The White Blog
Every now and then I get a bug up my ass to write something intellectual. This is one of those times...
I have thinking recently about color. It's not hard to see why. But I think its an interesting notion to look into the properties which we call color and wonder at the strangeness that ensues.
I begin this investigation actually with a reference outside of color to music where I must have some sort of mental block because, as anyone who knows anything about music and has tried to explain it to me knows, I am unable to differentiate between the terms. Basically, beat. I understand beat. But if you say 3-4 or 4-4, or any other combination of numbers, I will not understand what you are getting at. In fact, I am so bad that if I try to tap out a beat, say left, left, right. I can only do it if I'm not thinking about it, and as soon as I become conscious of my hands tapping something out, that something will change.
Tone, scale, and note are absolutely unknown to me. I can tell when music becomes more shrill or more bass, but I have no corresponding language to describe these changes, and worse yet, anyone who I ask about these particulars always manages to give me an explanation which, to them, seems simple, and to me, might as well be in latin. I don't have a clue what they're talking about. I don't know what a quarter note is. I can tell when there is harmony; I cannot tell you in any way how harmony is achieved. I am absolutely void in the simple alphabet by which the complex language of music is constructed.
Now imagine for a moment a transformation of one medium, the auditory, to another, the visual. If there were a person with a problem like mine in the visual, they would be unable to discern the difference between say, shade, brightness, or color. So that confusion might occur between two visual objects as to definition. True they do not appear to be the same, but the person suffering from said condition, would not be able to describe the difference. Perhaps they see green as a shade of blue. Perhaps, what you describe as light red, they call orange, etc..
Well, as a matter of fact, this condition does exist. And notice, I'm not talking about color blindness here. That would be the translation of one color into another, say red into green, and I'm not talking true color blindness either, the inability to see color at all so that the world appears as a series of grey scales. What I'm saying is that the language by which colors are described are sometimes confused, and sometimes altogether different in some people than you or I am used to.
Case in point, during Vietnam, our forces painted our tanks a camouflaged green which had worked during previous conflicts. However, the Vietnamese had been taught since birth that the color we were thinking of as "green" was "blue."
Okay, so they called "green", "blue." Big deal, you say. But it, in fact, was a big deal. The Vietnamese saw a big blue tank moving through their green jungle. We thought we were hiding. We stuck out like a sore thumb. They might as well have painted the tank bright red.
What I'm getting at isn't that the words were different, but the actual meaning of the words, the categories that the words meant to delineate were different. It's an interesting phenomena to say the least that in the minds of the tank drivers, their vehicles were hidden, and that in the minds of the Vietcong, the vehicle was obtrusively giving away its position. That is not a case of 'I call green "blue" and you call green "green"' but something far deeper in the process of the human mind.
Keep in mind that what seems up for grabs in regards to color is different from that which really is up for grabs. What seems up for grabs is that the ability to differentiate one color from another allows you to pick out articles of clothing that will compliment each other. What really is up for grabs is the fact that the most readily available method of analyzing the world is vision, and vision acts by color. Your most solid interface between you and the world around you is an inability to differentiate one color from another. It is no small thing to say that the categories in which you differentiate are arbitrary.
So, I want to put this in reference to a specific color, and that specifically is the color white. If you are an artist at this point you are scoffing at me, because clearly, white is not a color. White is the absence of color, if we are talking about pigment. Of course, if we are talking about light, white is the culmination in equal proportion of red light, yellow light, and blue light, and is thus the mixing of all colors that create white, but white itself is not a color.
Already, I've set up two possible definitions of white. But both are absolutely absurd. White is a color, the absence of color is "clear" or "transparent", but the color of the paint that comes out of a can of primer is white, and it is as simple as that. When I paint white over an area on a miniature, I am covering a color, not un-coloring it.
Let me try this another way. So completely is our acceptance of this color theory, even if we do not know the theory in question, that we exalt white over other colors. That is to say that you may have a green or red stain on your clothing, but never a white stain. Nothing is stained white, but rather bleached white or faded to white. We understand that there are no shades of white--grey being considered a highlight of black--or a fading of the color black.
A blank page is white. A sheet of paper that is red is not considered blank, but is instead just red. When you read these words, you see the letters as an outline of where the colors should be. As a painter of miniatures and most recently, of halaquins, I understand implicitly the rules that goven the color white in our minds.
I will explain...harlequins are colorful. They are the killer clowns from outer space of the Warhammer 40k world, and as such they are vibrant and multi-hued. The trick in painting harlaquins, as I've said before, is not in multiplying checkered rows on the miniature's leg, but in managing to use an excess of color without rendering the miniature ugly by that excess. One of the tricks I've attempted to use in this fashion is to keep the number of colors to four or five, and that has worked fairly well, but still this can be problematic because often areas of the miniature overlap. A mask, with a visor, sits on top of an undersuit and all in turn are crossed by a forelock of hair. Since all four must be of a different color to make the particulars distinct, four colors are required. Some areas of the miniatures actually require five colors which only creates greater complexity in the color scheme. After all, the trick is to make the miniature look good and not gaudy.
But here's another trick. For no reason in particular, white is not considered a color. Do not for a moment use the old trick that colors have shades and therefore white is not a color, because black is generally considered a color and it has no shade. Black highlights to gray, and white shadows to gray or blue (depending on whether you want cold or warm white). So, artificially white is given shades, but then, everything about shadow and highlight is artificial when it comes to painting. All of those areas that are shadowy or highlighted must be painted as such. So...Not a good criteria.
But back to my point. When I say that a harlaquin has to be painted four or five colors, I am not counting white. White can always be added to a miniature without ever seeming to be too much. It, in effect, does not add to the number of colors that the viewer must consider in determining whether or not the miniature is visually balanced. So that a miniature that seems to have four colors actually has five, a miniature that seems to have five colors six.
Another interesting position behind white, in regards to painting, is that white is the only true undercoat. Red is only red when it covers white. When it covers black it is maroon. Yellow cannot cover any color whatsoever except white. If yellow covers green then it creates light green, even if the green has been completely painted over. This brings up a strange point. What we call red is more accurately red-over-white. what we call blue is more accurately blue-over-white. If these colors cover a different color then they are themselves rendered into a different color. Same paint but not the same color. And therefore, everything we understand about color derives from our ability to not think of white as having a shade, having an ability to stain. In short, our definition of color proceeds from the first assumption that white is not a color. Otherwise, we'd think of every color as a stain version of white.
I leave you with that. I'd like to point out some mechanism by which this definition has made it into the heads of all the human beings on the planet, but I have no idea what causes this condition. I'd like to say that it arises out of human reason's dependence on what it sees and therefore on light, and that seeing is just a detection of derivations from the color equilibrium that produces white in light, but let's face it--that equilibrium is entirely based off human reason's decision as to what parts to measure and what scale to use in that measurement in determining equality. We for instance, do not take into account "colors" that correspond to wavelengths of light above and below the visual spectrum. If they are not in equilibrium, the light can still be white.
Likewise, there's always the evolutionary approach. White is the snow that covered the Earth during the ice age, the greatest period of human evolution, and therefore, color differentiates ice from things that aren't snow (and may consequently be either food or predator, both with the same level of importance when trying to survive an ice age). Or we could look into white as it plays its part in mythology--the color of divine virtue and of death. But who the hell really knows?
That's all I got, so I think I'm done.
Oh yeah, one more thing. What color is he?
I have thinking recently about color. It's not hard to see why. But I think its an interesting notion to look into the properties which we call color and wonder at the strangeness that ensues.
I begin this investigation actually with a reference outside of color to music where I must have some sort of mental block because, as anyone who knows anything about music and has tried to explain it to me knows, I am unable to differentiate between the terms. Basically, beat. I understand beat. But if you say 3-4 or 4-4, or any other combination of numbers, I will not understand what you are getting at. In fact, I am so bad that if I try to tap out a beat, say left, left, right. I can only do it if I'm not thinking about it, and as soon as I become conscious of my hands tapping something out, that something will change.
Tone, scale, and note are absolutely unknown to me. I can tell when music becomes more shrill or more bass, but I have no corresponding language to describe these changes, and worse yet, anyone who I ask about these particulars always manages to give me an explanation which, to them, seems simple, and to me, might as well be in latin. I don't have a clue what they're talking about. I don't know what a quarter note is. I can tell when there is harmony; I cannot tell you in any way how harmony is achieved. I am absolutely void in the simple alphabet by which the complex language of music is constructed.
Now imagine for a moment a transformation of one medium, the auditory, to another, the visual. If there were a person with a problem like mine in the visual, they would be unable to discern the difference between say, shade, brightness, or color. So that confusion might occur between two visual objects as to definition. True they do not appear to be the same, but the person suffering from said condition, would not be able to describe the difference. Perhaps they see green as a shade of blue. Perhaps, what you describe as light red, they call orange, etc..
Well, as a matter of fact, this condition does exist. And notice, I'm not talking about color blindness here. That would be the translation of one color into another, say red into green, and I'm not talking true color blindness either, the inability to see color at all so that the world appears as a series of grey scales. What I'm saying is that the language by which colors are described are sometimes confused, and sometimes altogether different in some people than you or I am used to.
Case in point, during Vietnam, our forces painted our tanks a camouflaged green which had worked during previous conflicts. However, the Vietnamese had been taught since birth that the color we were thinking of as "green" was "blue."
Okay, so they called "green", "blue." Big deal, you say. But it, in fact, was a big deal. The Vietnamese saw a big blue tank moving through their green jungle. We thought we were hiding. We stuck out like a sore thumb. They might as well have painted the tank bright red.
What I'm getting at isn't that the words were different, but the actual meaning of the words, the categories that the words meant to delineate were different. It's an interesting phenomena to say the least that in the minds of the tank drivers, their vehicles were hidden, and that in the minds of the Vietcong, the vehicle was obtrusively giving away its position. That is not a case of 'I call green "blue" and you call green "green"' but something far deeper in the process of the human mind.
Keep in mind that what seems up for grabs in regards to color is different from that which really is up for grabs. What seems up for grabs is that the ability to differentiate one color from another allows you to pick out articles of clothing that will compliment each other. What really is up for grabs is the fact that the most readily available method of analyzing the world is vision, and vision acts by color. Your most solid interface between you and the world around you is an inability to differentiate one color from another. It is no small thing to say that the categories in which you differentiate are arbitrary.
So, I want to put this in reference to a specific color, and that specifically is the color white. If you are an artist at this point you are scoffing at me, because clearly, white is not a color. White is the absence of color, if we are talking about pigment. Of course, if we are talking about light, white is the culmination in equal proportion of red light, yellow light, and blue light, and is thus the mixing of all colors that create white, but white itself is not a color.
Already, I've set up two possible definitions of white. But both are absolutely absurd. White is a color, the absence of color is "clear" or "transparent", but the color of the paint that comes out of a can of primer is white, and it is as simple as that. When I paint white over an area on a miniature, I am covering a color, not un-coloring it.
Let me try this another way. So completely is our acceptance of this color theory, even if we do not know the theory in question, that we exalt white over other colors. That is to say that you may have a green or red stain on your clothing, but never a white stain. Nothing is stained white, but rather bleached white or faded to white. We understand that there are no shades of white--grey being considered a highlight of black--or a fading of the color black.
A blank page is white. A sheet of paper that is red is not considered blank, but is instead just red. When you read these words, you see the letters as an outline of where the colors should be. As a painter of miniatures and most recently, of halaquins, I understand implicitly the rules that goven the color white in our minds.
I will explain...harlequins are colorful. They are the killer clowns from outer space of the Warhammer 40k world, and as such they are vibrant and multi-hued. The trick in painting harlaquins, as I've said before, is not in multiplying checkered rows on the miniature's leg, but in managing to use an excess of color without rendering the miniature ugly by that excess. One of the tricks I've attempted to use in this fashion is to keep the number of colors to four or five, and that has worked fairly well, but still this can be problematic because often areas of the miniature overlap. A mask, with a visor, sits on top of an undersuit and all in turn are crossed by a forelock of hair. Since all four must be of a different color to make the particulars distinct, four colors are required. Some areas of the miniatures actually require five colors which only creates greater complexity in the color scheme. After all, the trick is to make the miniature look good and not gaudy.
But here's another trick. For no reason in particular, white is not considered a color. Do not for a moment use the old trick that colors have shades and therefore white is not a color, because black is generally considered a color and it has no shade. Black highlights to gray, and white shadows to gray or blue (depending on whether you want cold or warm white). So, artificially white is given shades, but then, everything about shadow and highlight is artificial when it comes to painting. All of those areas that are shadowy or highlighted must be painted as such. So...Not a good criteria.
But back to my point. When I say that a harlaquin has to be painted four or five colors, I am not counting white. White can always be added to a miniature without ever seeming to be too much. It, in effect, does not add to the number of colors that the viewer must consider in determining whether or not the miniature is visually balanced. So that a miniature that seems to have four colors actually has five, a miniature that seems to have five colors six.
Another interesting position behind white, in regards to painting, is that white is the only true undercoat. Red is only red when it covers white. When it covers black it is maroon. Yellow cannot cover any color whatsoever except white. If yellow covers green then it creates light green, even if the green has been completely painted over. This brings up a strange point. What we call red is more accurately red-over-white. what we call blue is more accurately blue-over-white. If these colors cover a different color then they are themselves rendered into a different color. Same paint but not the same color. And therefore, everything we understand about color derives from our ability to not think of white as having a shade, having an ability to stain. In short, our definition of color proceeds from the first assumption that white is not a color. Otherwise, we'd think of every color as a stain version of white.
I leave you with that. I'd like to point out some mechanism by which this definition has made it into the heads of all the human beings on the planet, but I have no idea what causes this condition. I'd like to say that it arises out of human reason's dependence on what it sees and therefore on light, and that seeing is just a detection of derivations from the color equilibrium that produces white in light, but let's face it--that equilibrium is entirely based off human reason's decision as to what parts to measure and what scale to use in that measurement in determining equality. We for instance, do not take into account "colors" that correspond to wavelengths of light above and below the visual spectrum. If they are not in equilibrium, the light can still be white.
Likewise, there's always the evolutionary approach. White is the snow that covered the Earth during the ice age, the greatest period of human evolution, and therefore, color differentiates ice from things that aren't snow (and may consequently be either food or predator, both with the same level of importance when trying to survive an ice age). Or we could look into white as it plays its part in mythology--the color of divine virtue and of death. But who the hell really knows?
That's all I got, so I think I'm done.
Oh yeah, one more thing. What color is he?
posted by Monstro D. Whale at
12:35 PM
1 Comments:
I don't know, but he smells purple.
Synethesia will futher muddle the complexities of color, as will a veil of little black dots floating in front of your eyes due to prolifitive diabetic retinopathy. The blending of senses {the actual condition of synesthesia} is a really fascinating concept. As is reality. What a concept.
Why can something taste "green?" I keep reacting to a T.V. commercial where they ask how Ranch Dressing should taste. And the first answer they give is "creamy." Creamy is akin to cream. The cream which rises to the top and is skimmed off for cream, butter, and cheese. So to say something is creamy is a textural description. It is thick and like cream. But the taste of cream is essentially milk with a high butter content. Are they asking if the Ranch Salad dressing tastes like butter? No. Cream is also a color -- the color of cream. Which is more yellowish because of the high butter content. So how can something taste creamy? It feels {textual} like the dressing is thick apon the tongue. As salaiva breaks the colloidial suspension of molecules down, there remain particles - much like the suspended particles of butter in cream - that resist the breakdown due to their fatty casings. MMmmmmmmnnnnn. Creamy.
So we come to a consideration of how much is the sense of taste connected with our sense of feeling on the tongue, palate, and gums? Taste is my favorite synesthetic sense next to vision. Because we pre-evaluate our sense of touch with our sense of vision.
It looks creamy. It looks burnt. It looks TO ME like ... I've given up on accurately pinpointing color or taste for anyone but myself.
So Monstro's "white and black" figure looks white and black. Or is it black and white? Or is it silver? Or grey? Monochrome? Chiarascuro?
Individual perception comes up against the difugulties of language. Which are further gummed up by the differances of written vs. spoken vs.language. And then we get mucked up by those French Theoreticians who argue about the differance of diffirance. How can we know that our "black" or "white" or "blue" is the same "Noir" or "Blanc" or "Waffloobie" of anyone else? We don't. Remember blue tanks running through a green jungle. Remember how many words the Thai have for green, and how many words the Eskimo have for snow. Comes down to gradations. Shades of color as well as meaning.
Have I helped? Of course not. The figure is whatever label you choose to saddle it with.
Post a Comment
<< Home