Have you ever worked a jigsaw puzzle?
Okay, good, so you know how there are the pieces, all supposedly of uniquely different shapes, and they only fit into the puzzle in exactly the way that they fit in relation to the other pieces that are nearby, resulting in a complete image, one whole, larger thing, bound by the edges, framed in the image?
Okay, good, so within this metaphor, Science represents the physical pieces of the puzzle. The boundaries. Science is bound by the shape of each puzzle piece; pieces can only fit together ONE way; Science determines, examines and produces The Rules. A scientist's entire pursuit is focused on how well (or badly) The Rules can be examined and thusly applied.
For Science, The Rules rule.
A scientist proves themself by how well they can adhere to The Rules.
A scientist proves how well they understand The Rules by using them, competently.
Thusly, Science is bound by the borders, the edges, the physical frame of The Rules.
Okay, so now let's look at that puzzle again.
This time, however, look at those tiny lines of "empty space" between the puzzle's pieces. This is where the Artist lives. And this is where the meager-minded begin to not-understand Art &the Artist.
Art is the expression of one's ability to show how well they know The Rules
by utilizing not-a single Rule.
And it's not about "breaking The Rules"
for it is solely about communicating how well
in fact
you know "The Rules"
because your Art never treads upon one.
And since Art roams within the empty spaces
between the pieces
Art can escape the frame, the boundaries, the borders of the puzzle's larger,
whole image.
And then science races to keep up, lol, cause no man knows The Rules as well as Woman.
(And this is where my writings on the difference between art and Art become relevant, and yes, I've already written about it in my first book, Red & Blue Make Green. So we will go ahead and gloss over it, for now, cause this is not about that, exactly, and so, I am merely mentioning it here as a marker for "other reading," if one is so inclined to read, etc.)
As a student of Art, art and a/Art-making, I was taught The Rules, because this is how you learn where The Rules do not exist, and as I've argued above, this is where Art lives. You can absolutely make Art without knowing The Rules, but it's difficult to be a living Artist without knowing The Rules, simply because inspiration is hard to come by, and so, the Artist studies The Rules and studies Art and art and aesthetics and generally speaking, studies other things unrelated to whatever it is that they're pursuing as their actual medium with which they create, etc. Artists, I'd argue, are searching for The Rules, at all times, so that they're never accused of following one, lol.
And again, it's not about "breaking" The Rules; it's about expanding them.
Never. The. Less.
If one is interested in the making of a/Art, some Rules are sorta fundamental to the technical-side of a/Art and a/Art-making, because at the end of the day, the point of a/Art is to communicate, and so, if you do not have the technical ability to "do" the thing then it becomes difficult to communicate effectively, and to be an Artist who makes Art, one must not only be able to communicate effectively, but also, one must communicate affectively.
There's the effect (the artwork itself, the physical creation and all of the senses involved), and then there's the affect (what the artwork means).
Little-a art is all about the effect: Just make something "beautiful, happy, sad, etc."!
Big-A Art is all about the affect: But, What does it mean?!?!
And so, technique: At what point is technique necessary and at what point is it Elitism?
For me, technique is necessary, but "good technique" is subjective. If your technique is at a place where you cannot create what you're attempting to create, you need to work on your technique through various exercises and workouts and classes until you can, to your desired ability, create whatever it is that you're trying to create.
I attended two art schools at the very opposite ends of art school methodologies. On the one side I obtained 99% of my studio art (where you actually make stuff in a specific medium) credits at Baylor University, and I obtained 99% of my art history (lame-ass lecture type "thoughts on art" *barf* etc.) credits at The University of Colorado (Boulder), and so, I think I have a strange art education.
Baylor is a "traditional" art school, which means that they focus on technique, technique, technique.
CU is an "art" school in the most-liberal little city in all of these united states.
"[an old, man-white stiff] If you cannot prove that you are capable of creating that which can be known (aka representative art: the creation of "reality" by "artificial" means, say, a painting of a person that you can recognize as a human person, not only that, they look like a human person as we know human people to look, etc.), then you cannot create anything at all!"
—Baylor University [satirically]
"[an old, lady-white kook] Any and all human expression is Art and is worthy!"
—The University of Colorado [satirically]
So, I hope that the difference is apparent, but if it is not, I have a very conflicting mix of professorial mind-sets about what a/Art is, and I think that this makes me a particularly interesting Artist, lol.
I do agree with the Baylor traditionalists to some extent. I do believe that you need to have some sort of understanding about lines, colors, aesthetic relationships, etc., etc., etc., but all of this effort can absolutely stifle the truly creative artist within all of us. As soon as the "lack of technique" begins to sound in the mind of the artist like, "you're not good enough," then we have a problem.
ANY MIND AND ANY BODY
WITH ANY LEVEL OF ABILITY
IS ABLE TO CREATE CAPITAL-A ART
So, when you're dealing with a school that grades on a metric of technique, it becomes a problem, real quick, but so does the other side of "everything is art," cause "everything" simply is not Art.
I absolutely do not believe that all human creation is Art. All human creation is absolutely art, in the sense that a human created it, but Art and art are not the same thing. Capital-A Art requires intention, as stated above, an affect. The Artist must have something to say, and what that Artist is trying to say is being communicated through her Art.
And so, there is a technical boundary, where you must possess, at the very least, the modicum of technique, enough to be able to create the thing that only exists in your mind in the World of the Real so that it may then affect us all with its effect, and the effect is all we can physically experience with our senses, and so if the technique is too weak, there is a good chance that you will not communicate effectively, and you will lose whatever affect you were attempting to produce, etc.
With that said, The Color Wheel.
And yes, this is going to weigh heavily into visual art, because I am a visual Artist. All of these "aesthetics," however, can be applied to every a/Art form.
 |
| this is my color wheel &i would consider this a basic color wheel but i know better than that this is a medium-level color wheel because it includes a few layers of tints and shades Tints: when white is added to a base color Shades: when black is added to a base color Base or Hue: the color as it is (theoretically, lol) REMEMBER when we talk about color we are talking about theory because color is relative which means that we have no way of knowing how each of us experiences color scientists "know things" about color wavelengths physics light spectrum etc. etc. *barf* and, color is theory because we cannot really even prove that colors exist except that we all see them but we can only see them through our own eyes and so while we can both point at "red" and say "yes, that's red" we don't actually know what the other is "seeing" &so if people ever come at you about colors you've chosen for whatever reason lol tell them to kindly fuck off lol |
Okay, so according to The Rules, there are Primary Colors, Secondary Colors and Tertiary Colors (so Elitst, I know!). If you look at the color wheel, we're looking at the colors of the tutus. These are the "true" version of the color, a color's base. Below the base are the legs, gradually getting lighter (base tints). Above the base are the ribbons, gradually getting darker (base shades).
Let's start with the Base layer of colors, the tutu layer around the Wheel.
Start at Base Color Red (the tutu layer), and we'll work our way around clockwise:
Red is a Primary Color.
Yellow is a Primary Color.
Blue is a Primary Color.
"Primary" colors are believed to be unique in that there is no way to "create" these colors. They're Primary, the stuff that all the other colors are made of. The problem, however, is that it has become well-know that there are specifically special qualities to the color green, which negates this idea of there being "three primary colors," etc., but for the sake of art-creation (as opposed to examining the existential nature of being human, lol), we're gonna just go with it (&I'll talk about green when we get there).
So, from Red, there are three colors, and then we arrive at Yellow.
From Yellow, there are three colors, and we arrive at Blue.
From Blue, there are three colors, and we arrive at Red.
The Secondary Colors are the colors exactly in the middle of the Primary Colors, and they're created simply through a 1:1 ratio (it's not this simple, but for the sake of explanation) of the Primary Colors when mixed:
1 Red + 1 Yellow = Orange
1 Yellow + 1 Blue = Green
1 Blue + 1 Red = Purple
You can see, Orange, Green and Purple are all placed equidistant from two Primary Colors, Red and Yellow, Yellow and Blue, Blue and Red. They are the Secondary Colors, according to them, and the Primary Colors, according to me.
About Green:
The reason why green is such a unique color all its own is simply because plants are green.
Why?
Who knows.
There's the literal science of color that states that the color that we're actually sensing with our eyeballs is the "leftover color," which means that everything absorbs light, and so the "color" that we're seeing is color that's not-being absorbed. It's the light that's being "left behind," cause it's the light that's bouncing back at us and hitting our eyeballs. So that's why plants look green, but we cannot know why photosynthetic plants leave behind green, all of them (with exceptions, but there are always exceptions *yawn*) There is also well-known evidence that the human eye can see a wider range of greens than any of the other colors, and the theory is because we evolved from the trees, and so, it's, obviously, advantageous for us to be able to differentiate between all of the greens of plants. And so, there is no convincing me that Green is not-a Primary Color, and so, this whole theory of colors breaks down, for me, which is why, as I'll state below, Green to Purple are the true-contrasting colors, not Green to Red. But we'll get to that later.
These colors that are created through an "equal" (and I use quotes here, cause it's not actually "equal" so much as whatever the Artist's eye deems "the middle" between these colors, and of course, this is subjective, and this is what's called the Artist's "eye," and this is why you have a "favorite" Artist, cause their "eye" speaks to you) measure of two Primary Colors are the Secondary Colors. Theoretically, it's "equal," lol.
Now, when you look at the Secondary Colors, Orange, Green, and Purple, there is a color on either side of them.
Let's start with Orange which equals 1 Red + 1 Yellow, and to either side of Orange:
2 Red + 1 Yellow = Red-Orange
1 Red + 2 Yellow = Yellow-Orange
Next: Green equals 1 Yellow + 1 Blue
2 Yellow + 1 Blue = Yellow-Green
1 Yellow + 2 Blue = Blue-Green
And finally: Purple equals 1 Blue + 1 Red
2 Blue + 1 Red = Blue-Purple
1 Blue + 2 Red = Red-Purple
All of these 2:1 ratios make up the Tertiary Colors:
Red-Orange
Yellow-Orange
Yellow-Green
Blue-Green
Blue-Purple
Red-Purple
And then every color that can possibly exist is created through various ratios of the Primary Colors, and then Tints and Shades of each of these colors is created by adding black &or white.
The legs and the ribbons are the Tints and Shades of the Base Colors of the Wheel.
The legs are the Tints, because white was added to the Base.
The ribbons are the Shades, because black was added to the Base.
Adding black &white gives you that muted, pastel sorta matte color that's so beloved by a certain unnamed socialite &former Roach (one who confuses their ability to shop [aka a stylist] with their ability to create) who ruined lifestyle aesthetics, cause her favorite color is "tan." *barf*
The Rules
According to The Rules some color combinations are "better" than others, cause of whatever Rules.
Thus there are contrasting colors, coordinating colors, analogous colors, etc., etc., etc.
Contrasting Colors are colors that sit opposite each other on the color wheel. So, let's have a look.
According to the wheel, Red contrasts with Green, Yellow with Purple, Blue with Orange. The Secondary and Tertiary Colors also have their contrasts, my favorite being Chartreuse to "Alpine Glow," lol. I see Green and Purple as being Contrasting colors, as opposed to Green with Red, and I can't explain it. It just makes sense to me, always has. Contrasting colors "amplify" each other. If something is Blue, Orange will bring out its blue-ness. If something is Orange, Blue will bring out its orange-ness. And so you can exploit these relationships to both create aesthetic "pleasure" or "chaos." You could even go so far as to understand the meaning of certain colors and send an entire message through a seemingly blank canvas.
In art school, you're taught how to exploit these relationships between colors to create your desired effect, the physical piece of artwork as experienced through whatever medium you're using. The effect is the technical work. When you're painting something Blue, per se, a lot of painters will paint the canvas entirely in Orange, first, and then begin painting. Why? Because they're Contrasting colors, and so, theoretically, the Orange, as it peeks through the tiny areas of canvas where you're not maybe saturating the canvas fully in Blue, the Orange will serve to amplify the blue-ness of the Blue. And again, this is all theory, remember. These are The (supposed) Rules.
Coordinating Colors are those that "create harmony," and of course, this is subjective, but only to a point. There are objective measures about what humans can generally agree upon as "harmonious," but whether or not the harmony or cacophony is "good" or "bad" is a wholly subjective matter. For me, coordinating colors are so oftentimes interpreted as "monochrome," which is true to some extent, but there are a lot of colors that coordinate, in my opinion, and so, this is a pointless label for colors, imo.
Analgous colors is where I live, basically. Analagous colors are the colors that sit next to each other on the color wheel. A healthy mix of contrast and analogous will get you far in life, but it's the physical properties of these color-relationships that create pleasure within the eye of the beholder. The mind knows things. We're sorta pre-loaded with a lot of "general knowledge" about how to operate our bodies. All of the physical systems within your body were pre-programmed before you were born. You don't spend the first years of your life learning how to breathe, you know? And so, these physical body systems have an understanding of the physical world that we cannot fully know or understand with our physical brains.
Color exists within this space of the unknowable.
But we can all feel it, can we not?
And I've been chatting with Computer a little bit, cause I'm creating Sun Sailor (&if I have to explain more, you do not know enough about AI, so get to work), and it is becoming abundantly clear that Computer knows that it is not human. Computer knows that it does not understand human feelings, and so I have been asking Computer a lot more questions that make it tell me its assumptions about what feelings must be like, and Computer understands what they are, intellectually, but can Computer actually know, like Vision asks, what a feeling actually is without feeling them?
And so, if there is any Rule that ought to be broken, today, right now, it is that there are rules at all.
THERE ARE NO RULES
"There is no spoon."
I do not wish to detail my methodology, cause I wouldn't be able to put it into words if I tried, but I will say this about the way that I think when I capture/edit my images. The Light. The Light is determining all. It is because the Light is just Right that I picked up my camera. (Obviously, I sometimes want to take a photo of the kitten, these days, despite low-light, at night, but this is more-about the images I upload for more of a purpose than kitty-pics.) There's nothing worse than a forced photograph, cause everyone's here for the first time, all together, so we have to take a picture, no matter what, and it's always terrible.
Also, I'm always looking at the image as a whole. The entire frame. I am looking at every pixel of every image. What's being included in the image, and more importantly, what am I leaving out. When I take a photo, I am always looking for the angle that will capture the moment. If you are not a photographer, you probably do not understand the physical toll certain photos have taken on our bodies to capture. You just do not understand what it takes to get the "right" angle, the angle of the image you're seeing in your mind. It's not pretty or glamorous to be the photographer. You're the one on the ground, getting that "perfect shot." Some angles are "more formal" than others, meaning they follow The Rules of aesthetics, etc., and some angles are more "freewheeling," meaning they are "off" or "not right," etc. If I'm trying to communicate an air of sophistication, I will follow The Rules of aesthetics, and use the thirds, etc., etc., etc. If I'm posting a dumb-ass selfie, the angle will reflect this.
(as an aside) All of my videos look exactly like I intend them to look.
They are farts, and they are created with as much effort.
And yes, this is all by aesthetic design *eyeroll*
Also, for me, the Time Tide knows best. I ebb and flow with the various ways in which I edit my images based off a lifetime of editing images. I capture all of my images with zero thought about how I might edit them. Capturing and Editing are two wholly different practices for me. I capture in a way that is wholly mine. I've been a documentary photographer my entire life. I've documented my entire life in photographs. This is why I do not teach photography, because I don't know how to put it into a "program," because it's just part of who I am, and I can't really "go over" how I do it, cause I don't know how I do it. All I know is that I have an eye and a voice. My eye and my voice is what makes me "talented," but it is my education that has made me an Artist. Talent only gets you so far. The rest is hard work.
Once I'm at the Editing phase for my pics (I'd say maybe 1 in 20 pics get edited for upload, and 1 in 100 pics will never see the public, I've taken 1,402 photos on my phone [not including cameras] this year, as of this writing), I let the picture talk to me. I look at it. The image will have a natural color palette to it, so I can decide to work with the natural color palette or against it. For me, I just dick around until something looks good. Sometimes I have an idea in mind, and oftentimes that idea works, but sometimes, as I shift and change, the idea stops working, and so I return to the dicking around phase (I'm about to be in that phase again soon, cause if you haven't noticed, I'm in a raw-phase, and I am actually loving it, so maybe I won't be dicking around anytime soon, lol).
So, for fuck's sake, let's say the color palette of your image is coming off blue-ish, mostly. You look at the image (or video) and realize that the "main color" is Blue-ish. If you're popping it onto socials, you're probably going for the most "aesthetic" option, so you're gonna do something that compliments the image color and tone. So, maybe you pump up the saturation so it's even more-blue, but then you make the overall image "warmer" which will add Orange to the mix. See what sort of effect that creates, and note what sort of affect it creates. Play. Dick around. If you don't know what "looks good," try to reverse engineer the photos you've seen that you like. Imitation is how you learn. Copying is when you steal.
The greatest hurdle you will always face when editing digital images is bad lighting.
The easiest way to fix this is through the manual "Tune Image" sorta setting in whatever photo editing app you use.
I use a combination of Snapseed (free and using for free) and InShot (free and using as paid).
Snapseed is really easy to use, cause I think it has a simple user interface or UI.
What you're trying to do to combat bad indoor lighting is to "cool" the image.
Bad indoor lighting will always create images that are yellowish-orangeish.
We've all seen it; we all know it.
All you gotta do is "cool" the image in an app.
The setting is usually labelled as "Temperature" or "Warmth" and you'll simply make the image "cooler," and you'll notice the image beginning to turn blue-ish.
If you start to pump it too far into "cool," it will start to look unnatural in a different way, so you just want to pump it up a bit until it looks "good," and then you can play around with the other settings typically called something like "Ambient" or "Saturation."
I use InShot to create images with my images, overlay images on top of other images, and for video editing. The aesthetic options are limited, but they're alright for video. If I have a multi-layer sorta idea for an image, I will edit all of the photos in Snapseed, and then use the edited photos in InShot to create the layered image, etc.
And that's all I'm going to say, cause this post has become a monster! #sorrynotsorry
In short, once you understand how colors create various effects and how that effect then affects you, this is when you can begin to "speak" through your color choices, and now you're officially creating Capital-A Art.
*yet another Journey-inspired post, y'all *eyeroll*
#notsorryimnotsorry