5 ms·

Antico's painting of an eucalyptus doesn't "give us a hint of the extra shades she is seeing". It's just another instance of the [El Greco fallacy](http://www.h

Antico's painting of an eucalyptus doesn't "give us a hint of the extra shades she is seeing". It's just another instance of the [El Greco fallacy](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wray-herbert/a-new-look-at-perception_b_2867621.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wray-herbert/a-new-look-at-per...): art historians used to think that El Greco's elongated figures were a result of his having a severe form of astigmatism. But, of course, if that had been the reason, he would have also seen an elongated canvass when painting, with the net result of figures painted in standard proportions. Here as well, if the tree painting was somewhow a reflection of Antico's tetrachromatism, she would have chosen colors that matched those that she sees on the eucalyptus. Such colors would be indistinguishable to us trichromats from the colors the tree does have, with the net result of a normally colored tree painting. At best, Antico is using something of a metaphor to convey her tetrachromatism. But no real insight on her vision.

jrapdx3 12y ago
I'm a printmaker (among other things), mostly making monotypes in recent years. The technique allows subtle color transitions which I deeply enjoy, and I notice particular pleasure of the visual effects of colors that range from green, yellow-green through orange and red. I've discovered that many art colleagues "don't get it", i.e., who seem not to discern the same subtleties that I appreciate. I'm beginning to think this may be due to differences in color discrimination. IOW whatever the basis for the difference I'm sure it would be measurable within limits of color vision test resolution. I don't know about the illustration in the article. Reproduction (especially reduced resolution) may very well coarsen the color so that the distinctions are run together, so no difference to see. You might want to try the on-line Farnswell-Munsell 100 test alluded to above which might be more informative.
- Schiphol 12y ago
  As far as I can see, you are helping my point (perhaps that is what you intended): suppose that you saw those subtle transitions in, say, the wood of a kitchen table, and decided to make a printing that portrayed them. Suppose, as well, that your art colleagues have less color discrimination than you, and didn't see those transitions in wood color. They would also fails to see them in your printed portrait of them. So, you would have two entities, wood and print, which would match each other in color both for you and your colleagues. It's just that the colors thus matched would be beautiful and subtle for you, boring for them.
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    Paintings don't exactly match reality. They can emphasize the details you're deliberately copying. It's very easy for a painting of a subtle effect to be less subtle. The colleagues could even use the painting to help them understand the original.
jrs99 12y ago
what about the "night vision" painting. if it's pitch black and someone has the ability to see a vase, and then remembers the vase and paints the vase green in another room brightly lit... well, they wouldn't paint a pitch black canvas and claim they can see a vase in that painting. if el greco had some kind of condition that made him see elongated figures at thirty feet away, would a small normally proportioned figure drawing two feet away really look elongated also?
- Schiphol 12y ago
  The night vision painting recovers quite a bit of the visual experiences: how shapes are arranged in space, for example. What is recovered in the multicolor eucalyptus from the tetrachromat's visual experience? El Greco usually paints figures close by. Portraits, mostly. Your question does not apply to his most famous paintings, I don't think.
- Gravityloss 12y ago
  He could paint it with night vision paint that then could look like pitch black or have some other unintended side effect for a normal viewer.
javert 12y ago
I don't agree with the logic here. Antico may see some color in the bark that I don't see---say, green. So she adds actual green paint into her painting, which, of course, I do see.
- phinnaeus 12y ago
  No, she adds some grey paint that looks green to here, but you of course, like the bark, can only see it as grey.
  - Dylan16807 12y ago
    But it turns out she doesn't have that exact pigment needed to have the same uncommon spectrum, so she uses an almost perfect match that looks green to both.
    - phinnaeus 12y ago
      Sure, that might happen.
      - andrewflnr 12y ago
        It's almost guaranteed to happen. Do you really think she has paints that can match any material in all parts of the visible spectrum? That's what you're asking for with this hypothetical "green to her, grey to us" paint. If she sees green, she's going to put down green paint. Furthermore, if to her these colors are the interesting part of the scene, it's natural that she'll exagerate them a bit. She's an artist for pity's sake, not a camera.
        fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
        > she's going to put down green paint. But what appears green to her may not appear green to a trichromat.
        12y ago
ealloc 12y ago
I think it's different: You can see the color green in multiple ways: Monochromatic light of 520nm wavelength looks green to you, but so does dicromatic light composed of a mixture of yellow (580nm) and blue (440nm). The two situations activate your 3 cone cells in the same way. When painting, you might 'see' the 520nm green in your scene, but choose paint that is a mixture of yellow and blue to recreate it since the net color looks the same to you. However, the paint will look different from the scene to someone missing (eg) red cones.: Your red cones contributed to the blue+yellow looking green to you, since the yellow paritally activates the red cones.
tcgv 12y ago
After reading your comment I thought of the following: 1) Considering that a tetrachromatic colour X is seen by regular folks as a trichromatic colour Y. Then: 2) Are all artificial representations (paint) of the tetrachromatic colour X also seen by regular folks as the trichromatic colour Y? I guess your hypothesis is true only if the answer to the above question is "yes".
clay_to_n 12y ago
Your point is valid, and while I agree there is not strong enough evidence for a causal connection, I think the idea is interesting. My mother has painted Impressionist-style oil paintings my whole life, and taught painting classes. In her classes, she always tells people to use colors that they don't see ("You need the pink on the water", etc). Once you've painted enough, you learn to realize what colors are in the scene but not quite obvious. You definitely exaggerate the colors ("hint of pink" becomes "pink streaks") while painting in this style, but it also forces you to think harder about what colors your eye actually sees. So it seems to me that impressionist-style coloring can definitely come from "faking it" (being taught it, and trying hard), but I would definitely believe it could come from tetrachromism, where those small differences stick out to you a lot. It would be fascinating to know if any early impressionists had evidence of being tetrachromatic.
- pjbrunet 12y ago
  I agree with this. Often the colors are there, that edge is warm and that edge is cool, but sometimes a shape is just not very interesting, the color isn't interacting and your job as the artist is to make everything work. Through that process you learn to see color.

jrapdx3 12y ago

I'm a printmaker (among other things), mostly making monotypes in recent years. The technique allows subtle color transitions which I deeply enjoy, and I notice particular pleasure of the visual effects of colors that range from green, yellow-green through orange and red. I've discovered that many art colleagues "don't get it", i.e., who seem not to discern the same subtleties that I appreciate. I'm beginning to think this may be due to differences in color discrimination. IOW whatever the basis for the difference I'm sure it would be measurable within limits of color vision test resolution. I don't know about the illustration in the article. Reproduction (especially reduced resolution) may very well coarsen the color so that the distinctions are run together, so no difference to see. You might want to try the on-line Farnswell-Munsell 100 test alluded to above which might be more informative.

Schiphol 12y ago
As far as I can see, you are helping my point (perhaps that is what you intended): suppose that you saw those subtle transitions in, say, the wood of a kitchen table, and decided to make a printing that portrayed them. Suppose, as well, that your art colleagues have less color discrimination than you, and didn't see those transitions in wood color. They would also fails to see them in your printed portrait of them. So, you would have two entities, wood and print, which would match each other in color both for you and your colleagues. It's just that the colors thus matched would be beautiful and subtle for you, boring for them.
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  Paintings don't exactly match reality. They can emphasize the details you're deliberately copying. It's very easy for a painting of a subtle effect to be less subtle. The colleagues could even use the painting to help them understand the original.

jrs99 12y ago

what about the "night vision" painting. if it's pitch black and someone has the ability to see a vase, and then remembers the vase and paints the vase green in another room brightly lit... well, they wouldn't paint a pitch black canvas and claim they can see a vase in that painting. if el greco had some kind of condition that made him see elongated figures at thirty feet away, would a small normally proportioned figure drawing two feet away really look elongated also?

Schiphol 12y ago
The night vision painting recovers quite a bit of the visual experiences: how shapes are arranged in space, for example. What is recovered in the multicolor eucalyptus from the tetrachromat's visual experience? El Greco usually paints figures close by. Portraits, mostly. Your question does not apply to his most famous paintings, I don't think.
Gravityloss 12y ago
He could paint it with night vision paint that then could look like pitch black or have some other unintended side effect for a normal viewer.

javert 12y ago

I don't agree with the logic here. Antico may see some color in the bark that I don't see---say, green. So she adds actual green paint into her painting, which, of course, I do see.

phinnaeus 12y ago
No, she adds some grey paint that looks green to here, but you of course, like the bark, can only see it as grey.
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  But it turns out she doesn't have that exact pigment needed to have the same uncommon spectrum, so she uses an almost perfect match that looks green to both.
  - phinnaeus 12y ago
    Sure, that might happen.
    - andrewflnr 12y ago
      It's almost guaranteed to happen. Do you really think she has paints that can match any material in all parts of the visible spectrum? That's what you're asking for with this hypothetical "green to her, grey to us" paint. If she sees green, she's going to put down green paint. Furthermore, if to her these colors are the interesting part of the scene, it's natural that she'll exagerate them a bit. She's an artist for pity's sake, not a camera.
      - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
        > she's going to put down green paint. But what appears green to her may not appear green to a trichromat.
        12y ago

ealloc 12y ago

I think it's different: You can see the color green in multiple ways: Monochromatic light of 520nm wavelength looks green to you, but so does dicromatic light composed of a mixture of yellow (580nm) and blue (440nm). The two situations activate your 3 cone cells in the same way. When painting, you might 'see' the 520nm green in your scene, but choose paint that is a mixture of yellow and blue to recreate it since the net color looks the same to you. However, the paint will look different from the scene to someone missing (eg) red cones.: Your red cones contributed to the blue+yellow looking green to you, since the yellow paritally activates the red cones.

tcgv 12y ago

After reading your comment I thought of the following: 1) Considering that a tetrachromatic colour X is seen by regular folks as a trichromatic colour Y. Then: 2) Are all artificial representations (paint) of the tetrachromatic colour X also seen by regular folks as the trichromatic colour Y? I guess your hypothesis is true only if the answer to the above question is "yes".

clay_to_n 12y ago

Your point is valid, and while I agree there is not strong enough evidence for a causal connection, I think the idea is interesting. My mother has painted Impressionist-style oil paintings my whole life, and taught painting classes. In her classes, she always tells people to use colors that they don't see ("You need the pink on the water", etc). Once you've painted enough, you learn to realize what colors are in the scene but not quite obvious. You definitely exaggerate the colors ("hint of pink" becomes "pink streaks") while painting in this style, but it also forces you to think harder about what colors your eye actually sees. So it seems to me that impressionist-style coloring can definitely come from "faking it" (being taught it, and trying hard), but I would definitely believe it could come from tetrachromism, where those small differences stick out to you a lot. It would be fascinating to know if any early impressionists had evidence of being tetrachromatic.

pjbrunet 12y ago
I agree with this. Often the colors are there, that edge is warm and that edge is cool, but sometimes a shape is just not very interesting, the color isn't interacting and your job as the artist is to make everything work. Through that process you learn to see color.