Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

I'm a printmaker (among other things), mostly making monotypes in recent years. The technique allows subtle color transitions which I deeply enjoy, and I notice particular pleasure of the visual effects of colors that range from green, yellow-green through orange and red.

I've discovered that many art colleagues "don't get it", i.e., who seem not to discern the same subtleties that I appreciate. I'm beginning to think this may be due to differences in color discrimination. IOW whatever the basis for the difference I'm sure it would be measurable within limits of color vision test resolution.

I don't know about the illustration in the article. Reproduction (especially reduced resolution) may very well coarsen the color so that the distinctions are run together, so no difference to see. You might want to try the on-line Farnswell-Munsell 100 test alluded to above which might be more informative.




As far as I can see, you are helping my point (perhaps that is what you intended): suppose that you saw those subtle transitions in, say, the wood of a kitchen table, and decided to make a printing that portrayed them. Suppose, as well, that your art colleagues have less color discrimination than you, and didn't see those transitions in wood color. They would also fails to see them in your printed portrait of them.

So, you would have two entities, wood and print, which would match each other in color both for you and your colleagues. It's just that the colors thus matched would be beautiful and subtle for you, boring for them.


Paintings don't exactly match reality. They can emphasize the details you're deliberately copying. It's very easy for a painting of a subtle effect to be less subtle. The colleagues could even use the painting to help them understand the original.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: