Colour Psychology

[frankenburner2]

Most of my outfit is white

I love red and black underwear.

How to read my charactor ?

If I answer this honestly, will I be clobbered by all the 'white' knights?

[MisterMatlock]

Most of my outfit is white

I love red and black underwear.

How to read my charactor ?

If I answer this honestly, will I be clobbered by all the 'white' knights?

My curiousity has been piqued... Let's hear the diagnosis...

[frankenburner2]

Most of my outfit is white

I love red and black underwear.

How to read my charactor ?

If I answer this honestly, will I be clobbered by all the 'white' knights?

My curiousity has been piqued... Let's hear the diagnosis...

Sorry, I left my ball of yarn in my other pants.

[i_love_som_tam]

You must be a real joy to invite for dinner. :roll:

Actually,he's not nearly as much fun in person as he is in 'virtual'....he scratches his balls a lot and often picks his nose...besides that..he wears black.

he's not picking his nose, he's smelling his fingers after he scratches his balls :roll:

[i_love_som_tam]

why is it that so many women wear white when aunt flo visits? do they want to project a clean and fresh image? :?

[zeusbheld]

You must be a real joy to invite for dinner. :roll:

Actually,he's not nearly as much fun in person as he is in 'virtual'....he scratches his balls a lot and often picks his nose...besides that..he wears black.

he's not picking his nose, he's smelling his fingers after he scratches his balls :roll:

no, i smell my BALLS after i scratch my FINGER.

[PeeMarc]

You must be a real joy to invite for dinner. :roll:

Actually,he's not nearly as much fun in person as he is in 'virtual'....he scratches his balls a lot and often picks his nose...besides that..he wears black.

he's not picking his nose, he's smelling his fingers after he scratches his balls :roll:

too much information :shock:

[i_love_som_tam]

You must be a real joy to invite for dinner. :roll:

Actually,he's not nearly as much fun in person as he is in 'virtual'....he scratches his balls a lot and often picks his nose...besides that..he wears black.

he's not picking his nose, he's smelling his fingers after he scratches his balls :roll:

no, i smell my BALLS after i scratch my FINGER.

impossible. you have a few too many vertabrae for that. :wink:

[zeusbheld]

there are *some* indications that *some* colors have *some* effect..."

"... it is so easily overridden by experience, circumstance, and environment.

In short, I agree with you on these 2 points.

now for the long part...

Not everything can be boiled down to definative facts and figures zues. This was never meant to be a 'scientific' discussion, so force-fitting it into that realm so that you can call it "horse-sh*t" makes no sense.

my point was "color symbolism" as far as i know CANNOT be boiled down to definitive fats and figures and therefore should not be treated as if it can. the airy-fairy chart in your OP does exactly that, and even vaguely appeals to the authority of "studies."

hmmm double checked. my grammar looks fairly reasonable. i didn't use any overblown, obscure vocabulary.

explain to me why that makes no sense?

Most of the time research into these subjects ends up, at best, with words like "tendencies", "indications" or "skews", but rarely definitive black and white answers.

which was my point, more or less.

For example, on a personal level, do you wear the same colour shirt everyday?

is that in any way relevant?

Are there colours which you avoid wearing because they dont suit you? (No, it's not a metrosexual discussion here either.)

What colour environment do you personally enjoy working in?

white (it's the cheapest paint and reflects light well), or my favorite color, or lots of wood, or unfinished concrete, or...

How do you decide these things? By some science?

no. and they might well be different from the list of color-environments *you* enjoy working in. and i doubt that my reasons would conform to the 'symbolism' in the OP.

In branding, colour does play a huge role. Companies spend millions deciding certain colours and spend even more millions maintaining global consistancy of those colours. Why? Are they dealing in horse-sh*t?

key word in branding is "consistency" is it not? is consistency more important than choosing the color correctly by what it's currently thought to symbolize?

Companies such as McDonalds and PizzaHut know very well that their use of colour maximizes their sales by stimulation. Is this airy-fairy stuff?

if it's science i'd like links to studies.

if it's not, then it's a question of a) design and consistency. do you think Starbucks chose green to symbolize 'balance'? are they lying then, or can i really expect to feel 'balanced' after a large latte or two?

In film, you know that the colour grading done in Telecine plays a huge role in the 'look' of the overall film and certain scenes. Why bother?

i don't see how that could possibly be less relevant to what *i* said...

unless your'e claiming that filmmakers do their color correction according to a trite list of color-symbols as you illustrated in your original post? as opposed to, i don't know, trying to get an overall effect, be it realism, mood, or whatever?

what's your point here?

"Color is the keyboard, the eyes are the hammer, the soul is the piano with the strings." Kandinski.

You said "...the one thing i'm confident of color-theory-wise, is that it ain't like music"

I beg to differ. I think colour CAN be like music.

you COMPLETELY missed the point of what i was saying. at no point did i say (or imply) that color does not affect emotions. or that some combinations of colors are more effective than others... what i ACTUALLY said was:

"how a color is perceived is strongly affected by the color next to it or surrounding it, especially if the color in question is close to neutral. " in other words, COLORS CHANGE DEPENDING ON WHAT COLOR(S) YOU SURROUND THEM WITH. don't believe it? try it for yourself. get a copy of Josef Albers' Interaction of Color and do the exercises.

does an A flat change when you put it next to a B natural? i'm no musician but i doubt it.

but hey, feel free to quote me out-of-context anyway,makes for better straw men.

Colour 'theories' and trying to force it into a set of rules or science is where it all can go horribly wrong.

hmmmm...

sounds a lot closer to agreeing with "in short, color symbolism is airy-fairy-touchy-feely horseshit because it is so easily overridden by experience, circumstance, and environment," than disagreeing. or did i miss something?

perhaps you don't percieve the guidelines in your OP as "a set of rules"? well, i do. and pseudoscientific, airy-fairy rules at that. thus my reaction.

But then, trying to make music by some 'system' or set of rules doesn't really work too well either.

worked out alright for Webern and Schoenberg, but i suspect it had more to do with them being Webern and Schoenberg than the system or set of rules. (which will shortly bring us back to ol' Wassily K).

As i said originally in this post, I just put THIS particular set of colour attributes here to stimulate discussion. That is all.

is this not discussion? if it is, seems to have succeeded then. if not, not.

BTW Sybian, I happen to enjoy Kandinski's work, particularly his early paintings. I never really went much for his later Bauhaus stuff. But that's just my personal taste.

s far as his theories on colour goes, his is one of hundreds done over the years.

They are ALL 'indications' and nothing much more.

my point had NOTHING to do with whether ol' Wassily was a good painter. or whether his work on color symbolism/form symbolism was substantial (it was, in my opinion, and i said as much in my first post).

*my* point was, Kandinsky's theory of color works.... if and only if, you want your color to look like Kandinsky's. if you want your approach to color to be your own, you'll have to work it out for yourself, not follow some airy-fairy psuedoscientific symbolic guidelines.

and what if Kandinsky thought his assessment of color symbolism was universal? WHO CARES? he was a painter, not a scientist. as long as he paints well, whether he's right or wrong about everything else is irrelevant.

[zeusbheld]

You must be a real joy to invite for dinner. :roll:

Actually,he's not nearly as much fun in person as he is in 'virtual'....he scratches his balls a lot and often picks his nose...besides that..he wears black.

ah... yes....the picture is complete and suspicions confirmed (especially about the nose picking. My dad used to say: "Son, that'll make your head cave in if you keep doing that.")

i don't know if it made your head cave in, but it seems to have affected your ability to read. hasn't slowed you down from attributing all sorts of claims to me that i never made, though. positive effect on imagination, maybe?

keep up the work.

[i_love_som_tam]

now for the long part...

[

waiting for the long part on the vertebrae and aunt flo issues :wink:

[PeeMarc]

Many different studies have been done on how colour affects us. Here is a sample on one of them.

What do you think?:

Zues, this was the original proposition. I'm sorry mate. i am just too tired and distracted today to deal with semantics and who said what and where.

I got it. You think it's horse-****.

next.

[frankenburner2]

there are *some* indications that *some* colors have *some* effect..."

"... it is so easily overridden by experience, circumstance, and environment.

In short, I agree with you on these 2 points.

now for the long part...

Not everything can be boiled down to definative facts and figures zues. This was never meant to be a 'scientific' discussion, so force-fitting it into that realm so that you can call it "horse-sh*t" makes no sense.

my point was "color symbolism" as far as i know CANNOT be boiled down to definitive fats and figures and therefore should not be treated as if it can. the airy-fairy chart in your OP does exactly that, and even vaguely appeals to the authority of "studies."

hmmm double checked. my grammar looks fairly reasonable. i didn't use any overblown, obscure vocabulary.

explain to me why that makes no sense?

Most of the time research into these subjects ends up, at best, with words like "tendencies", "indications" or "skews", but rarely definitive black and white answers.

which was my point, more or less.

For example, on a personal level, do you wear the same colour shirt everyday?

is that in any way relevant?

Are there colours which you avoid wearing because they dont suit you? (No, it's not a metrosexual discussion here either.)

What colour environment do you personally enjoy working in?

white (it's the cheapest paint and reflects light well), or my favorite color, or lots of wood, or unfinished concrete, or...

How do you decide these things? By some science?

no. and they might well be different from the list of color-environments *you* enjoy working in. and i doubt that my reasons would conform to the 'symbolism' in the OP.

In branding, colour does play a huge role. Companies spend millions deciding certain colours and spend even more millions maintaining global consistancy of those colours. Why? Are they dealing in horse-sh*t?

key word in branding is "consistency" is it not? is consistency more important than choosing the color correctly by what it's currently thought to symbolize?

Companies such as McDonalds and PizzaHut know very well that their use of colour maximizes their sales by stimulation. Is this airy-fairy stuff?

if it's science i'd like links to studies.

if it's not, then it's a question of a) design and consistency. do you think Starbucks chose green to symbolize 'balance'? are they lying then, or can i really expect to feel 'balanced' after a large latte or two?

In film, you know that the colour grading done in Telecine plays a huge role in the 'look' of the overall film and certain scenes. Why bother?

i don't see how that could possibly be less relevant to what *i* said...

unless your'e claiming that filmmakers do their color correction according to a trite list of color-symbols as you illustrated in your original post? as opposed to, i don't know, trying to get an overall effect, be it realism, mood, or whatever?

what's your point here?

"Color is the keyboard, the eyes are the hammer, the soul is the piano with the strings." Kandinski.

You said "...the one thing i'm confident of color-theory-wise, is that it ain't like music"

I beg to differ. I think colour CAN be like music.

you COMPLETELY missed the point of what i was saying. at no point did i say (or imply) that color does not affect emotions. or that some combinations of colors are more effective than others... what i ACTUALLY said was:

"how a color is perceived is strongly affected by the color next to it or surrounding it, especially if the color in question is close to neutral. " in other words, COLORS CHANGE DEPENDING ON WHAT COLOR(S) YOU SURROUND THEM WITH. don't believe it? try it for yourself. get a copy of Josef Albers' Interaction of Color and do the exercises.

does an A flat change when you put it next to a B natural? i'm no musician but i doubt it.

but hey, feel free to quote me out-of-context anyway,makes for better straw men.

Colour 'theories' and trying to force it into a set of rules or science is where it all can go horribly wrong.

hmmmm...

sounds a lot closer to agreeing with "in short, color symbolism is airy-fairy-touchy-feely horseshit because it is so easily overridden by experience, circumstance, and environment," than disagreeing. or did i miss something?

perhaps you don't percieve the guidelines in your OP as "a set of rules"? well, i do. and pseudoscientific, airy-fairy rules at that. thus my reaction.

But then, trying to make music by some 'system' or set of rules doesn't really work too well either.

worked out alright for Webern and Schoenberg, but i suspect it had more to do with them being Webern and Schoenberg than the system or set of rules. (which will shortly bring us back to ol' Wassily K).

As i said originally in this post, I just put THIS particular set of colour attributes here to stimulate discussion. That is all.

is this not discussion? if it is, seems to have succeeded then. if not, not.

BTW Sybian, I happen to enjoy Kandinski's work, particularly his early paintings. I never really went much for his later Bauhaus stuff. But that's just my personal taste.

s far as his theories on colour goes, his is one of hundreds done over the years.

They are ALL 'indications' and nothing much more.

my point had NOTHING to do with whether ol' Wassily was a good painter. or whether his work on color symbolism/form symbolism was substantial (it was, in my opinion, and i said as much in my first post).

*my* point was, Kandinsky's theory of color works.... if and only if, you want your color to look like Kandinsky's. if you want your approach to color to be your own, you'll have to work it out for yourself, not follow some airy-fairy psuedoscientific symbolic guidelines.

and what if Kandinsky thought his assessment of color symbolism was universal? WHO CARES? he was a painter, not a scientist. as long as he paints well, whether he's right or wrong about everything else is irrelevant.

and the Afook award for "most extensive use of quote boxes in what will inevitably only be skimmed over in an attempt to write some smart ass reply" award goes to....

[i_love_som_tam]

your post is longer so that would be you? :shock:

[PeeMarc]

You know, zues, for 99% of the time I find your discussions and observations entertaining and interesting. Sometimes downright funny, in a glib or laconic kind of way.

Many times I learn something, not necessarily from you, but by simply having go find stuff out. I enjoy that. And you are one of the rare breed who challenges and pushes issues. And for the most part i find that very healthy indeed.

But, there are some times when you just gotta let things go. Sometimes I get the feeling its more sport with you than any real point. Sometimes there is a fine line between being a raconteur and a ratbag.

Often forums are posted to gather other peoples ideas, feelings or thoughts. Many of these are NOT varifiable via Wiki or wherever.

But those ideas and feelings are JUST as valid and just as welcome. i have sat in 1000's of research focus groups listening to people bang on about THEIR feelings and thoughts. From these, I get other ideas and I get a 'sense' of what's going on.

Thats all mate. Nothing more.

This forum, as I have stated now about 4 times (please dont challenge that number) was one of those. I also stated at least 3 times that the colour attributes were ONE of thousands of studies done.

Thousands of studies have also been done on the healing powers of aroma or sound or whatever.

Here is what Wiki says:

____________________________________________________________

Color psychology refers to investigating the effect of color on human behavior and feeling, distinct from phototherapy (the use of ultraviolet light to cure infantile jaundice).

Color symbolism and color psychology are culturally constructed linkages that vary with time, place, and culture. In fact one color may perform very different symbolic or psychological functions at the same place and time for the same culture. Because of this fact, color psychology in particular remains a contentious area of study dependent upon a large body of anecdotal evidence but not supported by data from well designed scientific studies.

Criticism:

Most evidence suggests the lack of a single, universal psychological reaction to a particular color. For example, death is symbolized by black in most Western cultures and by white in many Eastern cultures. Even members of the same culture from different age groups can act differently. Referencing colors with emotions is developed by every individual when they feel an emotion and then see a color repeated during this time. After the connection is ingrained, the referencing can go both ways.

Color psychology is an immature field of study viewed dubiously by mainstream psychologists and therefore qualifies as "alternative medicine". Critics view it as an overstatement of what can be justified by research, and point out that different cultures have completely different interpretations of color.

_____________________________________________________________

Yes, its a pseudo-science.

In posting this forum, I was interested in other peoples attitudes, points of view, thoughts, feelings and ideas.

Not only yours.

If every opinion, thought, idea or feeling needs to be backed up by some scientific data or fact, then things could get very tedious indeed.

[LakeGeneve]

two semesters' independent study and the one thing i'm confident of color-theory-wise, is that it ain't like music. how a color is perceived is strongly affected by the color next to it or surrounding it, especially if the color in question is close to neutral.

so all this pop culture glibness enumerated above, more substantial color key coding systems like Kandinsky's and Goethe's, are all airy-fairy sh*t.

there are *some* indications that *some* colors have *some* effect but then imagine you were a schizophrenic who spent significant (and significantly unpleasant) time in an nuthouse painted Institutional Calming Yellow. (not going to dig it up, and it may be a shade of pink, but i DO vaguely recall studies pointing to an institutional calming color) imagine you've been out a few years, and you're medicated to the bejesus. in other words, no more hearing voices, etc. do you expect the 'calming color' will have a calming effect? sorry but i seriously f*cking doubt it and anticipate the opposite.

in short, color symbolism is airy-fairy-touchy-feely horseshit because it is so easily overridden by experience, circumstance, and environment.

I never once called this scientific, nor did I say the above is a definitive study. I said there have been many studies and the above is the outcome of one of them.

Then I simply asked "what do you think?"

You think it's horse-sh*t.

Ok.

You must be a real joy to invite for dinner. :roll:

well if, the conversation focusses on airy-fairy pseudo-science, i doubt i'd be sorry i missed the dinner party.

I guess the joy, or otherwise, of the dinner (party?) conversation would be contingent on the coulour scheme of the dining area and table settings?

Not wanting to continue too much what has been some interesting reading but the cultural perspective on the colour analysis front I think basically excludes clarity 'in the rainbow'? Some conclusions perhaps could be drawn in some places but overall definitions seem difficult. I guess this is what the Wiki quote is basically explain.

I think the original proposition and general question for the forum by PeeMarc that colour has an affect on most humans is clear. Otherwise most would not spend so much time choosing some colours (assuming you have the fashion and financial options), in their home or clothing etc.

Now, if we start talking about the colours of human chakras and auras ..... :wink:

[zeusbheld]

If every opinion, thought, idea or feeling needs to be backed up by some scientific data or fact, then things could get very tedious indeed.

which is not something i *ever* said.

but i *do* think everything that *pretends* to be science should be held to the standards of science.