3 ms·
That's just about caring or differentiating about relatively small difference. Not about not being able to see the whole color. Which is in the title. Recently
by Gravityloss 5y ago
That's just about caring or differentiating about relatively small difference. Not about not being able to see the whole color. Which is in the title.
Recently a lot of people forwarded the idea that ancient people couldn't see blue. If you look at Egyptian artefacts, they sure have a lot of symmetrical blue accents. If they really couldn't see the color, then by accident they should have at least at times picked some other color to the left piece than the right piece?
- bildung 5y ago> That's just about caring or differentiating about relatively small difference. Which this is all about! The author talks about 51 Munsell color samples out of 1500, so only 3% of the gamut. Look how specific "violet" is in the Munsell system: https://munsell.com/color-blog/munsell-book-of-color-1929-traditional-color-names/ https://munsell.com/color-blog/munsell-book-of-color-1929-tr... (violet is at #17).
- Gravityloss 5y agoYes, the article itself is nice but the title isn't. "Why it took us thousands of years to see the colour violet". What do you make of plums in still life paintings? I don't know if it fills the criteria for violet. https://vsemart.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Peaches-and-plums.-Jacob-van-Hulsdonck.jpg https://vsemart.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Peaches-and-p...
- CRConrad 5y agoYes yes, but still: the title is pure idiocy.