Er... I don't think I buy this aphorism
First of all, what's a "pure" mind?
When I check the statement against personal experience, I see no correlation between "thoughtfulness" and color appreciation. If anything, I might guess the opposite-- color seems to have the strongest appeal for children and childish adults.
I have sometimes read on DA that...
color is hard to do well.
Color also seems to be what separates the masters from the very good in painting.
And among the master painters, those that live long and stay productive late in life seem to get into some very simple compositions that relie very heavily on color, as if the old masters are saying, "See here, I've done it all and when it comes right down to it, when I pair everything away and finally reach the childlike simplicity that costs not less than everything to attain, it comes down to color."
But maybe I am too simple in my analysis.
Lunchbox...
I mean no criticism here. I am simply fascinated by the logic of your rejection of Ruskin's wisdom on color.
First you assume for his wisdom to be useful, it must be a universal law; then you produce what you think exemplifies an exception to it and imply a rejection of his wisdom totally.
In contrast, I view Ruskin's epigram as heuristic, not as a scientific law, or a hypothetical assertions that can be refuted based on a single, or a few exceptions.
As I view it, one would have to come up with a tendency for the epigram to be wrong for one to reject it entirely.
Now, Ruskin did write in flat assertions, as that was the style of epigramitists of the day, but I find it hard to believe that Ruskin thought that every single human being on the face of the earth would confirm his epigram.
And I find it equally hard to believe that he would find one crazy painter like Van Gough to be sufficient evidence to refute the essential insight of his epigram.
In short, I suspect that he would have expected exceptions to his epigram.
I suspect that he would have expected the tendency to be consistent with his epigram.
In turn, I would expect for someone disagreeing with his epigram, to point out that most persons who love color are not very happy, rather than pointing out one crazy painter.
Can you explain why you point out only one crazy painter, rather than trying to make the case that most people who like color are unhappy. Showing me that most people who like color are, say, as miserable as Van Gough, during his afflicted periods, would make your argument quite persuasive.
Ever since I took logic, I have been fascinated why persons reason in this way. You are certainly not the first that I seen reason in this way. Who knows? Maybe you are right. Maybe one exception to this rule is sufficient to bring John Ruskin's towering house of cards regarding color tumbling down. But I wonder.
Ruskin on color...
The pures...
Ruskin on color...
The purest and most thoughtful minds are those which love colour the most.--John Ruskin
I, too, find this quote to be silly.
Pure and thoughtful by what measure? Plain and simple, it's simply too generalized of a statement to take seriously.
If you are just measuring purity and thoughtfulness as it relates to design and art there are so many cases that would prove this and disprove this. It is well known that Charles Eames tended to like mostly neutrals, while Girard loved color.... I would consider them both to be very thoughtful and pure in terms of their design expressions.
Certainly he doesn't mean this in terms of morality? I assume this is just related to the arts?
Lunchbox...
Altogether silly?
Fascinating.
I am supposed to take your word without justification against the word of a brilliant scholar from the 19th Century.
This is chutzpah, though not very persuasive argument.
Don't you see the problem you create for yourself?
You are a person whom I do not know.
I know John Ruskin to be a remarkably insightful mind on many topics.
However, I want to believe you, because it is always fun expose a great mind for being a goof ball on one subject or another.
Yet you contradict him with nothing more than your word and a flip remark about a crazy painter.
It is as if you wish to leave me with no choice but to side against you, but with John Ruskin, even though I am pulling for you to be right, so we can both jeer at old John Ruskin in his grave for being a 19th Century fop about color.
Come on, Lunchbox, substantiate the mendacity. Design an argument that holds up under its own weight. I believe you can do it. But I'm not going to do it for you. Its your assertion after all.
I am cheering you on.
I am behind you.
Make John Ruskin look silly, don't just call him silly.
You can do it!!
Afterwards, we'll both throw a pie at a picture of him, too.
We'll have a very good laugh at his expense.
whitespike...
Thank you for taking a moment and explaining WHY you thought the quote silly. I can see your point.
Frankly, I posted the quote, because I thought it might stir some comment about color in contemporary design. I did not expect everyone to focus solely on the philosophical aspect of the quote. But it is nonetheless interesting that they have.
Ruskin's color statement is tough to dissect and refute--
it's vague to the point of being meaningless.
"Pure" means nothing, in this context.
"Thoughtful" means: absorbed in thought; meditative; characterized by careful, reasoned thinking.
Therefore, Ruskin's saying that the most careful, reasoned thinkers are those that love color the most. (or, "The best minds love color.")
If one can produce a "best mind" indifferent to color (Whitespike cited Eames, as one example), it proves Ruskin's statement is false.
No one's attacked Ruskin personally-- we've questioned the validity of the statement, REGARDLESS of who said it. You, on the other hand, seem to be using WHO SAID IT as proof of its truth.
May I explain myself better?
Now that I have smidgen of time, I would like to defend my position on Ruskin's "silly" comment further. I think the best and most effective way for me to do this given my limited time is in a numbered list. I think this will help to separate my jumbled thoughts. I'll do my best to keep it clear...
1. Just because Ruskin is well known for his intellect doesn't mean that he only voices what be believes to be fact - like anyone else, I am sure he voices his opinions as well. A person is not required to preface a statement with "I believe this to be fact" or "this is my opinion based on my casual, non-scientific observations."
2. Based on my observations (again, not fact), intellectuals who are fully aware of their acquired or inherent smarts often have an overly "healthy" view of themselves. Very often they make these quick, snappy observations (often in incomplete sentences) that are meant to be extremely thoughtful. While they may have some truth to them, and are often fun to discuss (like in this instance), many times they are simply just too short and sweet to have any real, meaningful substance.
3. His position on this is very vague. Again, is he only talking about those who are involved in the arts and design? Is he talking about thoughtfulness and purity in aesthetics? Or is he talking about the human spirit or mind (that would really be silly)?
4. Here we are expecting Lunchbox to back his simple claim that this statement is silly. But, simply because of this man's fame and reputation, we are not asking the same of him. We are simply making a mountain out of a simple, probably self indulgent, statement that Ruskin could even have made in jest or while drunk for all we know. What is the context of this statement? If he did expound on his statement, then why are his explanations not being typed here? What good are my explanations compared to the explanations of the author himself? Are we being discriminated against because our lack of fame and reputation? So only we have to explain ourselves, and not the man himself? Are we following this man blindly?
5. Taking someone's word for anything is stupid. Find out for yourself if the curiosity kills you. It's almost more dangerous to trust an intellect than it is to trust a simpleton.
6. What about those whose areas of talent do not have anything to do with aesthetics? Why would color matter to Stravinsky? Albert Einstein? Jorge Luis Borges? I bet Shakespeare's favorite "colors" were black and white .... ink and paper.
7. Can we really say people like Mies and FLW are not thoughtful. Their creations were not exactly colorful.
That's it for me ... for now. In my OPINION, this was probably a self indulgent "look at me I am so f**king smart," kind of statement with little to no substance.
I would like to close by thanking Mr. DCWilson for a fun and thought provoking topic. It's been a long time coming!
dc...
If the inherent universe of contradiction between 'pure' and 'thoughtful' aren't enough to render this quote silly, relating them both to color does quite nicely to nudge it into the realm of ridiculous. caulfield's first line of reply sums up its lack of credibility. But even being such a vague statement, it is completely illogical.
Oh and by the way, I am a philosophical genius. So no need to question what I say.
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com