Thanks for entertaining my struggle. I get it now.
When I referred to itten as “normal” I was making reference to its prevalence (which seems to be something that peeves you, given it’s inaccuracy), but I think it’s so prevalent because it’s so damn simple. I had to read and re-read your posts and look at your graphics in order to understand what the various layers were signifying, but the flat itten wheel is easy as pie to comprehend to the point that it’s taught to children in preschool. I’ve never really needed any more depth of understanding in my day to day life since then.
Like many models, the simplest are often very inaccurate on a technical level. As a layman the difference between indigo and violet and purple and blue green or whatever are unremarkable in most cases, so the slight yet important difference of which is across from yellow on the wheel doesn’t seem significant, until you showed an example of how they mix.
I can see why it bugs you if you have experience in a field that uses color theory as part of its toolkit. For me I’ve always just needed to know the bare minimum of RGB vs CMYK or whatever.
What would you prefer to see, that there’s just better education about colors once people are old enough to get some more nuance?
That is true, and I get that it should be simple for children. But that doesn’t mean that the foundation has to be incorrect.
Just using the simplified version of a correct layout like I showed you should be the way to go in this case.
Of course, most people won’t need to know what’s colorsystems there are. Itten is none of the less still teached by artschools even though it is this incorrect simplified version of a color space. At that advanced stage, there is no need to stick to a simplified version, let alone a one that doesn’t lead to correct results.
Ittens model is just a remnant of its time. And it keeps being shared because of that simplification. But hey, that how history sometimes goes.
Thanks for entertaining my struggle. I get it now.
When I referred to itten as “normal” I was making reference to its prevalence (which seems to be something that peeves you, given it’s inaccuracy), but I think it’s so prevalent because it’s so damn simple. I had to read and re-read your posts and look at your graphics in order to understand what the various layers were signifying, but the flat itten wheel is easy as pie to comprehend to the point that it’s taught to children in preschool. I’ve never really needed any more depth of understanding in my day to day life since then.
Like many models, the simplest are often very inaccurate on a technical level. As a layman the difference between indigo and violet and purple and blue green or whatever are unremarkable in most cases, so the slight yet important difference of which is across from yellow on the wheel doesn’t seem significant, until you showed an example of how they mix.
I can see why it bugs you if you have experience in a field that uses color theory as part of its toolkit. For me I’ve always just needed to know the bare minimum of RGB vs CMYK or whatever.
What would you prefer to see, that there’s just better education about colors once people are old enough to get some more nuance?
Glad I could help.
That is true, and I get that it should be simple for children. But that doesn’t mean that the foundation has to be incorrect.
Just using the simplified version of a correct layout like I showed you should be the way to go in this case.
Of course, most people won’t need to know what’s colorsystems there are. Itten is none of the less still teached by artschools even though it is this incorrect simplified version of a color space. At that advanced stage, there is no need to stick to a simplified version, let alone a one that doesn’t lead to correct results.
Ittens model is just a remnant of its time. And it keeps being shared because of that simplification. But hey, that how history sometimes goes.