Comment by jacobolus | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jacobolus | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I don’t think it’s fair to criticize Albers in this context, and this particular critique seems mostly like pedantic nitpicking at a fairly concise non-technical book; he wasn’t trying to establish a detailed technical model, but rather to teach artists to think. (“The book does not begin with optics and physiology of visual perception, nor with any presentation of the physics of light and wave length…. What counts here—first and last—is not so-called knowledge of so-called facts, but vision—seeing.”)

His book and teaching method are all about learning to work with colors through direct experience. To that end, he made students do numerous small projects with colored paper, etc.

(Have you read Albers’s book? I would definitely recommend it, with the proviso that you actually try to do Albers’s recommended exercises, which are really the important part of the book, instead of worrying too much about the text. Reading Albers’s book straight through is like reading a math textbook straight through without doing the problems.)

If you want to call Itten out for nonsensical babble though, go right ahead.

* * *

Edit: here’s Dorothea Jameson’s response to Alan Lee http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.470...

I read Josef Albers' Interaction of Color years ago and I've also bought the iPad app. I've been disappointed by both.

The problem is that "experiential" teaching without any scientific explanation is inadequate and misleading. Teaching part is where you explain the students - why. It is perhaps the approach in art colleges where rigorous science doesn't matter.

The problem stems when Josef Albers made scientific claims which go unquestioned as the factual basis for his cool color experiments. That is wrong and that's exactly the kind of nitpicking we need to do. What you call 'Pedantic nitpicking' is necessary and essential to the scientific process.

It is rather misleading to start the book with "The book does not begin with optics and physiology of visual perception, nor with any presentation of the physics of light and wavelength…. What counts here—first and last—is not so-called knowledge of so-called facts, but vision—seeing." and then go on to explaining his experiments using false claims (which again are highlighted and detailed in Alan Lee's criticism).

Anyhow, even if I am considering Josef's Interaction of Color from an artistic standpoint, he simply points out the cool illusions without any follow up on how to use/implement his concepts. I find it as a casual book that sits on the coffee table, not on my work desk.

You’re approaching the book the wrong way. The original came with a big pile of colored papers. You are supposed to spend dozens of hours over the course of months doing careful visual study of various arrangements of them. If you don’t do the exercises in the book you’re not going to get much out of it.

Albers is not dogmatic. His purpose is not to prescribe a particular style or method. This is not a recipe book. He wants his students to explore deeply and learn how colors interact by spending a whole lot of time looking at them carefully, and then develop their own methods and styles.

The book is not supposed to be about “scientific progress”. It’s supposed to be a pedagogical tool aimed at artists. If you want a technical explanation, you are looking at the wrong book.

It sounds like you wanted to read a technical color science book. There are plenty of those out there, pitched at various audiences.

I know what you're saying - I've done a few of his exercises and using the iPad app makes that very easy to do. Literally, simulates the same experience of getting the $200 edition with all the color plates. Drag a shape over another and see the effect.

Color is relative. Got it. What else does it offer?

>> The book is not supposed to be about “scientific progress”. It’s supposed to be a pedagogical tool aimed at artists. If you want a technical explanation, you are looking at the wrong book.

I understand and I wish that was the case! However, the popularity of it and its fame as a text book (see Amazon reviews) combined with his claims of explaining how brain perceives color - indicates that it is used as THE color theory reference. I have a problem with that.

> indicates that it is used as THE color theory reference

That’s just not true though. These Amazon reviewers apparently have no idea what they’re talking about. People looking for color science books, or even for dogmatic advice about how to make color combinations (most of which is bullshit, but anyway ...) have many other books to study.

Your criticism is kind of like judging a book about meditation techniques for being neither an answer to all of your life’s problems (despite Amazon reviews claiming so!) nor a complete psychology textbook.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com