Author Topic: The $%*! frustration thread  (Read 226708 times)

V_Translanka

  • Interim Global Moderator
  • Arbiter (+8000)
  • *
  • Posts: 8327
  • Destroyer of Worlds
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/weird2/v_translanka/
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #3000 on: June 04, 2009, 05:41:18 am »
Yeah. Purple's not a color. It's actually violet. Thanks a lot, Crayola. Also, salmon is not a color. It's a fish.

Roses are red,
Violets are BLUE.
See? Violet is a flowering plant,
But it's a color TOO.

I'm not going to rhyme with 'salmon' and Seuss took 'fish'...

Shee

  • Temporal Warrior (+900)
  • *
  • Posts: 942
  • Sheeeeeeit
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #3001 on: June 04, 2009, 05:43:28 am »
If it smells like salmon, keep on jammin!!!!


Lord J Esq

  • Moon Stone J
  • Hero of Time (+5000)
  • *
  • Posts: 5460
  • ^_^ "Ayla teach at college level!!"
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #3002 on: June 04, 2009, 07:28:41 am »
If you want delish, try potato knish!!!!

Thought

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3426
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #3003 on: June 04, 2009, 10:32:14 am »
Yeah. Purple's not a color. It's actually violet. Thanks a lot, Crayola. Also, salmon is not a color. It's a fish.

Are you sure? I've always heard that purple is derived from the shellfish the ancient Mediterranean’s used to dye fabric the color commonly associated with it. The rarity of the color made it associated with the well-to-do, which in turn lead to the behavior of uppity upstarts sewing patches of purple cloth onto non-purple clothing to appear to be of a higher social rank. That in turn led to the coining of the term Purple Prose.

Oh crap, we were trying to ryhm, weren't we?
Um... ... ... ... damn.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2009, 11:11:18 am by Thought »

Mr Bekkler

  • Bounty Hunter
  • Zurvan Surfer (+2500)
  • *
  • Posts: 2699
  • So it goes.
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #3004 on: June 04, 2009, 10:54:14 am »
Look at a color wheel. My words are straight from art classes (more than one and they all say the same thing). Except the Crayola thing, that was a joke about using random object names as color names.



« Last Edit: June 04, 2009, 10:55:58 am by Mr Bekkler »

Thought

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3426
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #3005 on: June 04, 2009, 11:35:41 am »
And the word "purple" really is derived from the Greek word "porphyra" which was used to describe the dye produced from certain shellfish (the dye being called "Tyre purple," I think). Admittedly, I'm not an etymologyst, but it appears that "purple" was used to describe a color of the “violet”-persuasion long before the word violet arose.

Though further investigation, via wikipedia, seems to indicate that violet isn't purple at all, nor is purple violet, as the colors are produced through different means (violet being a spectral color whereas purple can only be produced by mixing colors of the red/blue variety).

So it would seem to depend on who you are talking to if purple is a color or not. Historian would probably say it is, artisans would probably say it’s really violet, and physicist would probably say it varies by one's defintion of "color".

Mr Bekkler

  • Bounty Hunter
  • Zurvan Surfer (+2500)
  • *
  • Posts: 2699
  • So it goes.
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #3006 on: June 04, 2009, 12:06:51 pm »
In art it's violet.

Even high school art classes teach this. I don't get what's so difficult.

If you really want to go to Wikipedia...
This is from the "purple" article
Quote
Violet is a spectral color (approximately 380-420 nm), of a shorter wavelength than blue, while purple is a combination of red and blue or violet light.[7] The purples are colors that are not spectral colors – purples are extra-spectral colors. In fact, purple was not present on Newton's color wheel (which went directly from violet to red), though it is on modern ones, between red and violet. There is no such thing as the "wavelength of purple light"; it only exists as a combination.[

Edit: I'm done talking about this. If you don't believe me, fine. Take an art class. Any art class, but preferrably color theory. Ask your teacher/professor about the color purple. Proceed to get smacked in the face.

« Last Edit: June 04, 2009, 02:29:24 pm by Mr Bekkler »

Thought

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3426
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #3007 on: June 04, 2009, 12:48:42 pm »
The point being, while it is valid to call purple "violet" in "art," that is not an end-all be-all definition. That is all I'm doing; pointing out that while that is an accurate statement, it isn't an absolute or objectively true statement. Other perspectives are not only possible, they are reasonable and supportable. My concern isn't over "colors" or "art" but the conflation of a simplistic representation of reality with the reality itself.

Which gets to an underlying frustration I have: the assumption that one subjective perspective is the only valid perspective. Color just happens to be the guise under which this happened today.

IAmSerge

  • Temporal Warrior (+900)
  • *
  • Posts: 964
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #3008 on: June 04, 2009, 01:11:34 pm »
you guys forgot indigo!

...which is just another name for a wierd blue. ugh.

Thought

  • Guru of Time Emeritus
  • God of War (+3000)
  • *
  • Posts: 3426
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #3009 on: June 04, 2009, 01:19:57 pm »
you guys forgot indigo!

...which is just another name for a wierd blue. ugh.

Huh, I thought that was a guy with a grudge against a six-fingered man...

wait, that's Inigo! sorry ;)

IAmSerge

  • Temporal Warrior (+900)
  • *
  • Posts: 964
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #3010 on: June 04, 2009, 01:22:00 pm »
you guys forgot indigo!

...which is just another name for a wierd blue. ugh.

Huh, I thought that was a guy with a grudge against a six-fingered man...

wait, that's Inigo! sorry ;)

haha, The princess bride (methinks?), nice reference!

KebreI

  • Errare Explorer (+1500)
  • *
  • Posts: 1607
  • A true man never dies, even when he's killed
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #3011 on: June 04, 2009, 02:22:24 pm »
And then there color blind people like me and just see it all was blue.

Mr Bekkler

  • Bounty Hunter
  • Zurvan Surfer (+2500)
  • *
  • Posts: 2699
  • So it goes.
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #3012 on: June 04, 2009, 02:24:41 pm »
The point being, while it is valid to call purple "violet" in "art," that is not an end-all be-all definition. That is all I'm doing; pointing out that while that is an accurate statement, it isn't an absolute or objectively true statement. Other perspectives are not only possible, they are reasonable and supportable. My concern isn't over "colors" or "art" but the conflation of a simplistic representation of reality with the reality itself.

Which gets to an underlying frustration I have: the assumption that one subjective perspective is the only valid perspective. Color just happens to be the guise under which this happened today.

I never said I only use the term "violet" and never say "purple".

Violet is the proper term when you're in art school, like I said in the first post I made about this. Jesus.

It's not the end-all be-all, and it's not a generalization. It's a specific place and setting with specific terminology. Color is not a guise under which anything happened today, except misunderstanding intent. I'm not generalizing, I'm specifying.



It's like, when you ask a normal person when the Declaration of Independence was signed, they'll say July 4th. When you ask a historian, they'll say, that's a generalization. Specifically, different people signed different days, and most of them signed in August.
Or Columbus was the first person who discovered America. No. It was Vikings who got here "first". Unless you count people who aren't white, in which case it was the Native Americans who migrated from a land bridge between Canada/Alaska area and Russia that is now covered in water.

But the generalized answer remains the public view.

V_Translanka

  • Interim Global Moderator
  • Arbiter (+8000)
  • *
  • Posts: 8327
  • Destroyer of Worlds
    • View Profile
    • http://www.angelfire.com/weird2/v_translanka/
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #3013 on: June 04, 2009, 03:27:17 pm »
In every art class I had no one called it violet. I think violet is a more random object for color word than purple. Plus, how do you give a violet-nurple? That doesn't even rhyme! Maybe it's a regional thing, Bekkler...? I barely even believe in colors, so w/e...

teaflower

  • Radical Dreamer (+2000)
  • *
  • Posts: 2103
  • Dreams are the gateway to reality.
    • View Profile
Re: The $%*! frustration thread
« Reply #3014 on: June 04, 2009, 04:20:27 pm »
you guys forgot indigo!

...which is just another name for a wierd blue. ugh.

Huh, I thought that was a guy with a grudge against a six-fingered man...

wait, that's Inigo! sorry ;)
Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die. I'll make sure to put that six fingered man to the pain when we fight, though! So long as he isn't Sicilian. You don't play logic games with a Sicilian when death is on the line!

Okay, done with the Princess Bride jokes. I have taken to taking cans in my room and ripping them apart with a pair of tweezers. Last night, while doing so, one of the pieces of can cut open my finger. It's probably going to get infected, no matter how much I clean it... ugh.