art class etc.
art class etc.
- Subject: art class etc.
- From: Igor Asselbergs <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 09:10:11 +0100
CDTobie wrote:
>
Most of what they taught in art class (and are still teaching my kids in both
>
high school and college) about color theory is really pretty inaccurate,
>
outdated, and indefensible! They always blame the purity of the paints for
>
the things that don't work out in reality the way they claim they will in
>
theory. The fact it that their theory is wrong, their primaries are wrong,
>
and their whole system is just a left over from way back when, promulgated by
>
artists and art instructors who have no connection to actual color theory,
>
and are simply comfortable with the stuff they learned long ago.
Yes, primaries used for mixing colours are often far from the theoretical
primeries. But theoratical primaries are simply not practical. I always
mixed my own colours when working as an airbrush artist en retoucher.
(obviously that was in the stone age of the pre-digital era) I NEVER used
theoretical primeries, though I was very well aware of them.
I'd be very hesitant to adapt our pigment&oil reality to the digital world
of colorsync and ICC. I think it makes more sense to turn the argument
around and adapt Colorsync and ICC to the pigment&oil reality (up to certain
level, that is).
Besides: I do live in the real world and in my current occupation (colour in
architecture) I occassionally hand-mix colours for colour proofs on
buildings. If only to see the expression of the painters, when one of the
'suits' suddenly starts fooling around with pigments and paints.
But I'll never limit my gamut by sticking to some theory that works well on
computers, but won't do anything on buildings.
just my 2cts.
Igor Asselbergs