Black not a color? Says who!?
Printed From: Pixel Joint
Category: The Lounge
Forum Name: Diversions
Forum Discription: Get to know your fellow pixel freaks. Chat about anything to do with video games, comic books, anime, movies, television, books, music, sports or any other off topic bs you can think of.
URL: https://pixeljoint.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=14636
Printed Date: 13 September 2025 at 9:26am
Topic: Black not a color? Says who!?
Posted By: Sylon
Subject: Black not a color? Says who!?
Date Posted: 30 June 2012 at 5:50pm
|
Time for my philosophical art rant of the year. All fellow artists who agree can join with me and partaaay!!!
What is all this about black not being a color? Serve me a plate of B.S. while you're at it, please. If this was only a myth or a joke, then I got suckered and my rant is futile. If not, HERE GOES:
Saying black is not a color but the absence of color because it absorbs all rays of light and reflects no rays of light is ALMOST...like saying "A shark is not an animal because it eats all animals."
What is the sense in defining something by what it is not? When we speak of black, we are making a distinction between the blackness...and what? COLORS! Our eye sees blackness on the same level as it sees purple and orange. You can mix black into a color and change its value the same way you can mix green into a color and change its value. Blackness has a qualitative similarity to these, whereas shapes and numbers and flavors and sounds do not. Unless we get all "metaphysical", we never say such things as "The car is shaped black," or "Your sneeze sounds like black." Because, black becomes perceived in the same way that colors get perceived, not the way shapes or sounds get perceived!
Another way to put it: Let's say a mechanic needs his assistant to hand him a tool. A scientist is standing by. The mechanic needs his pliers with the black handle and proceeds to say to the assistant: "I need the pliers with the handle colored black." The scientist then says: "Excuse me good sir, I do believe you mean to say the pliers with the handle absent of color. It is not 'colored' anything!" How ridiculous would such a statement be?
What else is not a color? A monkey's uncle is not a color. And who cares? You can bet your butt his banana is absent of color, too. It may possess the color yellow, but the banana as an entity itself is not a color and therefore is absent of color, the same way the number 37 is absent of color or the shape hexagon is absent of color. IF the scientist is right and black is the absence of color, then black is on the same level as a monkey's uncle and his banana with reference to the colors, which means it would NOT make sense to say "It has too much black, not enough green," because such a statement would be akin to saying "It has too much banana, not enough green."
 If all rays of light get absorbed into a material, the resulting color of the material becomes black. Simple as that, Professor. If all rays get reflected by a material, the resulting color of the material is white. Has anyone seen a ray of light? No, because the ray only proves itself through the SENSES to have ANYTHING to do with COLOR through the MATERIAL it contacts! A ray is not a color...a configuration of rays produces a color! Are we going to let a mathematical calculation about "rays" tell us what words we use to describe what we perceive with our own senses?! Get your philosophy straight, modern science!
This just proves that artists can know their environment better than scientists!
|
Replies:
Posted By: jeremy
Date Posted: 30 June 2012 at 6:09pm
|
You're confusing the colour of light and of pigments. Black is not a colour of light, because it is the absence of light. We absolutely do see rays of light. Constantly. Light is the electromagnetic spectrum, and includes everything from gamma waves to radio waves. A small part of that spectrum is visible, and includes all the hues visible in the rainbow, from red to violet. That's what we most commonly call light - the visible stuff. The colour of light is decided by an electromagnetic wave's frequency and wavelength, so light absolutely does have colour. For pigments, as you said, black is created by the absorption of light. I'd be inclined to call the black of pigments a colour, personally. Black is a colour for the purposes of everyday speech where, incidentally, you don't normally talk about colour in terms of light. |
Posted By: dumbo
Date Posted: 30 June 2012 at 6:17pm
|
Black, Grey, and White are all neutral colors. I think you're racist. 
|
Posted By: Sylon
Date Posted: 30 June 2012 at 6:48pm
|
Jeremy I totally get what you're saying, but you're not saying "Black is not a color". You're saying it's not a color of light. I'm trying to dispel the myth that black itself (however it exists, through light's absence or through pigments) is "not a color". This is a statement that I have heard made in social life: "Black is not a color, it is the absence of color." Then they proceed to say why that is so, citing examples of rays bouncing off or being absorbed. If they put it like you did, that black is not a color of light, then I would agree and get off my soap box! We do see rays of light for sure, manifesting as colors taking on various shapes. That is all our eye can see - colors and shapes, right? And a shape can in fact only be seen where lines are present, and lines are only present when colors jar up against each other, so the fundamental unit of sight is color, isn't it? And black is a quality that can be seen as distinct from red, purple, yellow, etc. I don't fundamentally see any disagreement between us yet  Thanks for your input, it's refreshing my memory! |
Posted By: dumbo
Date Posted: 30 June 2012 at 9:11pm
|
Not to sound mean here, Sylon. But... why have this discussion here of all places? I've NEVER heard this stated by anyone on this site before. I'm thinking this kind of argument would be better suited over at say... colourlovers.com maybe (or something similar to that). I can see you're a very smart person just from the writings above. But maybe spending your time on more important subjects would be beneficial for ALL of us in the end. Now get to work, buddy! Change the WORLD!!!  |
Posted By: Sylon
Date Posted: 30 June 2012 at 10:06pm
|
Hahaha...thanks, Dumbo. I don't really care too much about devianart, don't know too many art sites, but I had to rant about ridiculousness somewhere in cyberspace to get it off my chest! Yes! Change the world! Super Smashtastic Pixel Artist Man awaaaaaaayyyy!!! |
Posted By: jalonso
Date Posted: 01 July 2012 at 5:41am
|
Scientists have a total right to define black as not being a color because it is true in their world and to a certain extent it is a true assessment and valid. Art is visual communication and all colors, including black, are valid tools so in their world black being a color is also true and valid. Linguists often call certain words not real but people use slang all the time to communicate so even if not real words they are also valid. Everything is true from a certain angle so whenever you disagree with something move around until you see something else :p ------------- |
Posted By: Sylon
Date Posted: 01 July 2012 at 9:46am
Hehe I admit up to a point it gets tiresome on the good ol' 'Net but philosophy is just so darn interesting.  Jalonso have you heard of the age old debate about noumenon versus phenomenon? Noumenon refers to conceptual ideas that are sort of abstract, "not real", whereas phenomenon refers to "realities" that can be sensed. A word itself may not be "real" (whatever that means), but words are meant to point to realities, which is why slang can be valid as you say, since slang can point to the same realities as formal language. I'm not questioning that everything is true from a certain angle, and therefore am not questioning what it is that the scientists have discovered about light and color, but miscommunication serves to make discovery of truth from a different angle more difficult! Therefore, since words aid communication, it would be wise to keep words pure, wouldn't it?? My gripe with the scientists is that they are distorting the language used to communicate their [valid] truth. So I agree, scientists have the right to define this or that with whatever word they like. But, whether or not someone has a right does not necessarily make their use of that right wise and good. Before there was a microscope...before there were calculations about wavelengths and rays...I assume the word "color" existed! Couldn't one imagine that such a word included a reference to the phenomenon known as "black"? All of a sudden a scientist comes along and has the right to declare that the phenomenon "black" is not on par with the other phenomena referenced by the word "color"?  Why doesn't he/she ask the one who created the word "color" to see if the creator him/herself agrees that the word "color" should not point to the phenomenon perceived purely by the senses which is known as "black"?If on the other hand as Jeremy stated all the scientist was trying to say was that black is not a color produced by light, then that keeps everything simple and orderly! Otherwise, if a scientist has the right to ruin language and muddy it up, so be it! I hope he keeps his definitions in his realm and out of the general population where he can cause confusion.  |