Simultaneous Contrast

July 2019:
Recently I was reading an article on colour written by Charles Blanc in 1867.   Blanc, a friend of Manet’s, was for several terms, director of the Ecole des Beaux Arts in Paris.  In his article, Blanc points out that complementary colours placed side by side will enhance the appearance of each other.  This, of course, had been known for a long time, but it was M. Chevreul,  (A French chemist whose colour theories influenced French painters) who put a name to the effect: Simultaneous Contrast

Artists have long used simultaneous contrast to enhance their colours. For example, a green can be made to appear more vibrant if placed nearby a bright red, but it is very important to recognize that the effect works both ways, hence the term ‘simultaneous’. Blanc also noted that the same colours that heighten each other through juxtaposition, will destroy each other when mixed together.  Red and Green enhance each other when side by side, but turn into a dull grey when mixed…hence another reason for the double, or simultaneous contrast. The effect can also be observed with similar colours. For example, a bright blue placed beside a dull blue will appear more vivid and the dull one more dull.

Blanc also told about Eugene Delacroix, the great colourist, who while painting yellow drapery was unable to achieve the brilliant yellow he wanted.  Putting down his brush, he ordered a carriage to go to the Louvre to see how Rubens and Veronese achieved their brilliant colours. This was 1830 and there were many canary yellow cabs in Paris at the time.  As he was about to step into the yellow cab, he stopped; to his great surprise, the yellow of the carriage had produced violet in the shadows.  He cancelled the cab and returned to his studio to apply what he had just witnessed. 

A similar effect can be seen if you have a red curtain with a tiny hole in it.  A white paper held near the hole will display a small green dot where the sun, passing through the hole, hits it. This occurs because the paper as a whole is illuminated by red light from the curtain, making the bright dot seem green via simultaneous contrast.

In all of these effects the characteristics of the light do not change; there was no violet in the shadow that Delacroix witnessed.  There is no physical means by which placing red beside green will affect the light reflected from the green pigment. What actually happens is that the red receptor cones in the eye excited by the red light actually cause a decrease in the sensitivity of the surrounding red cones.  For reasons having to do with the complex way the eye combines the three colour receptors (red, green and blue). The effect, it seems to me anyway, is most noticeable for the red- green complements and much less so for the blue-orange and yellow-violet complements.

This simultaneous contrast effect may also be the source of the Impressionist’s belief (which erroneously persists to this day) that shadows are the complement of the yellow sunlight (ie purple). There is no physical means by which this is possible. However, it is possible for the eye to interpret the shadow as purple if it is cast by green trees, which was more often than not the case for the Impressionists. The simultaneous contrast effect may well make the shadows appear somewhat purple by decreasing the eye’s sensitivity to the green light in the shadow area. This effect could also be enhanced by the fact that the light illuminating the shadow area will be the blue light scattered by the atmosphere (only if the shadow area is open to the sky but blocked from the sun). However, the effect is subtle and can easily be overpowered by light quality and ground colour. If you are out on a ski trail sometime on a sunny winter day, look closely at the colour of the shadows. Because of the white snow, shadow colour is easy to determine. Shadowed areas that are blocked from the direct sunlight but are still open to the sky will be blue because of the blue scattered sunlight. Shadow areas that are blocked both from the sun and open sky will appear grey and, of course darker, being simply some residual light reflected from the surrounding trees etc.

Painting in nature vs painting in the studio.

There are a lot of strongly defended opinions about the veracity of using photographs as reference material for paintings.  It seems to me that most of these opinions are expressed by Plein Air painters.  While studio painters probably hold strong opinions as well, they are likely too busy painting to take time to express them.  Plein Air painters, on the other hand, have a lot of time on their hands, sitting in their kitchens waiting for spring or sunny skies to complete their paintings.

Of course, studio painters have other reasons beyond weather for their painting practices.  One comment I have heard is that slow painters are at a distinct disadvantage painting outside, trying to complete their painting before the light changes too much. Those who paint with oil and wish to paint large paintings are similarly at a disadvantage.

On the other hand, Plein Air painters point out that photos simply cannot capture colours and depth properly, not to mention moods, that the only way to truly render landscapes is to be in the midst of it.  My answer is this: recently someone posted a number of drawings of everyday objects, such as hot dogs, photographed beside the real items, challenging people to tell the difference. It was difficult. The drawings were extremely well done, but, my comment was that painting is fundamentally a means of communication and, if you cannot tell the difference between the real thing and the drawing, then what is it exactly that the “artist” is trying to tell us, other than that he/she enjoys exceptional drafting skills.

This is obviously a  bit of an overstatement, but it contains a kernel of truth. I admit that   plein air painters can just as easily put their personal reactions to nature in quickly completed on site paintings as studio painters can using photos they took themselves of places they have been to. The point is, that while some find the plein air experience to be a fruitful one, it is not fundamental to successful landscape painting.  The danger of simply copying nature is, equally real for both painters. Our objective is to convey our reactions to nature, to show people, with our paintings, the wonders of nature and its life-giving presence, not to simply reproduce its image on canvas.

This is an island located in upper Whitefish Bay near Twin Islands.  It is a very small island with some interesting rock formations and one lonely White Pine that has lost its top.  It sits out in the open away from, but surrounded by a lot of larger islands.  Because of its position, it can be seen from a lot of locations which often fools me into thinking that there must be two similar islands.

Over the years I have often photographed it and this is my second, and probably not the last, painting of it.

The view from our front deck this morning shortly after the early morning fog lifted.  No ice on Long Bay (Lake of the Woods) yet, but some of the smaller lakes have frozen over.

More on the Charter of Values

I've been thinking about this thing, and listening to what many people had to say on "Cross-Country Check-up" on CBC Radio.

I haven't changed my fundamental viewpoint, but I am more convinced than ever that this is something that the Government should'ntt be meddling in. Sure, when the question of Shira Law comes up, it should be squashed quickly and completely. The same with other threats to our way of life.  But, religious symbols in themselves, (or, more accurately, cultural symbols), don't do us any harm and trying to suppress them will merely cause bitterness and strengthen their resolve to uphold their faith.

Better to just ignore what doesn't interfere with us, and eventually, the human race will grow up and leave these myths called religions behind it.... at least I hope so, otherwise we are destined to forever live in the shadow of the cave.

Quebec's Charter of Values

The current debate in Quebec is interesting.   I suspect that it is a response to what is happening in many European countries, where Muslims are hijacking religious and cultural values in their adopted countries.

That certainly is a very valid concern. Islam, while not unique in this regard, is nevertheless one of the few religions that takes the view that if the religion is valid, then you cannot let it live only in the mosque, but must allow it to permeate your whole life.  Christians don’t take this view.  They seem to realize, whether they admit it or not, that their religion has no validity in the real world.

However, the Quebec response is a curtailment of civil rights for everyone,  exactly what they are afraid that Muslims would ultimately do.  It’s a natural response to bullies, hit back (not a bad idea actually), but in this case they are hitting back at everybody.

A better tactic, I think, would be to put in place laws and policies that make sure that each and every person can pursue their own beliefs but are prevented from imposing them in any way on others. That is, after all the real concern, and it is a valid one, concerning what is happening in England and other European countries, where Muslims have virtually taken over some districts and are verbally and physically attacking anyone that violates what they consider to be Muslim values.

In general, I don't agree with a general restriction of rights. The burka, however, is a more complicated issue. Total face covering provides anonymity, which fundamentally hides or conceals your identity or individuality. I suppose that, if that is your desire, the state should not deny you the right to do so, but, you must be ready to accept reasonable consequences of your actions, such as loss of some rights and services.

I think that shop owners, for example, should be allowed to deny service, or even access, to those wearing a burka, after all, how could you be sure it isn't a suicide bomber in duisgise?

Some services offered by the state simply cannot be provided anonymously, services such as passports, drivers licenses, etc., where identification is essential. Similarly, many of the rights individuals have in a court of law should also be denied.  In general, if you do not wish to interact with society as an individual, society should not have to treat you as one.

This approach would be more in keeping with Canadian values.  After all, our country is founded on freedom for everyone and we must make sure that neither religious fundamentalists nor fearful governments erode those values. So I find it incongruous that the Quebec Government should call this misguided legislation a "Charter of Values" when it so obviously is in opposition to Canada's values. But then, the current Quebec Government doesn't consider themselves to be part of Canada does it.

My "belief"

Ignosticism or igtheism is the theological position that every other theological position (including agnosticism and atheism) assumes too much about the concept of God and many other theological concepts.

It can be defined as encompassing two related views about the existence of God:

1. The view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of God is not considered meaningless; the term "God" is considered meaningless.
2. The second view is synonymous with theological noncognitivism, and skips the step of first asking "What is meant by 'God'?" before proclaiming the original question "Does God exist?" as meaningless.

Some philosophers have seen ignosticism as a variation of agnosticism or atheism,^[1] while others have considered it to be distinct. An ignostic maintains that he cannot even say whether he is a theist or an atheist until a sufficient definition of theism is put forth.

From Wikipedia