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?

What if there was a color called "bird"?

What if there was a color called "bird"?

 What might it look like?

 What might happen if you were to create something
 with "bird" as a primary focus yet without any
 object that resembles a bird?

Does Color Exist Outside of History?

Does color exist outside of history?

If so, is color study mostly about what we might

have seen when we weren't here?

Doesn't color have a history of it's own?

Isn't color also nested inside many histories?

And, if color is as it has been seen by billions and billions

of creatures throughout time can any sort of scientific color model

truly be accurate without the mantis shrimp and

hummingbirds weighing in?



Is Color Indexical?

If color occurs in the brain as a neural response are we
to imagine the brain as some sort of file card index?

What if the brain is something else entirely?

Something more embodied than a filing cabinet
for your paints?

Something less like a mental construct and more
like an integral organic response?