[HN Gopher] Why we're blind to the color blue ___________________________________________________________________ Why we're blind to the color blue Author : goodway Score : 317 points Date : 2021-07-16 17:20 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (calebkruse.com) (TXT) w3m dump (calebkruse.com) | aaroninsf wrote: | The use of "blind" in the title is problematic in several serious | ways, not least, for being obviously false for any conventional | interpretation. | | Idle comment: were divergent focal point such a significant issue | for visual perception, IMO we could anticipate it would be widely | applied by evolution, and we would see many prey species hiding | inside blue blurs. There are innumerable reasons this is not the | case; but that it isn't is one more problem with the conjecture. | uj8efdjkfdshf wrote: | It's no big surprise given that the fovea, which is responsible | for detailed vision, contains no blue cones. | | [0] http://hyperphysics.phy- | astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/rodcone.ht... | IlliOnato wrote: | What happens in monochrome light, say if you are in a darkroom | with a monochrome blue light source, would you be able to focus | on objects? Would they appear blurry? Or this "out of focus blue" | only happens when other colors are present? | rishikeshs wrote: | The is interesting! | abeppu wrote: | There's an optometry place in my neighborhood with a back-lit | sign with big, blue block letters. And every time I walk by at | night I note how fuzzy it looks. | | I'm convinced this is an intentional troll. This optometrist | knowingly picked a sign to make people momentarily question their | vision. | skunkworker wrote: | This happens every wintertime for me as blue string lights are | put up, and they always appear "fuzzy" compared to other | colors. | smusamashah wrote: | I got dry eyes some time ago. Dryness gone but now I see | starburst at night in headlights, neon signs and stars. Being | unable to see stars as flickering dots anymore hurts me the | most. Neon signs in particular if blue are totally whacky and | unreadable until I go too close. I went to optometrist | recently and they didn't understand why blue in particular | and recommended a color blindness test which I obviously | passed. | | Now I understand why blue in particular. Damage is done, I | wish I could take it back. | jbmny wrote: | May I ask how exactly your dry eyes led to degradation in | vision? I've recently been struggling with mild corneal | abrasions that leave me with something resembling a | "starburst" in my night vision, and I'm suspecting it may | be caused by dry eyes. | pionar wrote: | Wait, stars are flickering dots for most people? | munificent wrote: | Yes, stars typically twinkle slightly. | | Stars are unimaginably small point lights in the sky. | They look like larger dots because of imperfect focus in | our eyes [1]. But since they are in fact so tiny, it | means very small atmospheric variation and obstruction-- | heat shimmer, floating dust, etc.--can significantly | momentarily occlude the star. That causes its perceived | brightness to vary over time. | | [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airy_disk | FPGAhacker wrote: | From atmospheric distortion they can appear to flicker, | or "twinkle" as the song goes. | abeppu wrote: | Do you also find that this effect is way more pronounced in | recent years with LED string lights than colored lights many | years ago? I think b/c LEDs are more monochromatic, I will | notice a difference between my parent's extremely old string | lights and newer sets. | nyanpasu64 wrote: | Technology Connections did some videos on "Making Holiday | Lights Less Garish", where instead of using narrowband | colored LEDs he filtered white ones: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PBFPJ3_6ZWs | madaxe_again wrote: | I've always found blue LED or cold cathode signs absolutely | illegible at night - just an amorphous blur. I always thought it | was just me. | [deleted] | seanalltogether wrote: | I'm surprised the author doesn't mention the fact that only 2%-5% | of the cone cells in our eyes can perceive blue. That's a huge | factor in how well we process colors with blue light. | chmaynard wrote: | Citation please. | ars wrote: | Alternate source showing something similar: | https://gamesx.com/misctech/visual.htm | cgufus wrote: | Interesting article and discussion. | | I always wondered how the focusing actually works. It happens | ,,automatically", but what is involved? Are all cone types used | for the focusing, or mostly the green-type ones? Or are there | even special, dedicated cells for the focusing only? Does the | control ober the muscle controlling the lens shape goes via the | brain, or is there a more direct mechanism? | | Is there an expert around to explain or give some links to | explanations? | | (as a side comment: as a teenager I learned to control the focus | point to a certain degree. There were these pattern-3D images, | ,,Magic Eye", and since the perceived depth does not correspond | to the actual distance of the image, they eye needs to correct. I | guess the same applies to 3D cinema, and may well cause the eye | strain reported by many) | seunosewa wrote: | I'd like to see what happens when the red channel is blurred. | Digital images like JPGs seem to blur the red channel more than | the blue and green channels. | klodolph wrote: | JPEG transforms the color into YUV channels. Y is the | luminance, equal to R+G+B or something like that. The U&V | channels (color) are often downsampled. | aidenn0 wrote: | Y is basically "mostly green, a bit of red and hardly any | blue" rather than a flat R+G+B. So blurring the green channel | (as TFA does) is nearly equivalent to blurring the Y channel. | klodolph wrote: | I guess that will teach me for saying "or something like | that" rather than going into detail. | Someone wrote: | I would guess the deeper reason is that the sky is blue. That | makes it more useful to have good vision in red and green. | | If we needed good resolution everywhere, we might have had eyes | optimizing for different colors, four eyes, etc. | | Also, it isn't as simple as this article describes. The human eye | can vary its focal distance | (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accommodation_(eye)) over a larger | range than the effect of color aberration, so the eye _could_ | optimize for having optimal focus for blue light or vary that | over time. | | (https://www.osapublishing.org/josa/abstract.cfm?uri=josa-68-... | indicates humans can learn to do that in the lab) | crowbahr wrote: | What's funny is that most mammals can't distinguish between red | & green. | | For example: the reason why tigers have red camouflage is that | their prey cannot distinguish them from the background green of | the forest, combined with the fact that mammals cannot create | green pigment for their fur (yet). | throwaway8582 wrote: | One theory I've heard is that hunting for fruit was probably a | major driving factor in human color vision, as well as that of | other primates. Good red/green vision would've helped our | ancestors search for ripe fruit (usually red) by being able to | easily distinguish it from foliage and unripe fruit (usually | green). | briefcomment wrote: | The second to last demonstration blows my mind. I can't help but | feel like I'm being duped, the result is so sharp. | enriquto wrote: | i guess with red you get a similar effect. The green channel is | the one that affects most the perceived intensity. If you blur | the green everything becomes blurred. | ihojman wrote: | easy physics question here: if the light converges in one focal | point after passing through the lens, as pointed in the 2nd | animation, that means that the outer light beams reach that point | latter in time than the inner ones, right? My point is that at | the same speed, they are traveling longer distances, and the | animation does not show that, but that they get to at the same | time. | JacobDotVI wrote: | >This is one of many examples of our brains being much more | powerful than our eyes. Too often we think of our eyes as perfect | cameras. However, it is the brain that is able to accomodate | [sic] for all of the optical shortcomings in order to resolve the | world. | | While this is a description of the human brain and human eye it's | interesting to me that it is a very accurate description of the | progression of camera technology in the last few years as we | shift from the supremacy of Big Glass to the amazing results from | computational photography being applied to cell-phone sized | lenses | rosstex wrote: | If you like this, you'll very much enjoy this exploration of | color and chroma keying in cinematography: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO3JgPUJ6iQ | crazygringo wrote: | I don't believe the blurred images at the end have _anything_ to | do with eye focus, as the author suggests. | | After all, chromatic aberration is blurring of only a very, very | small amount. | | The demonstrated seemingly negligible perceptual effect of | blurring blue to a _huge_ degree in a multicolor image doesn 't | seem to have anything to do with that, but rather the fact that | we perceive primary blue as a much _darker_ color than primary | red or green, and we perceive differences in lighter colors much | more easily. | | If the author were correct that we have big problems focusing on | blue, then we'd see that blue text against a black background | would be massively blurry -- but it's simply not. It's | comparatively low-contrast (because blue is a dark color), but | it's nearly indistinguishably as sharp as red and green. | phnofive wrote: | I agree, in that it was pretty easy to dismiss effects on the | example image. Doing this with shapes and a variety of hues and | luminances would be a better way to prove the point if it bears | out. | jcoq wrote: | I agree. Further, almost all of the blue channel in this image | is from the white clouds or nearly black water. There's no | other major source of blue. | mtdewcmu wrote: | What would be the result if you flipped the colors, so that | the sharp elements are blue and the ocean is red or green? | rst wrote: | It also matters a bit that the blue channel is only 2% of all | color-sensitive cones in the retina. That has a lot more to do | with poor spatial resolution int the blue channel than the | optics. | | http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/rodcone.ht... | gcanyon wrote: | I'd love to see the same comparison across a range of images. | isatty wrote: | I think that the title is a massive oversimplification because | chromatic aberration by itself is not enough for us to be blind | to the color blue. We do have cones that can detect blue for | one. | | We are however, less sensitive to it so maybe the eye doesn't | focus based on that channel(?). | formerly_proven wrote: | I wanna point out that LCA cannot be responsible for e.g. | blue displays being basically impossible to read. Why? | Because they are still impossible to read when they're the | only thing that's around, and blue LEDs are very | monochromatic. So the eye would have to focus on the blue | light, which would make LCA go away. | | I suspect that a plausible cause could be that there just | aren't a lot of blue receptors in the retina, as the eye is | pretty insensitive to blue overall. | crdrost wrote: | I'm not sure you're right. At night both I and my wife have | reported difficulty reading glowing blue signs compared to | glowing red/green signs at the same font size, brightness, and | distance. | | I'm also not sure that the author is correct; the wrong-focal- | distance explanation seems rather weak simply because our focal | length is adjustable. | techrat wrote: | You're not alone. I normally have excellent night vision but | seeing things in glowing blue, such as the clock on the | coffee maker or the microwave, causes the digits to split | like double vision and become blurry while everything else | remains the same. | royjacobs wrote: | I have the exact same thing. It always makes me wonder why | companies choose to have blue neon lights on their buildings | because it's nearly impossible to read them when it's a thin | font. | jbluepolarbear wrote: | You have astigmatism. I have a similar issue with blue when | not wearing my glasses. I have 20/20 vision, but my | astigmatism makes it difficult to focus on certain things. A | computer being a big one. Blue light blockers help, but with | proper astigmatism correction I don't need them. | techrat wrote: | 20/10 vision in one eye, 20/13 in another, no astigmatism. | | Blue LEDs in clocks when viewed at night look completely | fucked up. | jbluepolarbear wrote: | I've never met anyone without some astigmatism; | especially, people with other vision impairment. | Astigmatism is the number one cause of night blindness | which is what you described. | pengaru wrote: | > In Europe and Asia, astigmatism affects between 30 and | 60% of adults. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astigmatism | jbluepolarbear wrote: | I can't actually verify that number presented in that | paper. I've looked and that stat is attributed to that | paper, but there's no evidence that the paper said that. | Plus the paper is pay walled so unverified. | pengaru wrote: | Considering the obvious inability for anyone to reliably | know the astigmatism status of everyone they meet, not | only is your anecdata unverifiable it's completely | absurd. | ubercore wrote: | I don't think it's night blindness. I have the same | problem, with and without glasses (I have astigmatism). | tcmb wrote: | HN is so funny. 'I have no astigmatism.' -- 'Sure you | do!' | jbluepolarbear wrote: | Because nearly every person has some amount of | astigmatism. | borski wrote: | Sure, but presumably the parent has been checked by their | eye doctor and indeed, not _everyone_ has it. | | Signed, a dude with very slight astigmatism :) | techrat wrote: | You're precious. Why don't you tell me what else my eye | doctor has never diagnosed me with? | jbluepolarbear wrote: | 9 in 10 people have some affliction of astigmatism. | Astigmatism is just that your eye isn't perfectly | spherical. What does your eye prescription say in the cyl | and axis fields, that's your astigmatism correction. | techrat wrote: | 'eye prescription'? | | Bruh. Read the comment of mine you replied to. 20/10 and | 20/13 vision. I don't need prescriptions. | washadjeffmad wrote: | That's like saying you can run a 3 minute mile so you | don't have a shoe size. | | This whole thread is silly. | mikepurvis wrote: | Aren't those numbers about your ability to focus on | distance objects, though? | | I could totally believe the someone might have "perfect" | vision that doesn't require correction, but still have a | slight astigmatism that impacts their vision under | certain specific scenarios such as when viewing blue LEDs | in low light. | | I'm not necessarily saying that's what you have, but more | just that to the extent your eyes have been evaluated, it | was likely "yeah they look great as far as your ability | to perceive the brightly lit eye chart, no need to do the | more detailed analysis where we figure out the other | parameters that will never be used because you're fine, | bye." | [deleted] | naikrovek wrote: | pro tip: don't tell other people about their own | experiences unless they ask you, and you're a | professional. | jbluepolarbear wrote: | Pro tip: nope | sgtnoodle wrote: | I dunno, but when I look at glowing blue signs and blue | Christmas lights at night, they look significantly more fuzzy | than other color lights. | gisely wrote: | Chromatic aberration may be a contributing factor, but I am | surprised the author didn't mention that S cones (which we use | to perceive blue) are only 2% of the cones in the retina [1]. | Additionally S cones are distributed randomly when compared the | regular lattice of M and L cones. The distribution of the | different cone types alone may be sufficient to explain why our | acuity for blues is impoverished relative to reds and greens. | | [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_cell | larsbrinkhoff wrote: | Also, S cones are mostly found outside the fovea. | arthur2e5 wrote: | This lower resolution of blue is pretty well known in recent | image compression work (XYB space of JPEG-XL and guetzil), | and number of S cones is the only explanation I have seen on | that. | thehappypm wrote: | I'm sure you could find an image where blurring blue ruins it, | and blurring red and green have no impact. This feels like | cherrypicking especially given how trivial it would be to just | show a bunch of examples. | TheOtherHobbes wrote: | The author is correct. Lighting designers sometimes use the | effect deliberately to create blue spotlights that viewers | can't focus on. | | That description doesn't do it justice - you have to experience | it to appreciate it. It's very striking and slightly surreal. | tobr wrote: | They might be correct about chromatic aberration and the | difficultly of focusing on pure blue, but the conclusion from | their experiment is completely wrong. | nickff wrote: | I mostly agree with you, but would add that blurring the blue | is affecting the sharpness of the ocean, which has little | detail in that image; blurring red or green affects details on | the land, which are very noticeable. One might think the cloud- | ocean edges would be blurred by the blurring of blue, but the | clouds are so much brighter than the ocean (red & green | channels), that you can barely notice any difference. | mrob wrote: | See the very low coefficients for the blue channel when | converting (gamma-compressed) RGB to luma. E.g. the common Rec. | 709 standard assigns only 0.0722 weight to blue. | Y' = 0.2126R' + 0.7152G' + 0.0722B' | ywain wrote: | This is basically the same as the Y component used in JPEG, | right? Could the phenomenon described in the article be | caused by the fact that they used JPEG images? I.e. would we | observe the same thing happen with raw/uncompressed images? | codetrotter wrote: | Did you mean to respond to another comment in this thread | where they were talking about YUV? Your comment does not make | much sense to me here but would make more sense to me there. | mrob wrote: | Luma is an approximation of perceived brightness. All the | conversion formulae weigh blue substantially less than the | other primaries. This supports crazygringo's assertion that | "we perceive primary blue as a much darker color than | primary red or green". | anamexis wrote: | It makes sense to me here - GP discusses how we see | perceive blue as a dark color, and parent comment | corroborates that with a low luma coefficient for blue. | bioplastic wrote: | Indeed, green contributes more. Example of the Y channel | after blurring r/g/b: https://imgur.com/a/3p15Qe1 | | And colured versions: https://imgur.com/a/Knq2Ue3 | | (image source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower#/media/Fi | le:Flower_post...) | rob74 wrote: | More, as in 10 times more for green, and 3 times more for | red. So it's true that we're pretty blind to blue, just the | "focusing" explanation is not correct... | bioplastic wrote: | To be honest I need to rethink the arguments of the | linked article - if we just use coloured filters in front | of our eyes which exclude each channel, the image (I | think) remains sharp (or at least that happens with | red/cyan anaglyph glasses). | fotta wrote: | Blue is my favorite color. Has my whole life been a lie? | emerged wrote: | Blue is my favorite color and it seems like whenever I call | something blue somebody tells me it's green. I don't like | green. | | I have no idea what to make of that. | anonAndOn wrote: | Maybe it's the lighting?[0] | | [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dress#/media/File:Wikipe | -t... | ulrikrasmussen wrote: | That explains beautifully why I always feel like I've lost my | contact lenses when I'm at a concert and the lighting goes all | blue. | obloid wrote: | That was my first thought when reading this. On numerous times | I've been watching a stage show and can see everything great. | Then the lights turn blue and it's just a blue blur. | einpoklum wrote: | TBH I was totally in the dark about this. With the article having | put this in focus for me, I now feel a little blue about the | whole affair, though in a diffuse kind of way. | mdeck_ wrote: | Blue LEDs and black lights show this effect very clearly. This is | e.g. described much more succinctly in the top comment here: | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3c1qsg/why_do_b... | | > 2 reasons: 1) You don't have the nearly as many short | wavelength detecting blue cones as you do red and green in your | fovea. 2) The angle of refraction is dependent on wavelength and | short wavelengths get refracted more than relatively longer ones | by your eye and therefore focus in front of your retina if you | are myopic (nearsighted). The black lights are throwing off a ton | of very short wavelength light and when coupled with the larger | pupil you have in the dark it sets your eye up for a bunch of | chromatic aberration. They should look clearer if you are | hyperope or overcorrected in your myopic prescription, or if you | view them at a closer distance. | qwertox wrote: | Nice style of the videos. Also the content, of course, but it's | nice seeing them so chalkboard-like. | lordnacho wrote: | This would seem to explain why when you go to the optician, he's | got a lot of red/green tests but never blue one as far as I can | tell. The critical graph is the one with the blue peak to the | left and the red and green near each other on the right. | | Also it seems to hint that there's a fourth receptor that humans | don't have in the gap region. Tetra-chromatic creatures do exist | IIRC. | seba_dos1 wrote: | Even tetra-chromatic humans exist, although it's pretty rare. | The fourth cone tends to peak between green and red though. | arendtio wrote: | Does someone know, if this phenomenon is this also related to our | bad visual capabilities at night? | atishay811 wrote: | This is amazing to see. We should use this for image | optimization. When we compress channels, we should compress the | blue channel to like 30% while keeping others at fairly large 80% | and it might appear better than a 60% compressed image. | nimish wrote: | That's chroma subsampling, most commonly 4:4:4 4:2:2 and 4:2:0 | where this principle is used | trollbridge wrote: | That's exactly why images tend to be compressed in a YUV colour | space instead of an RGB one. | MaxBarraclough wrote: | As triclops200 says, lossy image compression algorithms have | long taken advantage of this. You might be interested in this | page, _Your Eyes Suck at Blue_ , which shows an image with the | blue channel increasingly compressed: | | https://gamesx.com/misctech/visual.htm | | _edit_ See also this counterpoint: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=573593 | triclops200 wrote: | We already do and have done historically. The most obvious | example I know of is that 8bit color uses 3 bits for green and | red and 2 for blue. | _0ffh wrote: | For some time many graphics cards had a 16 bit "hi-color" | mode with 5:6:5 bits for RGB (SVGA, etc.). Most graphics card | modes that used only 8 bits per pixel used that value as an | index into an 256x(8x3) bit color palette (MCGA, VGA, etc.). | Grakel wrote: | Doesn't hurt that there's hardly any blue in that image and it's | dialed down almost to black. | excalibur wrote: | So if you're looking for ways to hide data in an image, making | slight adjustments to the blue channel isn't the worst idea. | schneems wrote: | The animations are really nice. Does anyone have a guess what | tool they're made with (based on font or other hints)? | calebkruse wrote: | Thanks! These were all done by hand in Procreate on an iPad | since I wanted to give them more of a chalkboard feel. | inglor_cz wrote: | Interestingly, many ancient text sources do not speak of blue | color at all, using other expressions. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine-dark_sea_(Homer) | glial wrote: | There's a fascinating Radiolab episode that expands on this | topic, asking the question about whether 'blue' is a feature of | nature or a cultural invention & transmission: | | https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/segments/21121... | perihelions wrote: | (Non-rhetorical question). I don't understand why the article | writes off kuaneos / kuanos as "later stages of Greek", when | it's already present in Herodotus [0]. Just how a big of a | sample size do they have between Homer and Herodotus, that they | can interpret the evolution of such a minor, infrequent word? | Isn't Homer basically "before written literature" Greek anyway? | | edit: Also, wasn't Homer supposed to be a blind dude? | | [0] | https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext... | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecbatana#Historical_descriptio... | | > _" The battlements of the first circle are white, of the | second black, of the third circle purple, of the fourth blue | [kuaneoi], and of the fifth orange:"_ | tobr wrote: | The author is wrong, that experiment doesn't show anything about | focusing. The blue channel in RGB is simply _much_ less bright | than the green, which means it has much less contrast, which | means that manipulating it in various ways has less of a | noticeable effect on the image as a whole. This happens to be | true for blurring it, but also adjusting the contrast, inverting | it, pixelating it, offsetting it, averaging it completely, | whatever manipulation you can think of. | [deleted] | Camillo wrote: | Snell's work on optics would later be overshadowed by the GNU | alternative, Fresnel. | leblancfg wrote: | And its BSD fork, Libresnel | Camillo wrote: | I can't believe this awesome joke is getting downvotes. It's | like pearls before swine, but I'm leaving it up so you can find | out which amongst you are objectively bad people. | aimor wrote: | I'm tempted to experiment. If I take a blue LED and a green LED | in the dark, when I focus on one the other should appear blurred. | floatrock wrote: | Blue LED clocks (like on 'high end' microwaves or appliances) | are one of my biggest pet peeve. I'm not an old fart by any | stretch -- my eyes are fine -- but the blue blur when looking | at the clock at night is a real thing. | | Fun fact: this phenomenon is similar to why older cars had | yellow-tinged fog lights. It's partly light scattering in | suspended water droplets (fog), it's partly the perception | factors talked about in the article, but basically reds and | yellows have lowest "light scatter". You're not gonna build a | red foglight for red-is-danger reasons, so yellow foglights are | the next best thing. | SomeHacker44 wrote: | Yep, exactly. Scattering of light is proportional to the | fourth power of the frequency (or, equivalently, inversely | proportional to the fourth power of the wavelength). | | I've been telling this to my kids whenever I got the | inevitable "why is the sky blue" line. :) | klodolph wrote: | My experience is that in the dark, I can't focus on a blue LED | _at all._ It will just look a bit blurry. | Kenji wrote: | That's complete bullshit. The image remains sharp because the red | and green channel remain sharp. It's obvious that the entire | image has a nasty yellow tint. This has nothing to do with | chromatic aberration, try again. | drcongo wrote: | One of my favourite series in art is Yves Klein's blue work. For | anyone unfamiliar, he found a blue that he considered the bluest | possible blue [1], and went on a journey painting everything in | that blue. I loved that he did this, and then eventually managed | to get to an exhibition of his work at the Tate Modern and was | absolutely blown away by it - it really needs to be seen in the | flesh to appreciate it. There's something about his blue, that | when painted on to a sculpture, almost makes the 3D disappear and | the sculpture looks 2 dimensional. Extremely beautiful. | | As a side note, some (many?) cultures around the world have no | word for blue, blue is just other shades of green. | | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Klein_Blue | pier25 wrote: | Great anecdote! | | Reminded me of the short story Zima Blue by Alastair Reynolds | (which was adapted into an animation short on Netlifx's "Love, | Death and Robots"). | thom wrote: | I found that episode very moving. It captured the feeling I | suspect many of us experience, of having started out with | simple, blissful naivety, before slowly accreting layers of | grown up, professional bullshit until a craft loses its joy. | The desire to strip it all away, not just the ways in which | your work has changed over the years but also the ways in | which it has changed you. | | I had no idea Alastair Reynolds was behind the story, I've | enjoyed his work quite separately. | archduck wrote: | Yes!! The lack of green-blue distinction is prevalent enough in | linguistics that the term "grue" has entered the lexicon. | | Paul and Kay (1969) argue for a linguistic universal which | posits that the set of _which_ colors a language has is a | function of _how many_ colors it has. (Stealing from https://en | .wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity_and_the_...): | | 1. All languages contain terms for black and white. 2. If a | language contains three terms, then it contains a term for red. | 3. If a language contains four terms, then it contains a term | for either green or yellow (but not both). 4. If a language | contains five terms, then it contains terms for both green and | yellow. 5. If a language contains six terms, then it contains a | term for blue. 6. If a language contains seven terms, then it | contains a term for brown. 7. If a language contains eight or | more terms, then it contains terms for purple, pink, orange or | gray. | | The opposite of the grue phenomenon exists too, i.e. languages | which subdivide the "blue" part of the spectrum into separate | lexemes. In Russian, for instance, _goluboy_ = light blue, | whereas _siniy_ = blue to dark blue. This morning I was reading | the Wikipedia entry for _color revolution_ , and there's a | quote from Belarusian President Lukashenko, "They [the West] | think that Belarus is ready for some 'orange' or, what is a | rather frightening option, 'blue' or 'cornflower blue' | revolution." I had to chuckle about that - it sounds so goofy | in the English translation, but that's only because we don't | have a lexical distinction there. (Now I would have personally | translated it to _light blue_ , but that's another matter.) | drcongo wrote: | Fantastic post, thank you! | selestify wrote: | As someone who hasn't seen it in the flesh yet, and doesn't | "get" modern art unless someone explicitly spells it out for | me, could you elaborate more on why it's so spectacular? | | For example, Blue Monochrome [1] seems to my uneducated eye to | be just a layer of pure blue that every wall painter recreates | every time they paint a wall blue. Why is the Blue Monochrome | piece more than just a wall painted blue? | | [1] https://www.moma.org/collection/works/80103 | jessejmc wrote: | Don't know about Yves Klein specifically but remember seeing | this video from Vox: | | "Why these all-white paintings are in museums and mine | aren't" [1] | | [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aGRHOpMRUg | ameetgaitonde wrote: | I like to wander around art museums, and on one visit, I | shared a gallery with what seemed like a private tour | group. | | One woman was conducting the tour for three people, when | they stopped at one of these all-white paintings. | | She was describing the potential meaning behind the work, | and noted that sometimes the artist expresses textures, or | covers some background work. | | It's hard to describe, but I felt this sort of absurdist | joy when I watched all four of them lean in very closely | for half a minute, only to discover absolutely nothing | unique about the work in its texture or color. | | Maybe sometimes art isn't made for the observer, but the | observer's observer. | sneusse wrote: | That's the missing piece! Now I know how to spend my next | rainy day! | pjc50 wrote: | Klein blue is outside the color gamut that can be represented | on normal monitors, so it's physically impossible to get the | full impact of it through a picture. It just looks .. deeper. | | There are a few flowers that have this property; fuscias, and | others with strong UV fluorescence. | WhompingWindows wrote: | Consider the time period and the historical context. It's | modern times, Cold War is occurring, and WW1 and WW2 left | scars across Western Europe and caused major changes in the | art world, including being a boon to abstraction and | fragmenting styles into many eclectic directions. | | Chemistry has DRASTICALLY altered painting from the | Renaissance to the World War era. New pigments have been | constantly highlighted and displayed in artwork. Finally, an | insanely blue blue has been invented, bluer than any other | blue paint in the past. | | The artist highlighted above attempts to showcase the new | technology in its purest form. Though, despite this strive | for purity of blue, the application is inherently uneven. If | you look into the painted canvas up close, you will see | imperfections and patterns in "just a wall". It's also a | statement, it may cause reactions and cause viewers to | question the boundary between art and not-art. | | It's not my cup of tea compared to masterworks of Van Gogh or | Homer or any of the legendary painters, but art goes through | many phases and is used to express many different ideas. What | I do think is bonkers is that modern artists (who are well- | connected) may be paid millions of dollars for these works, | which to me don't showcase skill and talent, but which reward | creative ideation and concepts. | jdmichal wrote: | > Finally, an insanely blue blue has been invented, bluer | than any other blue paint in the past. The artist | highlighted above attempts to showcase the new technology | in its purest form. | | I was thinking something along these lines. Based on the | first Wiki article, Klein was involved in developing this | pigment. If so, the work stands on the merits of that | achievement alone. He was, for that moment, literally the | only person in the world that could have created that | painting. | lmohseni wrote: | There's a really great short story by Alistair Reynolds | about an artist that's obsessed with a certain Zima blue | (name of the story) which is essentially an extended | meditation on the above, I think you might like it. :) | drcongo wrote: | There's some great answers to your question below, but I'll | add mine anyway. Because of the way our eyes see blue (as | highlighted in the OP), and especially Yves Klein blue, it | has some slightly magical properties in art. The flat blue | canvases are absolutely uninspiring at first glance, but | stand in front of it for 30 seconds and it starts to recede - | it becomes hard to tell how far away the canvas actually is. | You're unable to make out texture on the surface because the | brain is struggling to actually work it out. It's most | striking on the sculptures though, they almost entirely lose | their depth and become a flat thing that changes shape as you | moved around it. Imagine a 3d rendering of a gallery scene | where there's one model that is untextured and unlit - it's | like a brilliant blue silhouette. | | I took my then 5 year old daughter to the Tate for the | exhibition and it had the same effect on her, while almost | everything else on show had no effect at all. The only other | thing she loved was Bridget Riley, and I think Yves Klein's | blue work is somewhere in the same realm - the art is in | defining something that makes the viewer's brain do some of | the work, that is going to be experienced slightly | differently by everyone who sees it. | ricardobeat wrote: | As mentioned above, it just looks different in person, that | picture does not do it justice by any means. It's kinda like | when you see a 3D render with inaccurate physics, but this | one is in the real world - it feels out of place. Or like | catching a really pink sunset: you can look at it for as long | as you want and the color never ceases to impress you. | Qub3d wrote: | That's awesome. Looks like his hue is very, very close to YInMn | blue, one of my favorite contemporary scientific discoveries: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YInMn_Blue | agumonkey wrote: | funny how it's different when interpreted in biology limits | | also how no art teacher ever told us about Klein's blue the way | you did.. they simply used it as an authority figure | EamonnMR wrote: | Is this why I can't focus my eye on a blue LED while focusing on | the surrounding area? | contravariant wrote: | Oh, so that's why I can't read blue lettering at night. Always | wondered. | macando wrote: | You know what's funny about this? | | The most common color of Call To Action buttons on websites is | _blue_. | ncpa-cpl wrote: | I think this is why one of the older analog video formats, I | can't remember if it was VHS or NTSC, used less bandwidth for | blue color than for the other colors. This was not noticeable | unless blue letters were recorded, which always looked more | blurry than letters in other colors. | maddyboo wrote: | Could this be a factor in why we didn't evolve to see a wider | range of wavelengths? | | Is the visual spectrum just barely within the range that our | brains can correct for the diverging focal lengths without | needing additional lenses or modifications to the eye? | jjk166 wrote: | Water is relatively opaque at wavelengths above and below the | visible spectrum. Air is also much more absorptive outside of | the visible range. These two effects compliment eachother - | water has a very sharp increase in opacity in the ultraviolet, | while air has a sharp increase in the infrared. Our eyes are | full of water and we look at things through air. | Coincidentally, the visible spectrum matches the peak output | from the sun. While you can go a little further into the | infrared and ultraviolet ranges, there simply isn't much more | to see, it would be as if we were looking through muddy water | and dimly lit fog. Any mutation allowing you to see these | wavelengths would convey no advantage. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-07-16 23:00 UTC)