4 ms·
Yes, this is how I interpreted it. Arguably before the 20th century we had few commonplace references for most of the hues we've now named at all. Plus, most of
by PittleyDunkin 2y ago
Yes, this is how I interpreted it. Arguably before the 20th century we had few commonplace references for most of the hues we've now named at all. Plus, most of the references we do have are often localized regionally and linguistically to people who recognize the term. The constant colors—things like "blood" and "dark" and "bright-white"—are actually pretty rare. Even the sun, the sky, the ocean, earth etc are capable of producing far too many hues to reliably use as a reference point, and often different hues in different place. Which is not so say that it's not very poetic when it works!
- throwup238 2y agoThe funny thing is we've now drifted to the other extreme. A bunch of RGB colors were named after pigments like vermillion or international klein blue that fall outside of the RGB/CMYK color spaces rendered by monitors and print (humans can see significantly more shades than either can reproduce), so now common parlance has compressed the world of color into the narrow band supported by modern technology.