Thread: new color

^^ I think that art professor might need to take an etymology class, Eesial...To assume that we could not know that the sky was blue until some artist produced a pigment for it is absurd on a lot of levels. If the Egyptians didn't know the sky was blue, how did they come to make a pigment for it? Why bother?

Colors were probably some of the earliest descriptors we developed as we learned to communicate, and I imagine that even the most primitive of cavemen cold note that the sky was blue (or threateningly gray), and could communicate that condition to his friends, just as he could know that a big patch of brown in the distance might be a bear. Color is an integral part of our existence -- including communication -- and to say that a color does not exist until an artist mixes it on his pallet simply makes no sense. I think your art professor is making an attempt to elevate his profession; you might take what he said with a grain of salt!

Also, keep in mind that infrared and ultraviolet exist outside the visible spectrum; if a "new" color cannot be seen by the naked eye, could it really be called a color?

Originally Posted by Sageous

^^ I think that art professor might need to take an etymology class, Eesial...To assume that we could not know that the sky was blue until some artist produced a pigment for it is absurd on a lot of levels. If the Egyptians didn't know the sky was blue, how did they come to make a pigment for it? Why bother?

Colors were probably some of the earliest descriptors we developed as we learned to communicate, and I imagine that even the most primitive of cavemen cold note that the sky was blue (or threateningly gray), and could communicate that condition to his friends, just as he could know that a big patch of brown in the distance might be a bear. Color is an integral part of our existence -- including communication -- and to say that a color does not exist until an artist mixes it on his pallet simply makes no sense. I think your art professor is making an attempt to elevate his profession; you might take what he said with a grain of salt!

Also, keep in mind that infrared and ultraviolet exist outside the visible spectrum; if a "new" color cannot be seen by the naked eye, could it really be called a color?

You are right, using the word 'concept' probably wasn't a good idea. The concept had to exist because as you said it's an integral part to communication.

The reality of the situation is that we have no real idea on how ancient civilizations distinguished and named colors. Any information you find on how greek's perceived light you will see that there are only three main texts being referenced, the main one's being written by homer. The theories are from understandable to completely wacky, some think that the greek's eyes were literally unable to comprehend certain colors, which contradicts our knowledge that they called the sky copper, the sea (greek seas being quite bright blue in places) a dark purple, yet they had a name for the color of lapis lazuli. Another theory states that they based their etymology of a colour system devised by empedocles which revolved around metallic hues, but this again can be questioned as to why they would round to the closest colour they could think of (naming that is).

That's the problem when you try to make an assumption based on a scripture that's over 2 millennia old. You can't decipher something as intricate as how they perceived colors by reading on their society, much less so when it doesn't even explicitly mention what color system they might have used.

As far as I'm concerned the notion that the Egyptians would only identify a color once they had a pigment for it, is just another weak hypothesis among the other dozen of them.