> For one, I learnt in school that the primary colours where red, green and blue, and later that the substractive primary colours where cyan, magenta and yellow. So nothing different from the RGB/CMYK colour wheels everyone uses.
I thought I was going insane for a moment, because (though it's been years) I swore I was taught the same thing. Perhaps it's an artifact of having grown up in a "modern" world where additive and subtractive palettes are important, but thinking back on it, I remember the science classes and the "light experiment" of using different colored flashlights to produce white (from red, green, and blue--though not perfect because of the colors of cellophane used, and kids generally don't care).
While I realize art has a long history (and I appreciate the contributions it has made to society at large), scientific discovery has arguably made more important inroads on the why and how of colors. Interestingly, the Wikipedia article [1] on the subject links to the "four psychological primary colors" [2] of red, green, yellow, and blue. Yes, the RYB model is interesting (at least historically) and important to painters, but even prior to modern science what constituted "primary colors" seems to have been more inclusive than just a three color system.
I don't wish to seem ungrateful: I do appreciate the work the author put into the article (and appreciate the dissemination of the paper linked to on the RYB system), and I admit (not being an artist) that it's difficult for me to understand what seems like fairly superficial complaints relayed through him from his artist friend. It almost seems like it's being dismissive of what we know about our visual physiology for no other reason than "this is how they used to do it."
Interesting nevertheless, but like you, it's difficult for me to see the point: So there's a niche need for artists who don't like the existing color system? Okay, great. Give them what they want and move on.
I thought I was going insane for a moment, because (though it's been years) I swore I was taught the same thing. Perhaps it's an artifact of having grown up in a "modern" world where additive and subtractive palettes are important, but thinking back on it, I remember the science classes and the "light experiment" of using different colored flashlights to produce white (from red, green, and blue--though not perfect because of the colors of cellophane used, and kids generally don't care).
While I realize art has a long history (and I appreciate the contributions it has made to society at large), scientific discovery has arguably made more important inroads on the why and how of colors. Interestingly, the Wikipedia article [1] on the subject links to the "four psychological primary colors" [2] of red, green, yellow, and blue. Yes, the RYB model is interesting (at least historically) and important to painters, but even prior to modern science what constituted "primary colors" seems to have been more inclusive than just a three color system.
I don't wish to seem ungrateful: I do appreciate the work the author put into the article (and appreciate the dissemination of the paper linked to on the RYB system), and I admit (not being an artist) that it's difficult for me to understand what seems like fairly superficial complaints relayed through him from his artist friend. It almost seems like it's being dismissive of what we know about our visual physiology for no other reason than "this is how they used to do it."
Interesting nevertheless, but like you, it's difficult for me to see the point: So there's a niche need for artists who don't like the existing color system? Okay, great. Give them what they want and move on.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primary_colors
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opponent_process#History