There's a fair bit of interesting history there which is worth reading, but there's perhaps kind of an implication that the science of optics starts and ends with Newton, and that colour is treated as the only aspect of visual perception, rather than its building blocks. Yet, around the time of Goethe, Fresnel was working on moving beyong the Newtonian model of light, so the "Goethe was right […] the Newtonian view is only somewhat useful" conclusion seems two centuries out of touch.
A conversation with a 3D artist could include topics like specularity and the Fresnel effect, demonstrating that the notion that base colour alone is insufficient to describe/replicate appearance is hardly unique to antiquity. The question posed by the article could actually be turned on its head. If we showed CG images, reliant on "mathematical abstractions", that we modern folk regard as realistic, to an ancient Greek, is their way of seeing so different that they would they disagree with us?
It's an article about the ancients, and you want to argue that its point is that the science of optics starts and ends with Newton? It literally says, "By moving beyond the Newtonian model, a clearer picture of the Greek chromatic world emerges."
"In trying to see the world through Greek eyes, the Newtonian view is only somewhat useful. We need to supplement it with the Greeks’ own colour theories, and to examine the way in which they actually tried to describe their world."
No, that's not what I'm saying. I agree that notions like shininess are necessary to fully describe how things appear to us, and that we can't hope to imagine another person's perspective if we ignore their own descriptions of it. But we did move beyond the Newtonian model—hundreds of years ago—so it seemed odd to me that that would be the contrast to draw and call to make in 2017. Modern descriptions do, in fact, go beyond mere diffuse colour, as shown by the need for them in the creation of photorealistic images with computers. And the absence of those struck me.
I'm not trying to tear the article apart here, just engage with it. As I said before, I think it's worth reading for the philosophical and cultural considerations of visual perception, and for the history of pigments. It's just that it left me with the impression—one I recognise could be completely wrong—that the writer hadn't explored modern notions as fully as they could, which seemed important given that one half of the comparison is to us as modern people.
it seemed odd to me that that would be the contrast to draw and call to make in 2017
It did move beyond it. The article clearly considers other methods. I really don't know what to say here.
It seems my earlier response was eaten, so I'll be brief. Thanks for posting this essay, and thanks for encouraging me to re-read it. That helped identify the causes of my first impression. Essentially, the two Newton references in the concluding paragraph give an undue weighting, producing a framing effect that, ahem, colours my view.
simply a matter of the hellenoid skull it pushes their optic nerve causing them to see blue ocean as "wine dark"
Interesting: none of those terms have survived as basic colour terms in modern Greek.
Is it possible that ordinary Greeks not employed as poets had a slightly more utilitarian colour-term vocabulary than that?
The sources mentioned aren't all poets, but I wondered something like this too. Those ancient texts were preserved because they were extraordinary. That does have potential for issues when it comes to drawing broader inferences from them.
However, it's an ancillary concern. As I understand it, the essay's focus is on how those ancient writers placed several qualities under the label of "colour" so, if we want to interpret those properly—irrespective of whether they're representative of the wider Greek populace—we need to be aware of that and not limit our thinking when we encounter "chroa/chroiá" solely to our modern use of the label, so nothing (or, at least, less) is lost in translation.
Which sources would you recommend? I thought Aeon was good :bawllin-sad:
The language myth is a series of short eassy to read easays against the sapir worf hypotesis i found it to be very good but i aint no linguist.
In terms os this easay it would mean they saw the world the same as us but when descriving some scened they made more enfasis on texture and brigthness.
Yes thats is a good point.
Also that a word has a certain root does not mean we refer to that root when we speak it. For ecample red in persian comed from the word worm but that does not mean persians see red as worms.
