Color, with its infinity of relations, is baffling; its finer harmonies,
like those of music, can be grasped by the appreciations only, not by
reasoning or analysis. Color, in art, is a subject not well understood as
yet, and there are violent differences of opinion among artists, teachers
and critics, as to what constitutes good color‐instruction. The most that
I can do here is to outline a simple method of study. The usual advice of
the academic painter to “keep trying,” is discouraging to the beginner and
increases his confusion; it is not in accord with good sense either, for
the other arts are not attacked through timid and aimless experiment. An
artist may say that a certain group of colors is a harmony; the pupil
cannot see it, but he takes the master’s word for it. The artist is not
teaching successfully unless he points the way to appreciation, however
hard or long it may be.
A systematic study of line and tone is very profitable, as we have seen; I
believe that color may be approached in like manner, and I shall attempt
now to relate the treatment of the color‐element (chapter I) to that of
the other two, and to give some results of personal experience.
Those who have but little time for work in color, can spend it best in
copying, under guidance, examples of acknowledged excellence, like
Japanese prints, Oriental rugs, and reproductions of masterpieces. Contact
with these, even looking at them (if the pupil is taught what to look
for), will strengthen the powers of color perception. In schools where the
art periods are short and few, this may be the only method possible. (See
p. 13 and chap. XVI.) For those who intend to use color in creative work a
certain amount of theory is indispensable, as it simplifies the subject
and opens up a few definite lines of research. The word “theory” has
become a kind of academic bugbear, yet Leonardo da Vinci said that the
painter who works without a theory is like the sailor who goes to sea
without a compass. Well‐ordered thought is as necessary in art as in any
other field. Theory is a help to clear thinking and gives direction and
purpose to practice. Color, however complicated, may be reduced to three
simple elements:
HUE,—as yellow, blue‐green,
NOTAN (or Value),—as dark red, light red,
INTENSITY (or Bright‐to‐gray‐ness)—as intense blue, dull blue.
Color harmony depends upon adjustments in this three‐fold nature. If a
color‐scheme is discordant, the fault may be discovered in,—wrong
selection of hues or weak values, or ill‐matched intensities, or all
three. This simple classification reduces the perplexities that beset the
student, by showing him where to look for the cause of failure. The words
“Value” and “Chroma” are used in this connection by Albert H. Munsell, to
whose book “A Color Notation” the reader is referred for a very convincing
exposition of color theory.
Mr. Munsell has invented a photometer to measure values of light and
color, and has prepared scales, spheres, charts and pigments for school
use. My own experiments in making circles of hues and scales of notan and
intensities, were based upon the old theory—Red, Blue and Yellow as
primaries, Green, Orange and Violet as secondaries, etc. At that time
(1890) the progression from bright to gray was not recognized as a
distinct element of color, but in art‐educational works difference of
intensity was confused with dark‐and‐light; spectra for school use
contained hues in violent contrast as to brilliancy and value.
Science determined long since that the fundamental color impressions are
not red, blue and yellow, but Red, Green and Violet‐blue. Mr. Munsell
adopts these and two secondaries, Yellow and Purple—five hues in all—as
the basis of all color expression in art. This seems very simple and quite
sufficient for working out all problems in color scheming. Note.
Experiments as outlined below, are intended only to set the student
thinking, in an orderly way, about the three dimensions of color.
[Dimensions of Color]