On painting and perception
- [from the archives]:
>>We are getting caught up in terminology and definitions which Ifyou called blue tagok it would still look blue.<< (Dan)
Hmmmmmy favorite color, tagok.
That reminds me of a story, though, about a talented, artist friend
from Richmond. I know I've posted this before, but hopefully not here.
In one of her university art classes, this woman's professor had
gazed over all his students' shoulders as they worked on painting a
nude. She felt flattered when he asked if he could make an example of
her work to the rest of the class. That feeling quickly gave
way to mortification when he held up the canvas of a human figure
depicted in drab olive and gray tones, and proceeded to
explain, "Students, I want everyone to pay close attentionthis is
what happens when a color-blind artist refuses to ask for help!"
Until that moment, my friend had never realized that her perceptions
differed so greatly from other people's. After getting over the
trauma of that embarrassment, she eventually learned to
calculate "proper" color mixes by name. If she didn't actually
witness the paint come out of its tube, she had no certainty of its
hue or tone.
So, while the color of something may have some objective consistency,
we humans may find dissimilarity in how we each perceive it. In
attempting to share our views with others, we can paint the world as
we see it from a select handful of tubes, or go randomly choosing
from daubs on a palettewe could easily create a masterpiece or an
infinitely colorful mess.
While I would agree that people can quickly get so caught up in
defining the terms that we lose sight of the topic, I also recognize
that our language is far too imperfect to allow us all to share our
thoughts 100% effectively.
In the end, I suppose we do the best we canand whatever colors we
choose, try not to paint with too broad a brush.