Blog assgignment 5.

 

How has the experience and experimentation of artists influenced our understanding of colour and the development of a theory of ‘colour vision’?

The experience and experimentation in which artists have developed our understanding of “colour vision” has been made firstly of Isaac Newton’s understanding of colour which was looking at colour in a very scientific way which led to Newton’s colour wheel. This was the first big change in how artists saw colour up until Johann Wolfgang von Goethe criticized Newton’s theory on colour as he thought that he trusted math instead of the sensation of the eye.   Michel Eugene Cherreul, had a theory of simultaneous contrast, where colour is related more to the way we perceive it; He explained it as “two adjacent colours when seen by the eye will appear as dissimilar as possible.”  These were two different views on how colour comes together where Newton’s view was a more straight forward mathematical view and Cherreul’s view was a more abstract view on what we perceive. Another person who experimented with colour and changed the way we perceive it was Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, he experimented with light and dark areas in a prism to look at the colour changes which occurred when the edge of the colours changed. He came to the conclusion from this research that colour was only able to be seen once it was disturbed by colour.

I think that Newton had the best view because he was the first person to make the colour wheel and have more straightforward mathematical view on the way in which colour is formed. Because of  artists and scientists investigating the way people perceived colour the way artist considered colour was changed. Without these investigations I belive that art would not be quite the same as it is today.

Reference

Gage, J. (1993). Colours of the Mind in Colour and Culture: Practice and Meaning from Antiquity to Abstraction (pp.191-212). New York: Thames and Hudson. 

Blog 4: Ornament or nature.

Adolf Loos argued in 1908 that, “The evolution of culture is synonymous with the removal of ornament from objects of daily use.” He is referring to his argument that as society evolves so does our urge to use ornament with our designs and we cannot continue to use ornament as it, “can no longer be borne by someone who exists at our level of culture.” That at his era of time the not only is ornaments made by criminals but it is a crime in its self because of what it does to the economy. Also that ornament is causing problems with labor because workers get paid low wages due to having to work longer to get something with ornament made than something without.

 I agree with some parts of his argument as I think that It is a waste of materials and time of workers to make them work longer just for something to have added aesthetics to it while nothing to do with the product is improved and even in some cases hindered. I believe that to a certain extent the main focus should be only on the materials and how well it works because then it just turns into something that’s purpose is reduced to merely the use of looking at it.

One point that Loos argued that I do not agree with however is that “as ornament is no longer organically related to our culture, it is also no longer the expression of our culture.” He is stating that it is a thing of the past ornaments to be used in the modern culture while things should be stripped back to the basic raw form of the object. However I think that as culture evolves there should be no set rule on whether or not there should be ornaments on designs as with the development with “culture” it should be up to the designers of the time to decide how they make their creations aesthetic. For example with this gaming controller decoration, it is an ornament being used that signifies the culture of our modern time.

 

http://technabob.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/video_game_controller_ornaments_2.jpg