Talk:Primary color/Archive 4#Linking pigments and primary colors

End of the day: the idea that "red, yellow and blue are primary colors" is presented in this article in a way that is representative of the high quality sources cited in History section. Each of the underlying historical names/sources says "red, yellow and blue are primary colors" and they don't have much more in common other than that. There is very little that is relevant to the article past there mere claim "red, yellow and blue are primary colors". There is no coherent notion of an "RYB color model" (look at how many times I've asked for a high quality source in these discussions with nothing to show for it). It's an idea that really began to take hold in about the 18th century and [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yu44JRTIxSQ&ab_channel=SesameStreet survives to this day] in children's/layman's art education. It never really had anything to do with the craft of skilled painting, as we can see by looking at historical painting manuals as explained by sources here. The notion has been *explicitly debunked* in notable, high quality sources by prominent figures in color science (some of whom are also skilled painters) over 100 years ago.

For every contemporary layman's art book we can find that says "red yellow and blue are primary colors" I can show you another contemporary layman's art book that says something that contradicts that (often the claim is that CMY are the *real* primary colors). This incoherence generally represents a lack of understanding of the fundamental underlying color science. The "mixing pigments" section of this article (that has been inappropriately renamed) is about the idea that no particular pigments (or even pigment colors) are primary colors, that many different sorts of pigments have been used and mixed to approximate diverse sets of colors. The pigments that artists use on their palette is a subjective choice based on many factors (just like the the choice of phosphors or the choice of CMYK inks). The point of the section *is not* that RYB are the "painter's primaries", that notion is described in the History section.

I can see a case for a section titled something like "contemporary notions of RYB as primaries" where things like my Seasame St. link above can be included. That list can be as long as anyone likes, but it should always end with something like "this idea was debunked ages ago". The general tone of this article should reflect that basic, objective narrative we find in color science sources (MacEvoy, Briggs, Gage, Munsell, Kuehni etc.). Nothing in those sources suggests that RYB are/were "primary colors" in any sense other than as a part of history. The article is approaching good quality and really should be purged of low quality sources (like "cheap brochure printing").Maneesh (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

:"presented in this article in a way that is representative of the high quality sources cited in History section" may be true, but presented neutrally for what it is is what we need. The RYB model of color, whatever you want to call it, is traditional and popular, and holds that red, yellow, and blue are primary colors; and yes, not a lot more than that. It's not a color science in the sense of having formulae for exactly how primaries combine to make secondaries. It's more a conceptual and aesthetic model. Your statement "This incoherence generally represents a lack of understanding of the fundamental underlying color science" holds within the paradigm of color science, but this article on primary colors should not be restricted to the color science POV when there's a perfectly common traditional POV that most readers coming here will expect to see. We don't have to convert everyone who knows RYB into color scientists. Quite often, they see RGB and change it to RYB because that's what they've heard of. If we don't have a section on RYB that acknowledges it for what it is, expect that to continue. Dicklyon (talk) 07:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

::"The RYB model of color, whatever you want to call it" this is the precise problem. It is impossible to support/falsify the claim that it is "traditional", "popular" or "aesthetic" if that term doesn't have a clear consensus meaning. None of the high quality sources seem to define that term. Those sources talk extensively about notable people/models that say (or have been summarized as saying by scholarly sources) "red, yellow, and blue are primary colors" but don't synthesize them into a/the "RYB color model"; since (again) each of those models come form very different people/times and say different things. The basic facts of primary colors in terms of pigment mixing for ("representational", starting from Ancient Greece) painting are:

::* Painting is an ancient craft

::* Painting is done by mixing a (small set) of pure/homogenous pigments into mixtures that approximate aim colors amongst a diverse gamut of colors (as is generally seen in the common subjects of painters)

::* (mostly) non-painters have speculated on the identity of a minimal set of such pigments, and that minimal set is called "the primary colors" (older sources rarely differentiate between substance, light and conceptual colors presumably due to our limited understanding of such things in those times, many sources from recent history also ignore the essential differences between these categories)

::* the identity of this minimal set has a complex history, rooted in "theory" and doesn't seem to easily align with craft of painting

::* the choice of pure/homogenous pigments a painter uses is arbitrary/subjective, many examples of different palettes etc.

::* high quality sources do refer to the arbitrary set of pure/homogenous pigments as 'primaries' (clearly analogous to the standard use of the term in additive mixing) but that terminology has isn't widespread (little about the craft of painting is really) but is a very reasonable convention for this section (although it might be possible to avoid using it here).

::The section on "mixing pigments" (analogous to additive and subtractive mixing) should have some of these facts (this should absolutely not be titled 'traditional painter's primaries" as it is now) and some should be in the History section (easier to see the evolution of the idea). The recent reverts take this farther away from these ideas and do not improve the article.

::This is not just from "color science", John Gage's perspective is that of an art historian and his perspective provides good support for most of the basic facts above (probably the best source on the history of the idea of primary colors). Neutrality isn't an issue in this article, the color science perspective and the art history are the most encyclopedic and are presented neutrally with very good support from high quality sources.

::It seems sensible to have a section called something like "red, yellow, and blue are primary colors in art education" which can collect sources form the 18th century (which would fit right in after the History section) to Itten to today. It is easy to support the idea that people have said "red, yellow, and blue are primary colors ". Claims about the vaporous "RYB color model" are not at all easy to support since no one reliably defines that term (let alone with respect to all the ideas out there that claimed "red, yellow, and blue are primary colors"). High quality sources (e.g. [https://www-jstor-org.sri.idm.oclc.org/stable/29543325?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents Gage]) support that idea that Itten's work was widely taught in art schools. It is undeniable that this folk notion prominent, but I can't think of a sensible summary of this notion outside of the high quality sources cited in the article already. The section has to acknowledge the criticism of the folk notion that comes from reliable sources, it would be quite non-neutral to not accurately reflect the (appropriately) harsh tone of such criticism. Munsell criticizes the idea in the early 1900s (his current sentence in History will be more appropriate in this section), MacEvoy and Briggs do as well (for Briggs not just on his self published sites, but on the munsell company site and in Pioneers). Scholarly reports like Hirschler also directly falsify the claims Itten specifically (with trivial demonstrations).

::tldr: the recent reverts need to be reverted so that low quality sources are removed ("cheap brochure printing" etc.). The mixing pigment section might be worded more carefully to make it align with what I've put in the bulleted list above. A new section called something like "red, yellow, and blue as primary colors in art education" can collect all sorts of claims from published educational material-type sources and end with what some reliable sources say about such claims. This isn't about 'converting' anyone to any particular set of primary colors but readers who believe in underspecified/incorrect ideas like "red yellow and blue are the primary colors" can understand the essential differences between light and substances and the important criticism of those ideas (they they do not broadly reflect painting practice and are dissonant with very basic knowledge in mainstream color science).Maneesh (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Most readers who come here will expect to read something about the RYB primaries that they have been taught in schools. But my section on that has been reverted to Maneesh's on "Mixing pigments in limited palettes", which is interesting, but not so clearly related to the topic that readers want info on. I suppose he means I should go ahead an make a new section on that; so I'll try to get to that soon. Dicklyon (talk) 04:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The current section on pigments as been reverted a number of times in trying to link the limited palette of pigments to primary colors. Handprint uses "primaries" extensively throughout (this has been discussed at length on this talk page), so it shouldn't be hard to support from there. [https://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/color6.html#painters This page] makes it about as clear as you could with "For painters, a primary color was a pigment color.", it isn't limited to ancient painters and that particular section of handprint covers all the way to Boyle (as is covered in the history section on this page). One can pick another part of handprint or another source, but it's very clear that the section needs to link the piles of paint on a palette to primary colors. Maneesh (talk) 05:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

:That quote is about painters in the 14th century. In general, I don't think a painter's palette was considered to be "primaries". Dicklyon (talk) 05:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

::Please do select another part of handprint or another source (if you think that one only applies to the 14th century) that links primary color to paints on a palette then. That shouldn't be hard to do. Maneesh (talk) 05:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

:::Your point in linking them has been to paint black as a primary. That's an odd view, that not totally unprecedented. Black pigment on a pallet doesn't mean that black is a primary color. Dicklyon (talk) 06:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

::::? No. If you have a section on painting that considers primary colors/primaries as the actual piles of pigment and that needs to be explained near the beginning of that section. Some sources explicitly refer to the black pigment as a primary color; but that's just an obvious outcome of calling physical paints primary colors, your aversion to this idea remains an opaque mystery. If you don't think that 'primary colors' in this context refer to the actual physical paint(I do not see how you could support this) but to the SPD of the paint or the perception of the SPD, you should really fix the whole section. Maneesh (talk) 08:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

:I know you like "handprint" a lot as a source, but it's a primary source for one guy's opinions, in general. And the bit about comparing traditional RYB color model to "creation science" is the primary-sourced opinion of Briggs and MacEvoy. Singularly inapproriate in a history section. Dicklyon (talk) 05:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

::It is a great source, it has most of history section embedded in it, though primary sources are mostly cited in the parts I've added. The irreconcilability of Itten's ideas of primary colors with modern color science by two sources is *certainly* worth nothing in this section. Again, I have no idea what the "traditional RYB color model" is, I don't think Itten called it that. EDIT: Briggs makes a much more restrained assessment of Itten in "Pioneers Of Color Science" cited throughout the history section when he says "His 1961 book The Art of Color presented color theory in a simplified form that largely excluded scientific developments from the mid-nineteenth century onwards.", that clearly includes what Itten said about primary colors. Maneesh (talk) 05:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

:::The fact that a "traditional" source didn't present the "modern" or "scientific" view is not in itself very interesting. Calling the traditional view an analog of "creation science" is kind of a big deal, and these two sources are primary for that. There's no reason for WP to copy that extreme view. And I disagree that handprint is a "great" source; it's full of good info, but also idiosyncratic opinions. It's a self-published blog, basically. Dicklyon (talk) 06:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

::::You are entitled to your opinion of course, but it is easy to see, as has been demonstrated here in the past, handprint is [https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=handprint+macevoy&btnG= cited rather widely by others]. The fact that Itten's ideas, specifically about primary colors, aren't really coherent (and formulated in a time when we knew much more) is pretty bluesky to me. You can find others that present similarly [https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9783030277673 'extreme'] views: "for many of you, however, the names of these men39 are as unfamiliar and their innovations as little known as Maxwell’s. We do not talk about them because of the work of one man: Johannes Itten...Itten presented a simplified 6- and 12-hue circle that was already out of date a century earlier, rejecting Maxwell’s proven primaries in favor of red, yellow, and blue and described a method for creating a color wheel with primary, secondary, and tertiary colors (1961/1997, p. 34). The word “color” is vital. Itten conflated color with hue throughout the text, per- haps precipitating the confusion that still routinely occurs in art rooms...".

::::To summarize: Itten's definitions of primary color should certainly be here and they need to be interpreted by reliable sources. The disparities between Itten's ideas and what was understood about modern color science at the time must be addressed. MacEvoy and Briggs do that nicely. They are a little harsh, but I think it's appropriate.Maneesh (talk) 08:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

:::::You can't really fit Itten's "color theory" ideas into modern "color science". I get that. MacEvoy and Briggs don't deal with that "nicely" by comparing to "creation science". It's really more of an art vs science thing. Artists use RYB, and color scientists use RGB. That's life. No need to deal so harshly with artists. Dicklyon (talk) 04:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::Both MacEvoy and Briggs make (very nice) paintings and are quite reasonably presumed to be artists. From another artist on the munsell corporate blog: [https://munsell.com/color-blog/why-that-color-theory/ It doesn’t take much to realize that there’s something fishy about the whole system.] They have very legitimate things to say about Itten's ideas about primary colors, so what if it is 'harsh'? Maneesh (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Some articles are about the (related) common meanings of a term as much as being about an underlying distinct subject. I suspect that this article is one of them. If the subject material is about a common meaning of the term I would think it should be covered, if not, not. The latter would be if he was just putting forth his own novel idea or "take" even if he is generally a respected source. I don't have the expertise to know which it is. Sincerely,North8000 (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

:Some color scientists (like Manessh, and unlike me) take a disparaging view of artists' ways of organizing color. I think we need to stay more neutral, and not try to force everything into the additive and subtractive color models of modern color science. Dicklyon (talk) 04:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

::That itself is a disparaging remark. How would you know if I am a color scientist, artist, neither or both? Artists are commonly critical of the way other artists organize color. Both Briggs and MacEvoy have painted some excellent paintings, they are quite qualified to comment on and critique ways of organizing color (regardless if that way came from a color scientist, artist or otherwise). There really isn't much out there other than their writing in terms critically assessing Itten in terms of modern color science; it's an important perspective, used by others that should definitely be explained here since this page does have a lot of color science in it. Maneesh (talk) 05:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

:::I apologize for saying you're a color scientist. It's not relevant. As a color scientist myself (back when I was chief scientist for Foveon), I had to understand color science deeply, to make good color photographs from raw sensor data. So I do understand that end of the business. But I also accept that artists have their own traditions, which make a lot of empirical sense about how they mix pigments. I don't see how it's useful to dispragage that.Dicklyon (talk) 05:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

::::I don't think critical commentary on art education (by a well qualified art educator in the case of Briggs, or the author of a widely cited website in the case of MacEvory) amounts to 'disparagement'. The 'traditional color theory' represented by Itten is a mess of imprecision (and he has no excuse, much of color science had been worked out much earlier) and it makes very little sense. I am aware of the writing out there that treats Itten as legitimate, but its generally in the same tone of writing that museums employ to sell tickets; I don't think you can find anything like a positive critical assessment of Itten's ideas of primary colors that are described in something resembling objective language. [https://munsell.com/color-blog/why-that-color-theory/ It doesn’t take much to realize that there’s something fishy about the whole system.] Briggs and MacEvoy's critique of Itten's ideas of primary color should be mentioned beside what Itten claimed about primary colors. If you can find some sort of ringing endorsement of Itten's ideas of primary colors from an objective perspective, put it in. Maneesh (talk) 06:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

:::::I don't know a thing about Itten or these other guys, but it sounds like a bit of harshness that's not really relevant to this article. There must be better ways to compare modern color science to traditional artistic color theory without invoking creation science. Dicklyon (talk) 01:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

:::::: There just isn't a terrible amount of scholarship on the general notion of 'primary colors'. Handprint, huvaluechroma, Pioneers of Color Science, Gage...they summarize most of it. Lots of low quality art books mention the idea, but hardly provide anything thoughtful or consistent. I am not concerned about 'better', I am concerned about accurately representing the evaluation of Itten (who has been very influential for better or worse) presented in two (really three, given Briggs wrote about Itten in Pioneers) of the main sources that this article uses (and what are certainly amongst the best quality/comprehensive sources that can be found on the topic). If you can find something that opposes the general evaluation of Itten from Briggs and MacEvoy, as I said, put it in (I don't think you can). Otherwise the harsh evaluation of Itten's ideas about primary colors should be here. Perhaps other editors can consider chiming in.Maneesh (talk) 05:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

:::::::The idea that Itten and traditional color theory needs to be condemned and stamped out because it doesn't connect well with modern color science is rare in sources. You take that POV, and so do those two guys. But most of the world is perfectly OK with traditional RYB. I'm a color scientist, too, so I know that for serious color sensing and rendering work one has to understand modern color science. But traditional artists don't give a flaming rat's ass about that. To maintain a neutral POV, we should not be including such rare criticisms of one POV by another. Dicklyon (talk) 05:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::The small number of these criticisms of Itten are simply a result of the fact that there isn't very much objective written commentary in visual art, that is even more true if you are looking for thoughtful objective commentary on idea of 'primary colors'. The objective commentary that does exist correctly takes a dismissive view of Itten's ideas. E.g.: Are Itten's secondaries complementary to Itten's remaining primary in paint, afterimages, light etc.? Briggs says that they are not and that's quite easy to believe. Maneesh (talk) 07:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

::::::::: Dicklyon, I apologize if my comparison of traditional colour theory to creation science seems harsh; it wasn't intended as invective, just a rather apt analogy. At much the same time as Darwin revolutionized our understanding of biology, Helmholtz and Maxwell began a revolution in our fundamental understanding of colour by overturning the view widely held in science up to that time that colours are composed of physical red, yellow and blue components (what Mollon called “physical trichromacy”). Excellent texts for artists and designers explaining this new understanding of colour, and criticizing the old RYB framework, were published in the following decades by Church, Bezold, Rood, Taylor, Vanderpoel, Hatt, Carpenter, Munsell, Ostwald and others (see https://sites.google.com/site/djcbriggs/11-colour-education). Several of these texts went through multiple editions and translations and were very well known to artists of the time. Rood's text was nicknamed the "Impressionists' bible" and Ostwald and Munsell in particular strongly influenced colour education through much of the twentieth centrury, both through their own texts and secondary sources. Munsell's "A Color Notation" remained in print right through the 20th century and his system is well known to many painters today. The quote about creation science is from the end of a presentation in which this history is discussed. I didn't intend to imply that modern proponents of traditional colour theory are knowingly peddling fake science; in my experience they are generally unaware of this history because of the pervasive influence of Itten's post-Bauhaus book, which by and large presents colour as it was understood before Helmholtz and Maxwell. I don't think criticism of the RYB primary colours is all that rare these days, but if it seems that way it's to some extent because informed debate settled the matter in the literature long ago. In addition to the older works already cited, excellent and popular texts presenting colour for artists and designers outside the RYB framework have continued to appear each decade, including those by Evans, Agoston, Osborne, Kuehni and Ware on my page cited above. For a very recent contribution see Professor Neil Dodgson's peer-reviewed paper referred to in his blog post http://neildodgson.com/blog/2019/05/31/did-your-primary-school-teacher-lie-to-you-about-colour/ Finally, your efforts and those of Maneesh on this page are awe-inspiring, but one omission that I find surprising is that of the *theory* of primary colours as outlined by Itten and various 18th to early 19th century writers: that the colour green is composed of yellow and blue; that black and all pairs of complementary colours are composed of all three primaries; and so on. These ideas preserve a view of colour that predates our understanding of how subtractive mixing works, and account for the perceptually uneven and distorted hue relationships of the traditional colour wheel (also noted by Dodgson). I don't expect you to cite a YouTube video but just FYI I discussed the last point in a recent conference presentation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_k3hOxrZ4fw.. --Djcbriggs (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)Djcbriggs

Is the differences covered by the material in question actually differences in science or objective reality, or is it essentially about the meaning of the term "primary color"? North8000 (talk) 15:32, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

:Most low quality art sources do not assess Itten's ideas past "red, yellow and blue are primary colors', if that's all it was, then the article would just include Itten along with the many other 18-19th century sources that say similar things perhaps at comparable levels of depth. Itten says much more than that though. He describes notions of colors being complementary in how they mix to achromatic grey (that's fine) and claims his oh-so-precisely-defined primaries (they are not) are complementary to his secondaries. There doesn't seem to be a plausible interpretation that makes Itten's claims true, Briggs goes through this in detail. This is all color, so 'objective reality' is a bit strong, Briggs' perspective compares the empirical results of modern color theory to the claims and reasoning of Itten. Itten's ideas don't look good in that light so it is natural to describe them harshly.Maneesh (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

::So why bring up Itten? If he's so off-track that "This presentation of primaries and the associated color theory has been derisively described as analogous to creation science and obsolete with respect to modern color science", couldn't we just ignore him? Or at least leave out the analogy to creation science? It would be more neutral to say "This presentation of primaries and the associated color theory has been described as obsolete with respect to modern color science." Yes? Dicklyon (talk) 05:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

:::[http://www.huevaluechroma.com/113.php Read Briggs]: "Itten's book has been so influential that it defines the limits of artistic colour theory for the majority of sources on the internet today". Maneesh (talk) 05:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

:::I believe Briggs uses 'obsolete', but it is a bit misleading as it suggests that no one knew better in Itten's time. Both Briggs and MacEvoy use stronger language ("creation science" and "fatuous crank"). Perhaps there is a better word that reflects that sentiment without sounding unpleasant. I think what was there originally did a reasonable job at that.Maneesh (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

:::Another source that criticizes (well, falsifies) Itten's claims about primary colors: [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/col.22275 "One of the most typical problems is that of trying to reproduce Itten's colour circle following his instructions. Students get frustrated, because it is simply not possible to achieve acceptable results using the RYB “primaries.”]. Teaching RYB as primaries was also criticized as 'mischief' and as being underspecified by Munsell [http://www.gutenberg.org/files/26054/26054-h/26054-h.htm "The wide discrepancies of red, yellow, and blue, which have been falsely taught as primary colors, can no more be tuned by a child than the musical novice can tune his instrument. Each of these hues has three variable factors (see page 14, paragraph 14), and scientific tests are necessary to measure and relate their uneven degrees of Hue, Value, and Chroma."]. Between this and MacEvoy and Briggs, it is a shame there is not a greater consensus in the talk page to reflect the well established skeptical perspective on Itten and the idea of RYB as the primary colors. Maneesh (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

::::It's OK to express skepticism, and to contrast traditional color theory with color science. But let's do it with solid sources. Thanks for finding those. Dicklyon (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

:::::The assertion that MacEvoy and Briggs are not "solid" just doesn't hold up. If Hirschler is solid, then look at the citation to Briggs in Hirschler that is linked above: "Another extremely useful source of information is David Brigg's “The Dimensions of Colour” web site,18 written by an artist–scientist for the nonscientist, explaining science in an easily understandable manner."Maneesh (talk)

::::::MacEvoy and Briggs are self-published web stuff. They're OK for a lot of things, but not for extra-negative comments on traditional color theory. Dicklyon (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

This stuff was not so badly discussed in the History section that you removed in 2016, Maneesh, so I've restored that and cleaned it up some. Let's see where we can go from there. Dicklyon (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

:No consensus from me on that. Depsite my many requests, no reliable source that can describe what an "RYB Color Model" is, what it predicts etc. sorry. The difference between the quality of the section you have restored and the History section that I have expanded is night and day.Maneesh (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

::What history section have you expanded? And do you see an alternative to linking the RYB color model article? Is your objection mainly that it's called a "model" even though it's not as predictive as modern color science models? Dicklyon (talk) 06:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

:::You can see the history section that is now the 2nd history section on the page that largely covers the history of red yellow and blue (as "philosophical", light and pigment) primary colors and places the various models in history. This is a pretty standard history you can find in the sources that are cited. I have no doubt it can be improved, though I feel it's approaching the limit on detail (if someone really wanted to learn about David Brewster's ideas, they could have a separate article for it). My objection (aside from the fact that there are now two history sections on this page) is that *there is no model called the RYB model*. You don't find the term "RYB color model" in a source like Shamey and Kuehini, what you do find there is a remarkable history of "red yellow and blue as chromatic primary colors" in terms of philosophy, light and pigments. None of the sources that is cited in a review like Shamey and Kuehini call their models (that use red yellow and blue as primary colors) the "RYB color model". Shamey and Kuehini don't collectively call all those models "RYB color models" either. The authors of all of those "models" (using that term loosely) don't make the same claims, predictions etc. etc. The page should be very clear as to what sort of color is being discussed, and any claims ought to be backed up by good sources. The section you've reintroduced doesn't do that. You will forgive me if I don't pick it apart, it is very very low quality. Much of it is already in the article in appropriate sections, the sources don't support the (underspecified) assertions and I am sure at least one claim in there is dead wrong etc. If you are going to insist that the "RYB color model" is some sort of coherent thing you need to support that assertion with a high quality sourc that uses the term "RYB color model" and specifies and attributes it to someone/an organization in some sort of coherent way. Low quality art theory books generally do not have any such detail and make all sorts of untrue claims. All the other models on this page are well known and credible enough that there is plenty of detail that can be found through by following links/refs. Maneesh (talk) 08:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

::::Sorry, I must have been looking at an intermediate version, between when you deleted the history section and when you wrote a new one. I'll look it over. Dicklyon (talk) 03:41, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

::::Thanks for the Maxwell quote. What's mainly missing from the article is a discussion of the primaries of traditional color theory, except for what's buried at the end in the history section. There's a section on painter's palette, which maybe is there to substitute for a discussion of traditional RYB primaries, but it's not a very useful substitute. Dicklyon (talk) 07:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

:::::The 'traditional color theory' you are referring to is, I suspect, really what Itten is saying and what was adapted in art education at large scale in the 20th century. You need to tell the reader what 'traditional color theory' is ([https://munsell.com/color-blog/modern-traditional-color-theory-part-1/ Briggs does a good job]). This was in the article until you deleted it earlier. Itten doesn't call his ideas the "RYB Color Model", there is no coherent thing called the RYB color model (please do provide some source for this, I have asked many times). Are all the names associated with defining RYB as primary colors all talking about the same RYB color model? The reason you don't see a great deal of attention to RYB in a section on painting is because Itten-ish ideas of RYB were never known to be practically adopted by actual painters. Look at the quote from Pliny, consider this quote from handprint:[https://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/color6.html "There is no historical source prior to the 18th century that starts with three "primary" or "primitive" colors and explains how to mix all other colors from them. Mention by Alberti or Leonardo of the "artists' primaries" (red, yellow, green and blue) is not applied to explain paint mixing. When mixing techniques are described, focus is on specific color effects that are possible with specific preparations of pigments or grounds."]. The material that has been added doesn't stand up to the rest of the article in terms of quality. The cite to Quiller is a source that actually denies red yellow and blue are the primary colors (pg. 13) and goes on to define specific pigments as primaries (!). How does Quiller do this? Simple: low quality art theory book that doesn't hold itself up to any basic scrutiny. The CMYK cite is fine, but the writing should use the cite to place it in history the way the rest of the section does. The new writing uses [https://www.printoutlet.us/glossary.php?glossaryid=2526 this] as cited source? Really? Please do integrate the ideas you want in here better, they stick out like a sore thumb right now.Maneesh (talk) 08:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

:::::The added color wheel is opaquely captioned "RYB color wheel". This is has not risen out of the ocean by itself, who made this specific diagram and what do the relationships between the diametrically opposed colors mean? It sure does look like Itten's color wheel to me without the central part.File:Farbkreis Itten 1961.pngManeesh (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

::::::The tradition doesn't depend on Itten, but yes he was one of many using such an RYB color wheel (if you google "color wheel" you'll see almost nothing but RYB wheels). As for the title RYB color model, let's find a better alternative if that's not it. I took the Briggs ref out because it appeared to be self-published and a bit negative, pushing a color science POV, and Munsell system, instead of neutrally explaining traditional color theory. Dicklyon (talk) 01:49, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

:::::::I never said it does depend on Itten but the example you put forth is clearly Itten's color wheel (minus the central shape) unless you can point to another source that coincidentally made one like his. There are many [http://www.huevaluechroma.com/pics/0.2.1.jpg color wheels] you can find on google images, very few of them seem to be from reliable sources (or make any real sense). If you're going to use the term 'traditional color theory' you need a reliable source that uses that term, Briggs does this: [https://munsell.com/color-blog/modern-traditional-color-theory-part-1/ "A defining characteristic of traditional color theory is its adherence to the three historical primary colors, yellow, red and blue..."]. If that's true then you are talking about models/authors in the 18th-19th century and Itten which are/were already covered in the article. There must be more (given Munsell's comments) but none that seem to be as notable as those already covered in the article. Which notable 'traditional color theory' is not mentioned in the article or what other definition of 'traditional color theory' are you using? Maneesh (talk) 04:05, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

::::::::Lots of people use the 12-color wheel like Itten's, or the 6-color variant, based on the RYB triad, usually without that fancy interior structure. I've been reading Itten and I agree it's a mess the way he tries to be semi-scientific about his thoughts on color. But that's not a reason to not cover the traditional RYB color primaries concept. Your latest edit only says what it's not. Can't we have a more neutral/positive statement about the RYB concept that reflects its overwhelming prevalence in art and design? It must seem odd to readers who come to an article "Primary colors" and don't find a section on the primary colors that they are most familiar with. And I remind you that I am, like you, a color scientist, so it's not like I don't understand the difference between the traditional RYB and the color-science-based RGB and CMY models. Dicklyon (talk) 03:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

:::::::::He does have that pseudo-mathematical-rigor tone, doesn't he? That's Itten's wheel, I haven't done so but it looks overlayable to me. You can see that I've added a lot of material about authors who said "red yellow and blue are primary colors" in the history section. There are many authors, across many years that say various things about their models. Which one of those is the "RYB color model"? It would be quite difficult to collect and cross compare the claims from all those models and not get very far away from the subject of the article. The only common thread that you can really pull out (as Briggs also says) is that they say "red, yellow and blue are primary colors". If there is more that is common across all those models, or someone has *the* RYB color model please do point it out. Which of those models has reflected its overwhelming prevalence in art and design? II want to address more in your comment, but let's just focus on this. P.S. I remind you my friend that I am not a color scientist.Maneesh (talk) 07:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

::::::::[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/col.22609 Here] is a recent peer-reviewed review of traditional color theory that we can draw on for how to frame what the tradition is and where it comes from. I got a preprint from the author; let me know if you'd like a copy. It shows some of the same 18th through 20th century color wheels and triangles that we use in our color wheel article and other places, including Itten's. Dicklyon (talk) 04:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

:::::::::Yes I've seen that paper (after becoming aware of it on the talk page in RYB Color Model). Read it carefully and you can see it makes a lot of claims that do not stand up to basic scrutiny (like a lot of "traditional color theory", whatever that is). You can see where this started from in links on [https://web.archive.org/web/20200926045244/http://www.huevaluechroma.com/1110.php Briggs' page]. The comments there seem to echo the general idea that no one seems to want to be very clear about what traditional color theory is what it predicts etc. You can see one instance of "RYB colour model" in the paper and it and it does not explain what it is. I will just say that the paper is not yet used by others and should not be used in this article.Maneesh (talk) 07:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

::::::::::But the RYB color model is not a specific predictive model like the color-science models are. It's just what it is, the notion the red, yellow, and blue are primaries, which is a very widespread notion that our article just seems to deny and denegrate, rather than represent neutrally. Dicklyon (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

:::::::::::I keep asking for what this RYB color model is and I don't get any answers. "Red, yellow and blue are primary colors" is a claim that definitely is prominent in the 18th century to present amongst some "color theorists" and authors of children's/layman "art educational" materials. I've put in some of the most well known claims from that family in this article as they should certainly be represented (as they are in all the best sources that are listed here). The fact is the practice of skilled/professional painting has been done (and done well) without these ideas (read Gage) for more than 2000 years. Some people do causally call RYB 'painters primaries' but high quality sources explain why that idea never really had much truth to it when you look at the practice of painting. The idea about RYB as primary colors had really caught on after acrimony against Newton's discoveries about light but even so you can find 19th century layman's painting manuals written by smart authors who are clearly aware that "RYB are primaries" isn't true. You can't get away from representing some denigration of the idea of "RYB primaries" here. Look at the quality of the article on 'traditional color theory', look at what Munsell had to say about the idea more than a 100 years ago. Maneesh (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

::::::::::::I don't know why you keep asking. You can't really squeeze RYB into the kind of model you like. The review by Zena O'Connor is a pretty good overview, I'd say. Sure, you can "denigrate" via a contrast with modern color science, as many have done, yet you should admit that the concept of RYB primaries is still alive, well, and in some ways dominant. We should say more about why. Acknowledge it and move on. We don't need comparisons to creation science or statements of "pugnacious" from MacEvoy to do that. Dicklyon (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

:::::::::::::Right so no evidence then on something called the RYB model and what it is, despite asking multiple times and no explanation as to why you can't find any mention of it in high quality sources in color science and art history (EDIT: I should add that these sources are *extensive* in their coverage of the historical idea of "red, yellow and blue are primary colors" because that's all there is to this). The O'Connor review is very poor quality and contains clear fibs not used by others. The analogies of 'traditional color theory' to creation science are even clearer when I read that review. Sorry, you seem to be the one who can't describe the vaporous RYB model. You need to do that and support your assertions with high quality sources in the article if you expect them to stay in there. The reverts you've put in right now don't make sense with the rest sections they are a part of. Maneesh (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

::::::::::Crikey! I didn't realized I had been in the position of defender of RYB against your denigration for over 2 years already! How time flies... Dicklyon (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Now the most recent reverts reintroduce the false claim "Since the 18th century at least, the use of red, yellow, and blue as chromatic primaries has been regarded by many painters as sufficient for painting". Rood does not support the claim and I've already explained why this is not true in the edit summaries and I think many times on this talk page.Maneesh (talk) 07:43, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

:The quote in the cite says "It is well known to painters that approximate representations of all colours can be produced by the use of very few pigments. Three pigments or coloured powders will suffice, a red, yellow, and a blue; for example, crimson lake, gamboge, and Prussian blue. The red and yellow mingled in various proportions will furnish different shades of orange and orange-yellow; the blue and yellow will give a great variety of greens; the red and blue all the purple and violet hues. There have been instances of painters in water-colours who used only these three pigments, adding lampblack for the purpose of darkening them and obtaining the browns and greys." If I haven't captured that accurately enough, please edit rather than just reverting. Or find some other sources that present what the traditional RYB primaries are about. Dicklyon (talk) 02:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

::The source is about mixing and approximating colors from "primary" pigments. Rood is talking about watercolor implicitly since he doesn't mention white paint (any representational oil painter cannot do very much painting without white). I can't help you find reliable sources that tell you about what RYB primaries are about past what I've already added to the article. The sentence you've put in is contradicted by the sentences that come after. If you are going to put in a claim, please do actually integrate it in. The claims that I have put in are well known and easily supported from high quality sources. There is very little to say about RYB as primaries past 'here are some people that said RYB are primary colors' (since all those people are saying a great diversity of things) and that the claim was never taken seriously by professional painters and (correctly) debunked by scientists involved in seminal discoveries about color. Maneesh (talk) 05:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

Dicklyon claims "That makes no sense; and the sources doesn't mention pigments in relation to these color concepts" with the edit that added red, back and white as primaries and cited a paper by Gage. Here is the full quote:

Red, yellow and blue are not, of course, the only 'primary' triad, or

even the most privileged one. The much older and more universal set,

black, white and red, has recently come into prominence again in

anthropological studies of language, chiefly in connection with the

evolution of non-European cultures, where the earliest colour-categories were those of light and dark, followed almost universally by a

term for 'red'.20 But this triad also has a long history in the IndoGermanic languages and their cultures; as readers of Grimm's fairy-tale,

Snow White will recall, where the heroine was compounded of these

three colourS.21 In early abstract painting this set had an especially

prominent place in Russia, in the first school of geometric abstraction,

the Suprematism of Malevich. In an essay of 1920 Malevich divided his

movement into three phases, according to the proportion of black, red

and white squares introduced into its pictures.

So, how was early abstract painting done in Russia without pigments? Looking at Malevich's paintings, many (but not all) of the 'Suprematism' ones seem to be made of only of red, black or white.

Maneesh (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

:I don't know what this was in reference to. Dicklyon (talk) 05:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

:His pigment usage is sometimes analyzed online, e.g. at [https://colourlex.com/project/malevich-suprematist-painting/ this ColourLex page], which says of one painting:

::The following pigments were employed in this painting:

:::Red: vermilion

:::Yellow: cadmium yellow and chrome yellow

:::Green: long green line in the upper part of the composition is painted in emerald green, the two small green rectangles at the very bottom are painted in the mixture of Prussian blue and chrome yellow.

:::Blue: cobalt blue and artificial ultramarine

:so I guess it wasn't done without pigments in general. Dicklyon (talk) 01:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Two of the refs have oddly formatted years and generating errors:

• Ball, Philip (2002 [2001]). Bright earth : art and the invention of color (1st American ed.). New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

• Newton, Isaac (19 February 1671/2). "A Letter of Mr. Isaac Newton … containing his New Theory about Light and Color". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (80): 3075–3087. Retrieved 19 November 2020. The Original or primary colours are, Red, Yellow, Green, Blew, and a Violet-purple, together with Orange, Indico, and an indefinite variety of Intermediate gradations.

The Newton ref really is formatted like that across a year. Don't know exactly why the Ball ref comes back like that from cross ref. Can anyone suggest the appropriate fix? Maneesh (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

{{Talk:Primary color/GA1}}