Categories
You can send an email to [email protected] if you have questions about how to use this forum.
Blue and Yellow don’t make green
rsluk
-
in Color Mixing
I’m interested in whether any other members use/have experience with Michael Wilcox’s color theory.
Comments
http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/book3.html#wilcox
From my experience I also agree with his views on a split primary palette compared to a secondary palette:
http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/color14.html#splitprimary
have you mixed yellow and blue? If so what did you get?
we work with artist colors not light theory.
Colour theory has it's place, for sure, but nothing beats getting down and dirty and actually mixing pigments and learning the results by heart so that you know almost intuitively how to mix any colour seen in nature without having to look it up in a textbook. It's like playing the piano. You can know all the theory in the world, but unless you practice those scales and arpeggios you will never be able to play with fluency and grace.
I've been painting for only about six years and am still learning about colour. But what I can say for certain is that no book on colour theory would have been of much of practical help without getting down and dirty with the pigments. Painting is a very hands-on business.
https://youtu.be/lFysN1BYBeU
I 've posted this before and other color mixing stuff in this Color Mixing thread.
References here of "Perfect pigment" are a bit of a strawman argument, as it implies perfect "color" equals optical frequency of a single wavelength. "Color" as a human experience, is not equivalent to the wavelength of light, but instead a complex combination of excitations of the three different cones as well as the rods, in any patch of light no matter how much of the different wavelengths of light are present.
It may be that the science of light and the science behind our perception of color are useful, and perhaps these are even well presented in the book. IMHO The claims that understanding the science is revalotory or somehow contradict practical knowledge, are overblown.
What is "prefect" brown pigment? Or "perfect" magenta pigment? Neither of these correspond to a single wavelength of light. or Shall we say brown and magenta are not colors? or they are somehow illusory because we cannot find a single wavelength of light which corresponds?
To me that would like saying the sound of a Violin or a Trumpet, a crying baby, leaves rustling, a dog barking, or a wave crashing were not "perfect" sounds, simply because none is a pure sinusoid. Pure sinusoids are exceedingly rare in nature, whereas "sounds" are multitudinous, and we have known and have heard and talked about a multiplicity of them for hundreds of thousands of years. Understanding that pure sinusoidal sound waves exist does not overturn the fact that almost all the different sounds we hear are nothing like them, nor imply that we cannot speak or think of sounds as we do or that all those sounds are not sounds at all. This applies exactly the same to vision, and the colors we have known and seen and talked about for hundreds of thousands of years.
Human vision and perception is what dictates color, color is how we experience naturally occurring multiple different wavelengths of light interacting with our three kinds of cones which are each broadband and overlapping in their sensitivity range. The ratio of the signals from the different types of cones dictates what color we perceive, this overwhelmingly and normally comes from light of multitudes of wavelengths in every patch of color you see.
In nature pure frequencies are extremely rare, yet color abounds.
An object which includes red and green microscopic reflective elements IS yellow, it does not only appear yellow. It could be some part of a rock or some part of a biological object. it could be anything. The fact that from our cones we experience yellow, is what makes that composition of matter reflecting red and green frequencies a yellow object. Our perception of color is and never was about single frequencies, nor is it about any attributable color for the individual microscopic particles which we only ever see as part of a combination. Color is what we see.
An object which gives rise to a yellow experience IS yellow no matter what frequencies are present or why they are present.
Mixing a pigment which IS blue, with a pigment which IS yellow, WILL in a vast majority of contexts (in reality) create a patch of pigment which... IS.... you guessed it... GREEN.
I haven't read the book, the science might be good, but the claims, especially to overturning existing color theory or anything close to a counter intuitive revelation.... seem a bit of a gimmick for the unwary.
IMHO
https://www.wetcanvas.com/forums/topic/blue-and-yellow-don-t-make-green-part-ii/
and here is a review:
http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/book3.html#wilcox
I defend that body of knowledge and our traditional language surrounding it because I believe the marketing surrounding Wilcox’s “school” of color and perhaps his need to stand out from the crowd has led him to overstate the historical importance of his tips and tricks.
Nothing against him personally, we should take into account the further details he is presenting not throw any past knowledge out.
He was a extremely influenced by M. E. Chevreul. The Principles ofHarmony and Contrast of Colors and Their application to the Arts 1849. Buy the book. A bit arcane maybe but it's a nexus point in understanding color.
cwheel06.pdf (handprint.com) . It's useful for estimating how to mix colors once it is understood.
Based on the recommendation of @KingstonFineArt, I am now going through The Principles ofHarmony and Contrast of Colors and Their application to the Arts . It will take some time, since it is a 500 page book! I'm just in the introduction and already have a much better understanding of why colors appear to change when placed adjacent to other colors. I downloaded a scanned copy for free at archive.org. It's available in black and white reproductions on Amazon, but the scanned version has the color plates in color.
he doesn’t really define where green starts or stops, who could?
Thank you for bringing the reaction to my book 'Blue and Yellow Don't Make Green' by members of your forum to my attention and for your very kind words.
My response to the critique that you have presented is as follows. If you feel it appropriate perhaps you would offer it for publication on the forum. Thank you for your support Brett, much appreciated.
My first reaction. Over the years I have had several such attacks. Sometimes it is because the author has something to sell or promote. At other times it’s because they feel this method discredits their own theories and way of teaching. One way to bring attention to ’that something’ or to save face is to criticise the work of others.
Given that many readers of the author’s critique will not have an adequate understanding of the subject to decide for themselves what is accurate, this can be an effective method of promotion. Often, it is because they haven’t actually read the book, or if they have, they haven’t understood it. Ignorance is often the blissful refuge of those who 'know that they are good at what they do’.
Is my work based on earlier findings and descriptions as claimed? The most effective way to find out if any 'prior art' (as its known), has already been placed in the public domain is to submit it to a patent examiner. I have been granted patents based on my work with colour and particularly on the findings of the book in question in the USA, the UK, India, Singapore, Australia and China. In each case the examiner took months looking in detail at anything described in the past from anywhere in the world. The slightest hint of a similar finding was put to me to disprove before a patent would be granted. Patent examiners are a very thorough bunch, to use an understanding explained in a prominent earlier book on colour in a patented description would take some doing.
The patents are still current - challenge them Mr. MacEvoy - challenge them.
Warm and cool. Nowhere have I suggested that defining a colour as being warm or cool has any part in colour mixing. In colour use, as a contrast and possible aid to colour harmony, YES, In colour mixing NO. Our colour perception is constantly on the move and is heavily influenced by adjoining colours (and even the weather and time of year!). That the critique labels colours using this flimsy description tells me all I need to know about the level of understanding held by its author. I am regularly asked by painters from around the world, is this or that colour warm or cool.
I always reply that it depends on what it is compared to. Ultramarine might look cool against Cadmium Red but against Cerulean Blue? It's a poor substitute for understanding and making use of the actual make up of reflected light. But each to their own.
Diagrams. I am taken to task for using diagrams to explain sequences of light absorption when colours are mixed. Because they are used to illustrate part of our present understanding of the science of light I would welcome guidance from any of your forum members on how to better demonstrate what goes on within the various mixes.
Comparison between one of my diagrams showing the basic make up of a type of yellow and a spectrophotometer reading of the same yellow. The author of the critique seems to be saying 'look at his diagram - it shows 'lots' of yellow being reflected, this is not born out by the instrument reading where only a 'sliver' of yellow is shown.
Take a look at the instrument reading on the right, anyone with a basic understanding of colour will surely know that when red and green are reflected from a surface together they are combined by the human eye into a sensation of yellow.
How should colours be described when colour mixing is in mind. As anyone who has actually read my book will know, I describe an approach where colour-TYPE is all important, not colour name. The type of colour describes its make up and allows Immediate easy and accurate decisions to be made. Add to this a knowledge of its transparency/ opacity and its reliability and colour mixing can be quickly brought under control. The critique offers a colour wheel heavily populated by carefully placed and named colours. This alone suggests a high level of ignorance when it comes to offering practical guidance.
So maybe we should change most university studies in fine art from 'experiment with various daubings as long as you can write 1,000 words about each' to 'spend the first two years placing thousands of colours and their exact relationships to each other on a series of wheels and the final year looking for a way to make sense and or use of it all - bearing in mind of course that colour is not a rigid phenomena but is constantly on the move. And don't read anything about colour constancy or about any of the other reasons why such an approach is holding back progress in case you actually learn something. Think like a Luddite.
The colour theorist. At one time the artist had the benefit of being helped by the colour theorists of the day. Although I am generalising, such cooperation between the two parties wound down and virtually stopped following the Post Impressionists. The 'colour scientist' moved away from the artist and most concentrated on impressing each other. Charts and diagrams are still all the rage as are colour wheels with a vast amount of carefully placed colours. (Seen that anywhere?). Even their 'trade' magazine is all in black and white.
How science progresses. Science is based by most on a person or a team putting forward a theory which seems to be the case; a hypothesis. This is commonly taken to be the starting point of further investigation and possible updating. I would challenge anyone to show where my approach has moved away from our current understanding. However I would be the first to accept an updated and more accurate explanation if it is based on science rather than opinion. The science put forth in Blue and Yellow Don’t Make Green has been presented at many Universities world wide, as well as offered for discussion to a prestigious group of scientists from around the world ‘Research Gate’ (Look it up). To date, it has not been challenged. If it is I will be listening.
Light Science vs. Painting: Comment was made that we work with colour pigments, not light science. In fact, everything to do with painting is tied to light science. Without light, there is no colour. Without science there is little understanding.
My choice of book title. This seems to have upset the delicate make up of one or two of your forum members. I would suggest that close to 100% of book titles are chosen to give an overall guide as to the contents of each publication. Anyone who has actually read my book will know that it centres around the fact that pure colours, those reflecting in a single light frequency, do not exist and that even if they did they would only mix to black. Read the book, think about the title and it you feel that it is still ‘gimmicky’ maybe suggest an alternative for an on-line course that we will soon be publishing. I will be eternally grateful to you if I use it.
Continued...Experience and colour memory. Much has been made on the forum of the place that experience and colour memory plays in a painter’s world today. Monet has been given as an example of these factors. Maybe it was to emphasise a point but what seems to have been completely overlooked is Monet’s enthusiastic embrace of the work of the French chemist Michel Eugene Chevreul. M.E. Chevreul’s work was centred firmly on the science of light. It was that understanding of light that allowed Monet to work as described by members of your forum. It was that scientific knowledge that guided and changed his work from being representational to the depiction of sensation.
I feel that it was the influence of the science of the day that sees an exhibition of Impressionist paintings attracting a vast audience. Maybe our modern attitude is behind the reason that to attract the public to many of today’s exhibitions thought has to be given to the wine on offer.
If any of your forum members wish to question me on any of the other details in the critique they can simply drop me a line. I am happy to answer any and all questions.
Regards to all. Michael Wilcox
Abstraction: I also separately asked for further clarification on the diagram critique. Whilst I'm not fully articulate on full science of colour / spectral analysis, I am reasonably strong with logic and arguments and it seemed like an apples and oranges comparison and misrepresentation of the diagram. It appears this was the case. There were other areas where I noticed MacEvoy appear to misrepresent concepts in a derisive way, selective phrases to make the work sound unscientific of simplistic when it was well-explained in the text, and I have to say that kind of critique raises questions for me. This was Michael's response to the diagram - the blue text being MacEvoy's:
The principles of harmony and contrast of colours [electronic resource] : and their applications to the arts : Chevreul, M. E. (Michel Eugène), 1786-1889 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
A very useful part of the book is the Translator's Introduction. He states that much of the most useful information is scattered through the book, so he wrote an introduction that brings that information together in one place.
The translator also states that the book cannot simply be read, it must be studied. There are some interacting concepts and pulling out just one statement will lead to misunderstanding. Studying it reminds me of when I was in college trying to comprehend some advanced mathematical concepts! It will take two or three times through just the Translator's Introduction to understand what Chevreul is saying.
There's a statement that I think is true! "When the student is ready, the teacher will appear." I might be ready for Wilcox now!
Introduction. Page xxxii
COLOURS ARE MODIFIED IN HUE AND INTENSITY.
When one pure colour is added to another pure colour, in increasing proportions, we obtain hues of the colour receiving that addition.
Thus we may add to pure blue increasing quantities of red or of yellow, and so long as the blue predominates, the compound isa hue of blue ; but so soon as the red or the yellow predominates in the mixture, it passes into a hue of red or of yellow.
Thus, proceeding from pure Blue, by adding yellow we obtain various hues of Yellowed blue, until we arrive at blue-Yellow, or Green. Any further addition of yellow carries theBlue into the yellow
hues, and we have bluish-yellows until at lengthwe arrive at pure yellow.
On the other side, by adding to pure Blue increasing quantities of Red, we obtain various hues of reddened blue until we arrive at blue-red, or Violet ; any further addition of red carries the blue into the red hues, and we have bluish-reds, until at length we arrive at pure red.
TONES.
When we add to a pigment, taken at its greatest intensity, in-creasing portions of white, which weakens its intensity, and of black, which deepens it, we produce various Tones of that colour.
It is understood that the pigment must be taken pure, and free from the admixture of grey or black. In the Rainbow, we find the colours of the prismatic spectrum, but of a lighter or weaker tone.
It is usual to call the weak tones of a colour tints, and the deep tones shades, but very often theword hues, is indiscriminately applied
to those modifications of a colour.
Greater precision, therefore, in the language of colours, will be obtained by limiting the term tones to the modifications a colour un-dergoes by the addition to it of white or of black, producing a series of tones, light and dark. The term hues must be limited to the modifications a pure colour experiences when varying portions of another pure colour are added to it. If the colours are rendered impure by the presence of the third primary, they become broken colours or greys.
However, I disagree with the "Tone" discussion. Adding any amount of white, black, or any combination of white and black together will always decrease the intensity of the color, if intensity means saturation or a position on the outside of a color wheel. I personally find it useful to make distinctions between the results of color+white (tint), color+gray (tone), and color+black (shade). These three variations will look different in your painting, and so it is good to know.
Also, the "Colors are Modified" section, while it may be accurate, is written in a way which is not easy to understand. He leaps from blue to blue-yellow (AKA green
I quit reading about color theory some years ago because many art writers got it wrong - presenting a combination of additive and subtractive color, or using light spectrum to present what happens when one mixes oil paint on a palette, or lessons from commercial printing or television production or.... Goethe anyone? Of course the physics of light is the basis of color, but this is not always useful and can be misunderstood. Mixing the purest yellow and purest blue paint I can find will always give me green paint - not black. I have read the Wilcox color book, found it moderately interesting, and have forgotten most of it. This is not a criticism of the research and the writing itself. it just did not give me useful information I could apply to my painting.
If someone finds reading various color theories or even just one explanation useful, then I support him or her in this. However, if one doesn't find it useful, then I would advise to not bother. I think one could spend many hundreds of hours reading competing theories, and still not have a good grasp of what happens when you mix your paint.
I really like and understand Mr. Carder's straightforward approach to mixing and matching paint. I find it very useful to do color charts for harmonies like Richard Schmid recommends. Immediately obvious and practical. I find it very useful to take my painting out of the studio (AKA laundry room) and place it in different parts of the house and watch what happens to its colors with different light sources at different times of the day.
My goal is a good painting whose affects are what I planned, and not just happened by accident.
Thanks for everyone’s contribution to this robust discussion especially Abstraction and Wilcox himself for taking time to explain a tough subject.
Bruce McEvoys site handprint.com and the Chevreul book are both very rigorous, also requiring careful study.
Re: Bruce McEvoy
I learned a LOT from Bruce McEvoy's website, especially the mixing color wheel that I posted earlier. However, it takes a good deal of study to understand what he is saying. Once the time is put in, his information was valuable to me.
Chevreul's book
I am only part way through Chevreul's book, but it has already been incredibly helpful to me in understanding why colors appear to change when placed next to another color. However, it was written in the 1830's so some of the terminology is different than what is in common usage today. For example, he uses "tone" to describe the result of any addition of white and/or black to a color. His use of "tint" and "shade" is similar to today's usage but his use of "tone" includes today's "tint, tone, and shade".
Another interesting example is his classification of colors as "Luminous" or ""Somber" to describe "warm" and "cool" colors. Makes sense because the warm colors are definitely more "luminous" and the cool colors are more "somber". He has further observations which are interesting as well.
It's evident to me that Monet and the other Impressionists made use of Chevreul's theory and of the rapidly increasing number of vibrant pigments that were beginning to become available.
This book requires careful study to understand his theory and his terminology, and because of his writing style.