striking.

Re: The Day I Saw Van Gogh’s Genius in a New Light

#50

Post by slevcom » Mon, Dec 12, 2011, 6:03 PM UTC

Someone who isn't me once ate some funny mushrooms and Van Gogh's paintings appeared to him as though they were made with magic pixie paint that actively ebbed and flowed right before his eyes. That was the day he saw Van Gogh's genius in a new light. Does that mean Van Gogh only painted after eating similar funny mushrooms?