I got about three paragraphs into an explanation of additive/subtractive color, rayleigh scattering, pigments and iridescence, before I realized this has to be satire.
Stop Colour Theory
21–30 of 36 posts
Re: Stop Colour Theory
#22This society seems to be on to something.
There might be a "to" too many in your statement. The answer probably is laughing gas, if not crack cocaine.
Re: Stop Colour Theory
#23This has to be a joke. If not, the writer seems to be confused by the difference between additive & subtractive color systems. I admit to not really having any idea what they are getting at in their proposed replacement system and don't see any way it could be helpful in predicting how colors mix in either paint or monitors.
It's clearly satire.
Re: Stop Colour Theory
#24> All colours are independent
Ahm in fact no. They are interdependent. Or else we would not have brown. Brown is a color which can not exist by itself.
Also additive and subtractive color theory are not opposing but two complementing part of a larger more complex color theory consulting of the additivity of light mixing the substraction of light abortion and the way our human mind further messed with how we see the work (e.g. brown).
A person saying that additive and substantive theory are two separate opposing theories implies this person doesn't understand colors or physics. In the end colors are the combination of the way light physically interacts with the world and the human mind.
Through on sad truth is that many education systems teach a lot of wrong things like wrong color circles. Or they more the fact that thinks like a color circle are just a convenient partial representation of the truth...
Re: Stop Colour Theory
#25What is the goal? Will any of these make colours easier to use or understand?
I suspect the goal is to make fun of conspiracy theorists, since the issues they discuss are non-issues to anyone who paid attention in grade-school physics (or even art class). I imagine there are plenty of conspiracy theorists who will fall for it, since they are deeply biased to give in to their paranoia about figures of authority.
Re: Stop Colour Theory
#26This has to be a joke. If not, the writer seems to be confused by the difference between additive & subtractive color systems. I admit to not really having any idea what they are getting at in their proposed replacement system and don't see any way it could be helpful in predicting how colors mix in either paint or monitors.
Right, you say additive and subtractive, I think of it as emmissive colors vs reflective colors. That point seems to get ignored. Some of this is interesting-- like every color is a frequency. But human vision systems are probably not innately tuned to perceive every frequency along a chunk of spectrum with an equal weight. Training and cognition probably influence our acuity in certain parts of the range.
It's not just cognition but physical limitations of our eye.
Through the effect of cognition and training are wastly underestimated in my experience, like look into what the color brown is.
Re: Stop Colour Theory
#27This has to be a joke. If not, the writer seems to be confused by the difference between additive & subtractive color systems. I admit to not really having any idea what they are getting at in their proposed replacement system and don't see any way it could be helpful in predicting how colors mix in either paint or monitors.
It's clearly satire.
I agree, and very good satire it is. They had me going for a minute.
Re: Stop Colour Theory
#28This has to be a joke. If not, the writer seems to be confused by the difference between additive & subtractive color systems. I admit to not really having any idea what they are getting at in their proposed replacement system and don't see any way it could be helpful in predicting how colors mix in either paint or monitors.
Right, you say additive and subtractive, I think of it as emmissive colors vs reflective colors. That point seems to get ignored. Some of this is interesting-- like every color is a frequency. But human vision systems are probably not innately tuned to perceive every frequency along a chunk of spectrum with an equal weight. Training and cognition probably influence our acuity in certain parts of the range.
> like every color is a frequency
Hot pink isn't a frequency. It does not appear in the visible light spectrum. You can only produce it by combining multiple "impure" frequencies. You generally produce it by combining a spike of low-frequency red with a spike of high-frequency violet.
Human eyes try to "triangulate" a complex spectral analysis into an absolute position in a colour space, that colour space is the surface of a sphere or torus or something, and hot pink is "between" red and violet. Three-coordinate colour space is very much an artifact of humans, and how human eyes/brains work.
Re: Stop Colour Theory
#29This has to be a joke. If not, the writer seems to be confused by the difference between additive & subtractive color systems. I admit to not really having any idea what they are getting at in their proposed replacement system and don't see any way it could be helpful in predicting how colors mix in either paint or monitors.
It's clearly satire.
[deleted]
Re: Stop Colour Theory
#30This is satire, but will only come off that way for readers with a knowledge of color theory.
I only have a very limited knowledge of color theory and while it was clear that it's messed up it isn't clear to be satire.
Honestly it sounds a lot like something people also into alternative facts would flock to and believe, especially if you mix in the conspiracy theory that color theory was intentionally made to manipulate you.