Does web color encourage artists and designers to fudge their resumes?

Does web color encourage artists and designers to fudge their resumes?

For example, if the web offers 16,777,216 individual colors, how long might it
take to gain adequate professional skills working with that many choices?

How long might it take just to gain familiarity with the distinctions between all those colors? 

How long to get any depth of actual working knowledge?

Didn't Albers deliver convincing evidence for both the deceptiveness and complexity of color effects?

How deceptive does your resume get?

Does the deception stem from the fact that right now there is simply too much financial incentive
to make working with color appear simpler than it really is?

"Click of a button" simple?

How did the human brain ever survive if it specializes in creating perceptions that aren't there?

 

As you study the interaction of color it becomes

clearer just how much the colors you see have no

existence as physical facts.

 

So how did the human brain ever survive if it specializes

in creating perceptions that aren't there?

 

Delusion and survival don't usually go hand in hand?

 

In the real world it seems perception and survival have

an odd relationship.

 

And you have to wonder what survival strategy is

employed by a neurology so adverse to facts?

If You Focus on Color as a Whole, What do You Get?

 

The Taoists say if you divide color, looking solely at

the hues you'll be blinded to what is before you.

 

Yet, if you focus on color as a whole, what do you get?

 

White light?  A rainbow?  A favorite palette? 

Whatever is in your immediate field of vision?

 

All of the above?  Or something else entirely?

 

You might want to be careful about these sorts

of questions since the claims of artists before you

have been determinative in how their careers

turned out.

Is Albers' Method Alone the Best Way to Study Color?

In Albers' color studies there is no mixing.

Albers found mixing too messy and the results
of brushwork too unreliable.

Yet, the Albers color studies are exciting because
of what happens when one piece of colored paper is
placed next to another.

You have to wonder though, is Albers' method the
only way to study color?

Isn't it just as valuable to study what happens when
a specific cobalt blue meets up with a delicious
hansa yellow?

Or a particular pyrolle red merges freely with a
primary cyan?

What happens when colors mix?

Aren't those sorts of delights a compelling PhD
level study all on their own?

How Forgiving is Color?

If our best artists have gotten superlative results with
outdated ideas about color aren't those ideas also a part
of what we celebrate as color?

In that case, what does color mastery mean?

Masterfully out of touch?

Masterfully possible to be totally wrong some of the time?

How forgiving is color?

More important perhaps:

In your work, will color be forgiving today?

Aren't most of our color models self-limiting?

 

What happens when you take a four dimensional reality,

create a two dimensional picture of it and then use your picture
to model three dimensional objects?

What could you expect, except a limited, confusing, frustrating mess?

Isn't this what we are doing with color wheels and most color modeling?

What might you achieve for art if you correct for that?

Mustn't the language of color include a study of speechlessness?

What does it mean to study the language of color when

color so often leaves you speechless?

Does it mean the language of color must include
a study of speechlessness?

In this sort of study would we be trying to put words
to subtle color sensations previously off the radar?

What possible rewards might there be for that sort of effort?

More to the point, is there any art in it?

Even better, is there any great art?