I have a vested interest in this era of European art. At the time, Colour science was torn between the empirical (Newton, Chevreul) and mad-ass angry mystics like Goethe and Itten. The later did nothing but obfuscate the truth, and threw mus at anyone of opposing views. In the end the latter won, and their muddled teachings have reigned supreme in art schools ever since.
I'd already read that Goethe was a bit touchy about his color theory and that it was basically wrong, but I somehow missed this about Itten. When I was in school, Itten and Albers were the color-theory heroes.
Also Color space and its divisions (Kuehni, R. G. 2001) will help you tell the difference between up and down in the color domain (not an easy task in the world of colour).
My own thoughts...
Goethe's full text of his `Colour Theory' is effectively a hate letter to Newton. However, that part of the book is rarely translated into English.
Generally, that whole bunch of romantics/spiritualists brought nothing but fuzziness to the subject of color theory in art. For example, in ‘Concerning the Spiritual in Art’ Kandinsky remarked that `orange is red brought nearer to humanity by yellow'. Goethe described the colour ‘yellow-red’ as being a favorite of `savage nations'
and `impetuous, robust and uneducated men' and Itten himself describes the colours of a stained glass window as offering a `...direct invitation to higher spirituality'. Lovely words, but of little application to confused art students.
The problem with that hot-head Goethe is that he misunderstood a lot of what Newton was saying. Newton was addressing the physics of colour, whilst Goethe was addressing its application. These (generally) involve two different colour spaces defined by two different sets of antagonistic pairs (RGB/subtractive/light for Newton and RYB/additive/paint for Goethe). These two different ways of understanding the same thing are difficult to reconcile. For example, in RGB black is an absence of light, whilst for the painter's RYB space it is an active element.
Goethe is often credited with discovering the physiological dimensions of colour (that one colour can influence our perception of another). In fact it was Newton, though he did not pursue it very deeply.
Goethe had a massive influence on the way art and colour is addressed and I don't believe that art schools will ever recover from that. However, I still respect Goethe for his obsessive approach to the subject. Itten, on the other hand, is a whole bucket of shit. His set of contrasts developed out of his teaching, and he was the living embodiment of a bad art teacher. You have been to art school I guess... you know the type. Charismatic, cultish and mistaken. He required all his students to be vegetarians, and to practice calisthtics at the beginning of class. Unsurprisingly, was a proponent of Mazdaznanism, which was a fire cult.
There are many errors and inconsistencies in his work. For example, in his book `The Art of Colour' he describes yellow as being ‘lighter’ than blue. This is clearly erroneous, as lightness is independent from hue, and any hue has the potential to be lighter than any other hue. What he is responding to is that the maximum saturation of yellow is reached at a lower lightness value than (for example) blue or green. The annoying thing is that in the same book he recognizes HSL as being the three perceptual dimensions of color! I could fill a book with other mistakes he made.
You mention Albers. He is someone I have a lot of respect for. Goethe and Itten tried to construct general theories on the subject. Albers was more humble. His book `Interaction of Color' was a set of thoughtful observations, as indeed was his whole body of work 'Homage to the Square'.
> For example, in RGB black is an absence of light, whilst for the painter's RYB space it is an active element.
As a painter, I find it all very interesting because there are no pure colors anyway. There is no "black," there is (for example) bone black and Mars black, and then if it's bone black is it real bones and if so what animal and how was it made? And then Liquitex Ivory Black is most definitely not Amsterdam Ivory Black.
And so on. Right now I'm in Asia and cadmium colors are readily available -- what exactly is Cadmium Yellow Hue anyway?
Then along come some scientists who claim to make the truest, blackest black color ever to be painted with, and what happens?
Some rich megalomaniac buys the exclusive rights to it[0]. Goethe would be proud.
It’s a wry and pithy comment. Sorry dang, you’re in the weeds on this one. The article simply doesn’t say that this artist had supernatural powers.
The bizarre misreading otherwise is a mixture of magical and rigid thinking, or possibly poor English comprehension. However, there’s nothing substantive about speculating upon what goes on in someone’s head.
Sometimes “no” is the correct and complete answer.
This isn't about supernatural powers, it's about low-quality internet comments. We're against them.
The comment was obviously unsubstantive regardless of how "wry and pithy" it felt to you. You've been posting other ones in other threads too, which is why my request was in the plural.
I don't recall if I had those comments in mind, but yes, they're examples of low-quality comment.
The problem with stuff like that is that everyone overestimates how funny their jokes are. Mostly they're just lame. The gold standard HN explanation about this was by scott_s many years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7609289
I have a vested interest in this era of European art. At the time, Colour science was torn between the empirical (Newton, Chevreul) and mad-ass angry mystics like Goethe and Itten. The later did nothing but obfuscate the truth, and threw mus at anyone of opposing views. In the end the latter won, and their muddled teachings have reigned supreme in art schools ever since.