PDA

View Full Version : Color Theory Lessons 1, 2, 3, and 4?


Javier
06-28-2001, 09:47 PM
Does any one know where those missing Color Theory Lesson are? The first four -- I can't find them and I really would like to start at the beginning.

Thanks,

j

llis
07-03-2001, 11:29 AM
Javier.... sorry for the delay in getting this note to you. I've been out of town.

You are right, the Color Theory lessons are not all listed on the page. Soon they will be. We are working very hard to get all the lessons listed with the new look and feel of WetCanvas! There is so much to do and so many more lessons to add in to the data base it just takes tons of time.

Here are a few links that will get you there until they do get listed. Let me know if you have any other problems. Glad you are enjoying the lessons and WetCanvas!

Phy...llis


http://www.wetcanvas.com/ArtSchool/Color/ColorTheory/Lesson4/index.html
http://www.wetcanvas.com/ArtSchool/Color/ColorTheory/Lesson3/index.html
http://www.wetcanvas.com/ArtSchool/Color/ColorTheory/Lesson2/index.html
http://www.wetcanvas.com/ArtSchool/Color/ColorTheory/Lesson1/index.html
:) :clap: :) :) :)

Javier
07-03-2001, 07:35 PM
Thanks llis, now I can (already have) start at the beginning and follow through.

Thanks Again,

j

Reye
07-25-2001, 02:10 PM
Phyllis/Scott
I am unable to find who put together the articles on Color etc....but I want to pass along my sincere thanks to wetcanvas and the author of those articles. They are THE BEST...probably because they are not the normal "how to" articles we read everywhere. I do a lot of teaching (not art) and most students want to learn "how to do" this or that...but I believe that by being "educated" with basic knowledge and employing that we get to the "how to" stuff much quicker and with some background knowledge.
I congratulate those of you responsible for this and for teaching the basic knowledge aspect along with the "how to" material. It is really outstanding (probably because I agree with it :D )
Thanks
Jerry

TPS
07-25-2001, 11:25 PM
While much of what is in the 4 color lessons is good material. I do take exception to a few points and add my interpretations.

In reference to complements; the easiest way to remember them is that you are completing the use of the three primaries; i.e. all three must be accounted for in your pair of complements. Thus if you have red, what remains is blue and yellow, which when mixed together in equal proportion produces green; hence red and green are complements. This can be done with all combinations to find the complement, even without a color wheel.

It is stated that red, orange, and yellow makes an analogous set. However this is not accurate, as all colors in the set must contain one hue in common. In this example red does not contain yellow, and yellow does not contain red. The best way to insure they are analogous is to ask if all contain a single hue in their makeup.

I also do not agree that the colors red-orange, yellow-green, etc. are tertiaries. Although I know that many books state it as such. To me they are merely secondaries that have more of one hue than the other. The term intermediate hue is more appropriate, as they are in-between one and the other.

Tertiaries are the group of colors not accounted for in the typical 12 hue color wheel; i.e. all the wonderful brown hues. They are obtained by mixing two secondary hues together in equal amounts. A mixture of orange and green will produce a yellow-brown, because yellow predominates in the mix. Likewise a violet and orange will produce a red-brown, and a violet and green will make a blue-brown.

Hence, two primaries mixed in equal amounts will produce a secondary. In unequal amounts an intermediate. Two secondaries mixed in equal amounts will make tertiaries.

Areas of color not mentioned in the article, but important to its proper use, are the characteristics of saturation, value, temperature, contrasts, etc. And with pigments things such as tinting strength, transparency, undertone and overtone, etc. These additional considerations is what makes color mixing so frustrating and challenging to most beginners.

As to the left brain right brain theories, I'm not convinced. Physiologically each eye contains both rods and cones, one handling color and the other value. So, both eyes take in the color information. It may well be processed in different areas of the brain, but research has shown that the interconnectivity of the cells, connectors and chemicals are far more complex than the R-L idea. Research on partial brain and damaged brain also conflicts with the R-L theories.

Not trying to be critical of an otherwise good article. But I thought it helpful to point out these few items.

llis
07-26-2001, 04:30 PM
Jerry,

So glad that you enjoyed the article. From time to time the staff puts together articles and this is one of them.

Thanks TPS for your input as well. Color is indeed a wonderful subject to study. There are so many ways to look and understand. Glad you put your ideas here as well. They did add a lot to the article and at some point we might look into placing them inside the article, with your permission of course.

If others have thoughts or ideas they would like to add, please do so. We are all here to help each other.

Patrick1
07-27-2001, 08:38 PM
TPS, when I learned about analgous colors in grade 9 art class, the teacher said that they are colors adjacent to each other on the color wheel, as the lessons say. She never said that they must all contain a common hue. There could be a definition as you described, but I'm familiar with the definition used in the lesson.

Many medium reds can be thought of as having yellow in them. Take a reddish magenta like PV 19 (sometimes called quinacridone red, quin. rose, or quin. magenta) and add a middle yellow to it. You will be able to mix reds (from deep red to orangish red).

I know that not everybody considers magenta or a reddish-magenta to be a primary hue for pigment mixing, which is fine, but if you are one of the many that do, then there is nothing incorrect in saying that red can be thought of as containing yellow.

Lastly, from what I've read, a tertiary is a pure hue between a primary and a secondary, like yellow-green. I've never heard of the definition of a tertiary as you described, although I'm sure some others use that definition. But it would be nice to have standardized definitions for such words so we're all on the same page, if there isn't already. Kind of the UN of color theory.

TPS
07-28-2001, 03:31 AM
Yes, I know that the way you were taught analogous is common. However, primaries cannot by definition be analogous. They are primary because they do not contain the other hues and they themselves cannot be made from other hues. Analogous hues are so because they are like each other in hue characteristics. And they are adjacent to each other on the wheel; but, you cannot go so far as to include two primaries, else you destroy the analogy. So, I stand by my definition.

Yes, I know that you were probably taught that intermediates were tertiary. If you ignore tertiaries (the browns made from mixtures of secondaries) as I defined them, then you leave out an entire and important group of colors. A color wheel to be a complete mixing system needs more than the 12 hues on the perimeter. It also needs to account for mixtures from those hues. If you look some more, you will find the older texts always referred to the blue-green, yellow-green and such mixtures as intermediates; which I maintain is a better description of them. Again, I stand by my definition.

The whole point of the color wheel is to show how the hues are mixed and thus how they relate to each other. I believe my explanations make for a clearer and more complete understanding. Therefore, I stand firm.

PS: Using C-M-Y as primaries does not change my explanations at all, or the results achieved in mixtures.

Einion
07-28-2001, 03:47 AM
Originally posted by TPS
In reference to complements; the easiest way to remember them is that you are completing the use of the three primaries; i.e. all three must be accounted for... if you have red, what remains is blue and yellow, which when mixed together in equal proportion produces green; hence red and green are complements.
I would agree this is an easy way to remember about complements, but I don't think it is a good way. This shorthand perpetuates the fundamental flaw in the three-colour primary system, i.e. blue and yellow mixing to make green. This essentially ignores what actually happens within the paint film, where it is the green element in both colours that makes the green in the mix - the blue and yellow light do not combine to make the green.

This is explained much more clearly and completely in Michael Wilcox's Blue And Yellow Don't Make Green than I can here, I can't recommend having a look at this enough.

Originally posted by TPS
It is stated that red, orange, and yellow makes an analogous set. However this is not accurate, as all colors in the set must contain one hue in common. In this example red does not contain yellow, and yellow does not contain red. The best way to insure they are analogous is to ask if all contain a single hue in their makeup.
No offense, but what you've said here is fundamentally incorrect. Red, orange and yellow can form an analagous set; it depends on which specific hues you use. Reds almost always 'contain' yellow, i.e. reflect yellow light (even something like Alizarin Crimson, which is why it has a warm undercolour); similarly most yellows also reflect some orange and red light.

Obviously a crimson, an red-orange and a green-yellow do not form an analagous set, this is because the two 'bracketing' hues lean away from the the middle one, if they lean towards it, that is an analagous set. In simpler terms, the colours have to be close enough together in hue. A specific example: one of the best analagous sets in paint is Cadmium Yellow Medium, Cadmium Orange and Cadmium Red Light. In exactly the same way other three-colour groupings can be analogous sets, you just have to use the right three pigments in each case.

I also do not agree that the colors red-orange, yellow-green, etc. are tertiaries... To me they are merely secondaries that have more of one hue than the other. The term intermediate hue is more appropriate...
I agree completely with you that red-orange, yellow-green etc. are secondaries, but I wouldn't use the term intermediate as it just adds un-necessary complexity to the issue. The term tertiary is more-accurately used to describe colours mixed from three primaries.

Tertiaries are the group of colors not accounted for in the typical 12 hue color wheel; i.e. all the wonderful brown hues. They are obtained by mixing two secondary hues together in equal amounts.
Not quite. A secondary plus a primary also mix browns: yellow plus violet, orange plus blue, red plus green (if you are talking about mixed secondaries, a mix of two of them is in fact a mix of the three primaries anyway :)). Given the right choices in each example (some of them you would class as intermediates) these combos all mix to form interesting 'neutrals', or browns. One of my personal favourites is Cadmium Red Light plus Chromium Oxide Green which yields a very interesting opaque, subdued orange-red earth.

Hence, two primaries mixed in equal amounts will produce a secondary. In unequal amounts an intermediate.
Two primaries mixed in equal amounts by volume or by hue? I think it is much easier to just accept that two primaries mix to produce a wide range of secondaries.

Sorry if this seems a little over-critical David, but I had to comment on what I felt to be inaccuracies or mistakes.

Einion

TPS
07-28-2001, 04:13 PM
The 12 hue color wheel in question is based on theoretically perfect or balanced hues; best created with the C-M-Y set. A "true" red that leans neither toward yellow nor toward blue, a"true" green that is perfectly postioned in the visual center between yellow and blue. It is meant as a general guide to how colors relate to one another. Therefore, it is illogical to substitute actual artists' pigments like cad red light, or chromium oxide green (neither of which are "true" in the sense used by the theory) for the ideal hues it represents.

A diagram which does use artists' pigments, and thus reflects more accurately the mixing situations an artist will encounter, is the Dudeen color triangle. It clearly shows the type of variations you are explaining. I highly recommend it to those wanting to more fully understand color mixing with artists' paints.

I believe my complements method includes the color bias of pigments you point out. Therefore, if the hues are identified with their various biases, then it works just fine. However, I think it is confusing to the beginner for you and Mr. Wilcox to jump back and forth between additive color theory and subtractive color theory when discussing the issue. In practical terms, a yellow and blue paint mixture does in fact produce a green. How it does so scientifically is not so important.

I stand by my definition of analogous sets; i.e. the hues are alike because they share a hue in common. The harmony that you see in a red, orange, yellow set is because they are all warm hues; not because they are analogous.

Surprise! I too consider the intermediates as secondary variations. But if we are to give them a label to distinguish them, then I think intermediate is more accurate than tertiary.

Complements mixed together do not produce browns; they produce grays, or less intense versions of the hue pairs. As you've noted not all red and green pigments are true complements, so one must be familiar with the pigments chosen so that you are really using complements. Otherwise, you will create a brownish color from the mixture.

And yes, mixing secondaries is in reality mixing three primaries with one of them dominating the mixture. I believe I explained that. Here again, if one understands the characteristics of the specific hues used, then the result will be predictable. So, I stand by my definition of tertiaries.

Mixed in equal amounts in the theoretical sense, i.e. perfectly balanced in hue and strength. Of course real pigments are not, so mixed proportionately according to their respective tinting strength and color bias. But, you knew that...didn't you?

I do not believe my explanations are inaccurate or mistakes. They are meant to clarify the discrepancies between color theory and painting practice. I believe that is also what you are saying. We are in more agreement than may be apparent. At any rate, I think this discussion has been instructive for the beginner. I hope others agree. :rolleyes:

Patrick1
07-29-2001, 02:53 AM
TPS, after thinking about your definition of 'analgous' I do like your definition somewhat more than the one I was taught. As to tertiary: If years ago, they used the word 'intermediate' instead, then I agree that it should stay that way. I just wish there were a formal concensus reached so that each word doesn't have two meanings floating around.

You said (and I believe you're still saying) that red should not be thought of as containing yellow.

If by 'red' you mean a theoretically perfect primary red/rose/magenta that leans neither towards yellow nor toward blue, then you are in theory correct.

If by 'red', you mean a 'middle red' such as cad. red medium, then there are two reasons why it can be thought of as containing some yellow:

1) As we all understand, no pigment is a perfect primary...they all contain a certain amount of adjacent hues. We all understand and agree on this, and you mentioned this, so I'll move on.

2) If you believe the notion that magenta (like PR122) or a magenta-red (like PV19...a.k.a. quinacridone rose) approximates the best 'primary' red/rose/magenta, then you should have no trouble with the notion that red is a mixture of that plus yellow. Note: based on my color mixing experiments, I don't consider PR122 to be a good choice as a primary because it makes unsatisfactory reds and oranges (leans too much toward the blue-end). Quinacridone rose (PV19) seems a much better choice overall. But this is not 'red'.

Einion
07-29-2001, 03:42 AM
Originally posted by TPS
The 12 hue color wheel in question is based on theoretically perfect or balanced hues... It is meant as a general guide to how colors relate to one another. Therefore, it is illogical to substitute actual artists' pigments like cad red light, or chromium oxide green (neither of which are "true" in the sense used by the theory) for the ideal hues it represents.
Of course the 12-hue colour wheel is based on a theoretical model but what people need to understand is that it is a flawed theory that fundamentally does not work. This "general guide" doesn't in fact explain how colours relate to each other in practical terms, which is why a three-primary system doesn't work in practice, so it is therefore perfectly logical to substitute actual pigments for specific examples.

Obviously one needs to make a distinction between a theory and practicality, that is why I made reference to Wilcox's book which, as I said, explains it much more clearly than I can here in the time and space allowed.

I believe my complements method includes the color bias of pigments you point out. Therefore, if the hues are identified with their various biases, then it works just fine.
Really? You didn't mention bias in your post or make reference to this characteristic at all.

However, I think it is confusing to the beginner for you and Mr. Wilcox to jump back and forth between additive color theory and subtractive color theory when discussing the issue.
First off, being able to understand the flaws in the theory is paramount, and I and Mr. Wilcox do not jump back and forth between additive and subtractive theory. I didn't mention additive colour at all.

In practical terms, a yellow and blue paint mixture does in fact produce a green. How it does so scientifically is not so important.
You think so? Why do you think Wilcox chose the title of his book? :)

It is critical to understanding why Ultramarine and Cadmium Yellow Medium produce a dull green while Phthalocyanine Blue and Azo Yellow Light produce a bright green so I would hardly call it unimportant. If you did manage to find a "true" red etc. as you mention, the mixes between it and the other primaries would be dark greys, nearly black, which is counter-intuitive but clearly understood if you know what happens in the paint film. This is why at least two of each 'primary' are important to mixing a wide range of intermediate hues.

I stand by my definition of analogous sets; i.e. the hues are alike because they share a hue in common. The harmony that you see in a red, orange, yellow set is because they are all warm hues; not because they are analogous.
Your definition is not the generally-accepted meaning of the term but it is your prerogative to use it. I wanted to make the distinction for anyone else unfamiliar with the term who will come across very different definitions elsewhere. Analogous means "partially similar or parallel (to)": in general usage, the term is used to define colours that are relatively closely related in hue, the amount of difference in hue-angle is open to debate.

"the hues are alike because they share a hue in common."??? A hue is unique by definition so how can it share a hue? I think this is muddying the issue between reflection spectra and perceived colour, or hue.

And in your post to Patrick you said:
Yes, I know that the way you were taught analogous is common. However, primaries cannot by definition be analogous.
Again you are blurring the line between the theory and the practical action of mixing paint which is all we should concern ourselves with.

Let me give you a prime example of why this is wrong, in practice. Choose a red, say Pyrolle Red and mix in about 30% yellow (say Cadmium Yellow Medium) and 20% violet (say Ultramarine Violet). You end up with three very similar colours, a slightly orange-red, a red and a slightly violet-red. These colours are "adjacent to each other on the wheel" (your words) so how can you argue that they are not analogous?

Complements mixed together do not produce browns; they produce grays, or less intense versions of the hue pairs... Otherwise, you will create a brownish color from the mixture.
Ah, after reading this a number of times I see what you're getting at. You mean perfect complements mixed together don't work to produce browns, which is true. Again, distinctions between theory and practice are so important: if you choose a specific pigment red or yellow there are no perfect complements, so in practice they can be mixed to produce browns.

And yes, mixing secondaries is in reality mixing three primaries with one of them dominating the mixture. I believe I explained that. Here again, if one understands the characteristics of the specific hues used, then the result will be predictable. So, I stand by my definition of tertiaries.
Again sorry, while you did explain about one colour dominating in the mix the basic point that may not have been obvious to others reading it. This understanding of the "characteristics of specific hues" is all about colour-bias which you didn't mention at all. Since tertiaries are in practical terms mixes of all three primaries then saying "They are obtained by mixing two secondary hues together in equal amounts" is misleading.

Mixed in equal amounts in the theoretical sense, i.e. perfectly balanced in hue and strength.... But, you knew that...didn't you?
But you didn't explain it, you just said "in equal amounts" which is no help to someone with little or no colour mixing experience (the beginner you mention) who might be monitoring. I think just accepting the truth that primaries mix to make a range of secondaries is just so much simpler. And no, I didn't know that, I suspected that's what you meant but you didn't explain yourself clearly.

I do not believe my explanations are inaccurate or mistakes. They are meant to clarify the discrepancies between color theory and painting practice.
Again, I don't want to appear to be over-critical here but you made no reference to painting practice, all you talked about was the theory, not actual mixing; there was no mention of specific mixing examples nor actual pigments.

Einion

TPS
07-30-2001, 12:56 AM
Patrick...I agree.

Einion: You are nitpicking. I remain firm in my point of view and explanations. I don't feel it necessary to explain every detail; I respect the readers intelligence. Much of the confusion is due to trying to assign practical results to a diagram of theoretical color; which is why I recommended the Dudeen triangle. For the beginner, the 12 hue color wheel(based on imaginary perfect hues), is a good tool. It is an outline of color theory, and is not flawed. Most teachers use it accordingly. I don't know anyone that believes it represents how actual artists' pigments function. I'm baffled at why you insist on confusing the two.

As to the double primary palette, I (and I'm sure many others as well) have used it for years before Mr. Wilcox published his book. I didn't see anything in his book that I didn't already know. And, I do feel his title is misleading; and you and he are jumping from when theory to another.

Others: Yes, the only way a painter will learn the peculiarities of particular pigments is to work with them. I highly recommend that they work with the actual paints for a practical exercise; while keeping in mind the intellectual understanding that comes from the color theory.

Patrick1
07-30-2001, 05:06 PM
Einion, you said: "if you choose a specific pigment red or yellow there are no perfect complements..."

I thought that in practice, a perfect compliment (either sinlge pigment or mixed) can be found for any hue. Please explain.

Also, I believe that you're saying (as I believe Blue And Yellow Don't Make Green is saying(but I haven't read this book yet)) is that
if we had a perfect subtractive primary color (monochromatic, 100% chroma), let's say a primary blue/cyan, it would be virtually useless for color mixing...a perfect blue/cyan would not make green because it is not 'carrying' any green, only it's
own color. I guess this is what Michael Wilcox means on his website when he says that a perfect blue would be practically useless. At least this is what I think he means.

If this is the case, this is truly fascinating, and I don't know why nobody else seems to be saying this...if I understand it correctly, then this is something of a revolution in color theory.

I'm going to order Blue And Yellow Don't Make Green. The office told me that there are only a few copies left.

TPS, I'll see if I can find info about the Dudeen color triangle or possibly order one if they are selling any of these. I never heard about it until you mentioned it, but it sounds similar to something I want to try: I want to make a 3-primary color wheel/triangle with three different colors for each of the three primary positions (for yellows, one lemony, one medium and one deep, for blues/cyan, one phthalo blue GS, one phthalo blue RS and one ultramarine blue, and for reds, one magenta, one rose and one middle red).

The point is that I want to see just what you get when you mix one primary with another. For example, if I want to see if mixing phthalo blue RS with a medium yellow will make a clean green, just find the mixing steps between those two colors, and have a look. If I'm wondering if using
phthalo blue GS instead will give noticably cleaner greens, I'll just look at the mixing steps between those two colors. I originally wanted to do several different color wheels, each using diffeent primaries, to see the results, but I think this is better. Anyways, when it's done, I'll post a picture of it here.

Einion
07-30-2001, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by Domer
I thought that in practice, a perfect compliment (either sinlge pigment or mixed) can be found for any hue. Please explain.
Hi Patrick, this is a bit of a pedantic point so bear with me. Okay, a perfect compliment by definition has to have two properties and, ideally, a third. It should have a directly opposite hue-angle, and be of the same value. Ideally it should also have the same chroma, but this is not as vital.

Remember I was talking about real-world conditions in relation to paints, so, if you take a given single-pigment paint like Cadmium Yellow Medium this reflects a bit of a number of other colours in addition to a lot of yellow light (hence why it is know as a 'dirty' colour by some, like all the cadmiums). If I understand the way it is defined correctly, the hue angle is an average of this reflectance spectra. So, even if you could find or mix a colour of the same value and of directly opposite angle this colour would also have other 'dirtying' influences (especially in mixes), which add up to imprecise effects when they are combined.

Remember, in the theory what you are trying to achieve with a mix of complements is a neutral grey, but what you get is a slightly warm or cool tone (which we still loosely refer to as neutrals) usually with a fairly distinct colouration or bias. This is one reason for the split-complements idea (worth looking at). The only exceptions to this are with very dark-valued colours where the value of the mix is so dark as to appear black and as a result you just can't see the bias (PR N/A and PG7BS may be the best pair).

Also, I believe that you're saying (as I believe Blue And Yellow Don't Make Green is saying...) is that if we had a perfect subtractive primary color (monochromatic, 100% chroma), let's say a primary blue/cyan, it would be virtually useless for color mixing...a perfect blue/cyan would not make green because it is not 'carrying' any green, only it's own color. I guess this is what Michael Wilcox means on his website when he says that a perfect blue would be practically useless.
One has to be careful here of terminology. In a pigment colour wheel (showing bias or not) the 'blue' is considered to be a blue, not cyan (as I've said elsewhere, if you could get perfect CMYs they would work). But when you talk about a blue if you could find a perfect one, as you say, reflecting only blue light, then mixed with a similarly perfect red it would yield a colour very close to black, hence "practically useless". It is only the biases in colours that allow us to mix any secondaries!

... I want to see just what you get when you mix one primary with another... if... phthalo blue RS with a medium yellow will make a clean green... If... phthalo blue GS instead will give noticably cleaner greens...
While I would be the first to suggest that those practical mixing experiments you plan are a great idea (they will teach you more about your paints than any amount of theory), remember that once you have a grasp of colour-bias theory you should be able to predict the outcome of the mix fairly accurately without having to do it, which is what day-to-day colour mixing is all about. In your example, yes, the GS will mix a much cleaner green! Of course having the actual colours to refer to for the future will be extremely useful to you as humans have notoriously poor colour memory.

Originally posted by TPS
Einion: You are nitpicking. I remain firm in my point of view and explanations. I don't feel it necessary to explain every detail; I respect the readers intelligence. Much of the confusion is due to trying to assign practical results to a diagram of theoretical color
Yes I am nitpicking, but precision is important. And while you are entitled to your opinions you were wrong about some facts, which are important to state correctly. While you may feel it unnecessary to explain every detail I think of it as being rigorous. Explaining what you mean is as vital as making a firm distinction between opinion and observable fact.

I thought practical results were all that was important to us here, maybe I was wrong. There's no reason to use a diagram of theoretical colour when a perfectly acceptable one of real colour is available!

For the beginner, the 12 hue color wheel(based on imaginary perfect hues), is a good tool.
Again, this is your opinion and should be stated as such. It is not a good tool in mine and most other people's. Why not start to learn colour the right way to begin with (i.e. the way it really works) instead of having to unlearn something that will let you down time and again? Colour-bias wheels of various kinds are no more complicated in the long term and their underlying logic, and repeatable results, make them the best basis for accurate colour mixing.

It is an outline of color theory, and is not flawed. Most teachers use it accordingly. I don't know anyone that believes it represents how actual artists' pigments function. I'm baffled at why you insist on confusing the two.
Oh really? Not flawed eh? Three primaries will not work in practice, no ifs, ands or buts. I call that a pretty major flaw, but maybe I'm wrong again. So therefore it is no help at all as a starting point in leaning how paints work.

The statement "I don't know anyone that believes it represents how actual artists' pigments function." is precisely the crux of the problem for most amateur artists. I know at least a dozen people who continued to hold on to this misconception into adulthood, frustrated that they could not mix colours they wanted. Probably every member here did too (me included) when they first learned about colour in school. And for your information most teachers in art schools (mine included) didn't and still don't have a good grasp of this, explaining why it doesn't work except with platitudes like "clean violets are hard to mix". Hah! Not in my universe they ain't.

And thank you, I am not confused, unlike you I'm trying to make the distinction clear between a technically useless ideal, and practical mixing, for anyone who is monitoring who does not fully understand these ideas. Colour mixing is one of the cornerstone issues of most amateur artists' groups, take a poll.

As to the double primary palette, I (and I'm sure many others as well) have used it for years before Mr. Wilcox published his book. I didn't see anything in his book that I didn't already know.
To the best of my knowledge, Wilcox was the first to codify and publish a colour-bias theory. And as I've said to other critics in the past, if it was so obvious why did it take 5oo years to get it down on paper? I'm very happy for you that you knew about colour bias before his book but I would bet my last dime that it took time, effort and paint to arrive at this understanding, because of the old, faulty, colour wheel.

And sorry to burst your bubble, again, but I didn't once mention additive colour as anyone else can see if they read my posts so I am not "jumping from [one] theory to another". Simply mentioning reflectance spectra is not talking about additive colour. And since it's clear you understand what colour bias is in theory and in practice, I can't see how you continue to think that blue and yellow actually do make green. What happens to light inside a paint film is clearly documented, and subtractive, and does not involve any blending of blue and yellow light hence they do not 'make' green.

Einion

Patrick1
07-30-2001, 09:53 PM
TPS, I tried search engines for
"Dudeen triangle" and "Dudeen color triangle" but I couldn't find anything about it. Is there a website that shows what it's about or where I could order one?

TPS
07-31-2001, 12:54 AM
Patrick: An explanation of the Dudeen triangle can be found in the book "Gist of Art" by John Sloan first published in 1939. It is a compilation of his teachings around the turn of the last century. It should be found in most book stores and purhaps Amazon.com
ISBN 0-486-23435-5

It includes lots of color mixing examples and suggestions. Just what you indicate you wanted to do.

LarrySeiler
09-14-2001, 01:39 PM
I used a past painting of a portrait I did of my son, Jeremy called, "Bobber Stare Down" to do a six page instructional on color, composition, etc., I'll post that older Wetcanvas Article here as well for anyone intested. -Larry

http://www.wetcanvas.com/ArtSchool/Color/Bobber/

mfernkas
09-23-2001, 09:51 PM
I tend to agree with you. I think you are right on target.

Mark