When the idea of whitescapes is first introduced I understood the concept, but then found issue when it was put into practice. I can see how a color can change based on the scale and the lighting that it is under. We see things differently when it is displayed differently. However, when Odili led the demonstration with the three different types of whites I found it less amusing. It almost seemed forced in my opinion. He compared the whites and started reassigning with these colors that were totally abstract from what was being shown. I could recognize that there was a difference in the three white pieces, but I did not see a pink and blue when I compared them. He said that the use of the word "white" itself was confusing because there are so many different colors that things really are and we just make ourselves to believe that they are white. To be truly accurate we must identify colors and call them by their true name.
I can appreciate Odili and many artists area of expertise but in my opinion this level of detail is only really useful and relevant to a handful of people. Depending on the context and use, being able to decipher between the different colors of white in a painting or canvas is not a skill or discrepancy that most people care to acknowledge. If my brain has been morphed to believe that all white is created equal then so be it. I don't see how that makes my life or my experience any less meaningful. I think our brains subconsciously does the distinction for us. For example, if I go to buy a car and the salesman shows me two different styles and tells me that both are white. I might be able to tell that the two whites are not the same, and I will pick the white that I prefer. In that case, I can see where the distinction is necessary, but between this piece of paper and the next is less needed in my opinion.
No comments:
Post a Comment