Do colors really have a psychological impact on us or is it all just cultural?
nigga really, our survival depended on associations with color, colors definitely have a psychological impact>redpussy, lips, sweet, sweet fruit
>>16134433Light is scientific, but also psychological. We live in a psycho-physical reality. Light emits vibrations, frequencies and so forth into your eyes. Freud's first work was actually in optics. Read into it, but the gist is that yes colors impact you across cultures.
They have a psychological impact on us BECAUSE it is cultural. Cultural and physical.Remember Seinfeld episode with the red neon sign on Kramer's apartment? Light affects us and different wavelenghts affect us differently, but that only goes to a certain extent. When you hear stuff like "fast food use warm colors to make you eat faster and feel more hungry", part of it is physical, but most of it is cultural.In graphic design, some colors will be seen as modern or old, but that changes, if every modern company decides for a purple logo, soon it will be seen as old. It's hard to look at bright pink and not think of feminine Barbie like things, but there is nothing inherent to the color that makes it so. Blue is statistically the most favorite color in the world, hence why social media or other companies that aim to be generic often have blue logos rather than pink ones.Just don't take too seriously, most of it is just obvious common sense, hospitals can't have bright saturated colors flashing to their patients, if your house is totally grey and black with white light, that's depressing.
>>16134433There is a paradox concerning Red and Blue, the former color is actually the most relaxing color to our eyes despite being associated with passion, whereas the latter color is actually the most disruptive to our eyes despite being associated with calmness
>>16134433YesThere's a reason why psychologists tend to wear colored clothes.It makes them look friendlier, which is essential in their profession.
Both, plus subliminal. I deciphered their code.
>>16137686Lol
>>16134433>is it all just culturalmany african tribes don't have the concept of blue and green. they're the same color to them. wouldn't be surprised that some of their people don't have the genetics to see blue.sometimes I, too, can't differentiate between blue and green, probably cause I was half drunk.
>>16138220It's not genetic, it's cultural. In ancient Greece they also did not have a word for blue separate from green. These distinctions are a linguistic thing.
>>16138265what
>>16138220color perception (if you're not colorblind) is totally up to language, different cultures assign different importance to colors and so some get names and others don't, the japanese had no word for orange and a loooooot of languages don't differentiate blue from green or pink from red
>>16138283language in this case is a way to describe a race's perception of the world. they are not that separate. I am saying there could be races that cannot differentiate between blue and green because they perceive those two as the same color.
>>16138283so if we had no words for green even tho our eyes detect it distinctly from other colors, then we wouldn't be seeing green? how would it look to us? other color? which one? or would we see it as gray?
>>16137176That happened only after the introduction of artificial lights able to emit strong blues. Before that intense blue light was a sunny day thing, completely opposed to night and its terrors.
>>16135777THANK YOU SO MUCH I COULD KISS YOU. ALL OF THESE PEOPLE NEED TO LEARN ABOUT BRAIN ENTRAINMENT AND THE HOW PARTICULAR FREQUNCIES ARE GOOD FOR US, INCLUDING RED LIGHT AND DELTA WAVES
>>16134433The colors are more important than you could possibly imagine
>>16134433You know what's been fucking me up lately? People raised without words that distinguish between colors are physically less capable of perceiving those colors than other people. I hate it so much.
>>16134433Red light helps you see in the dark. Blue light keeps you awake.
>>16138287>>16138289>so if we had no words for green even tho our eyes detect it distinctly from other colors, then we wouldn't be seeing green? how would it look to us? other color? which one? or would we see it as gray?You see the same color, but you call it "blue" or something like that. The names are invented, there are no "7 colors of the rainbow", it's all made up and it depends on how you use them and the need you may have to differentiate them. They are just wavelengths, how we perceive them and categorize them is up to us.Someone who is not into colors all that much may call both a magenta and a vermillion "red". If you're looking for someone in a crowd in a magenta shirt you just say "he is wearing red". That should work, it won't be confused for blue or yellow. But if you are mixing paint you must know the difference between a magenta, a red and a vermillion.
>>16138269>>16138740 hereIn Spanish, red is "rojo", in Portuguese, red is "vermelho" which takes its name from vermillion, but means red, so they are not calling it wrong, it's their name for the color red. Now "rojo", "rosso" and "rouge" all come from the same root meaning red, but in Portuguese the word "roxo" means purple. These things are totally a linguistic thing.In design we work with different color spaces, these color spaces are more precise because they take from the CMYK (cyan magenta yellow black[key]) for printing and RGB for digital. Even so, each OS and software will have different color profiles based on different color spaces, hence why colors may come out all wrong in printing if you don't know how to navigate that. The Pantone colors for example give us a code to each one of them that you can reproduce in paint.You never had a discussion about a blue wall that some other person calls it green? Then some smartass comes saying it's actually teal. All language.
Guys, when you think about it, Green being bright to us makes no sense.You'd think that it's the most abundant color in nature and thus logically our eyes should be the most sensitive to it, until you realize it doesn't really makes sense.Because Green is the most common color in nature, it would've been much more practical for non-green colors like Red and Blue to appear brighter to our eyes to more easily detect fruits amongst the greenry and yet here we are with Green standing out instead.
>>16138865None of these colors are brighter than the other, your question makes no sense.
>>16138871Are you stupid? Green is brighter than other colors and it's a scientifically known fact that our eyes are wired to be most sensible to it.
have you ever heard of baker-miller pink? apparently it calms someone down, leading a prison to be painted in the colour. if you really think about it, people from all colours and places and ethnicities go to that prison, yet it still could lead to less aggression? why so you may ask? i think its psychological with a mix of culture, because in places you could see red for stop/angry/bad etc and green for go/good etc and it could be taught with the traffic lights. but in some places the traffic lights are different colours, which could lead for colours to represent different meanings to them. overall its a mix of both.
>>16134433ya forget orange, between red and yellowya forget azure, between blue and cyanya forget violet, between blue and magentaya forget rose, between red and magentaya forget chartreuse, between yellow and greenya forget a lot of things
>>16139063Stfu
>>16134433Yes
>>16134433No
bump
You forget tur, between blue and purple
>red>>16135599Blood
>>16134433If Blue carry high energy, wouldn't Cyan and Magenta also carry high energy due to being variants of Blue?
>>16143744The visible spectrum goes from red to violet, violet being the one of the highest frequency. Beyond the visible spectrum you have ultraviolet (higher frequency) and infra red (lower frequency) besides other electromagnetic waves. Being of higher frequency means it collides with more stuff, hence why ultraviolet can burn and microwaves can cook. The lower frequencies are used not to clash with stuff, which is why a photographer's developer room has dim red light, enough for him to see, but not of much impact on the photography paper and chemicals. X-ray is another example, it can go beyond our skin, but will reflect on denser materials like bones and lead.We have three cones in our retina's cells that intake short, medium and long waves within the visible spectrum, they are combined in our brains to form the colors. Magenta is a result of these brain calculations, which is why some people say they magenta "doesn't exist", it's a combo of short and long waves which is unlike the middle range (closer to green).
>>16143811You did not answer the question whatsoever, wouldn't Cyan and Magenta also carry the high photon energy of Blue because they are colors made from Blue?
>>16143869magenta IS blue + red photons. cyan can be blue + green or cyan photons.
Now that I think about it, magenta is the only color that is honest about being a ghost, whereas yellow and cyan can be deceptive pieces of shit
>>16143869Color is perceptual, they are not "made from blue" because there is no such thing, only high frequency and low frequency and anything in between. Your brain receives the mixture of frequencies and creates the perception of color. Magenta is a bright blue and bright red lights combined, so high and low frequency together. Photon energy is proportional to frequency. When people say one color is made of another they are mostly talking about the world of paint, so if you mix yellow paint and red paint you get an orange color, but on a microscopic level nothing was mixed, you can break apart the compounds that created the mixed pigment. In print you use CMYK system, that is, how much cyan, magenta, yellow and black is in a given color, so if you want red you need to mix yellow and magenta, if you want blue you mix cyan and magenta, if you want green you mix yellow and cyan. In light, the colors are RGB because they refer to our tricone vision, but that's still a simplification, each of the cones take a broader range of frequencies, they just peak somewhere in those areas. So if you want cyan you mix blue and green lights, if you want yellow, red and green lights, if you want magenta blue and red lights.
>>16143894>yellow and cyan can be deceptiveand I think white but I'd have to test it. there should be a mix of orange and some lighter blue that stimulate all color cones to make for white light. in this case you'd have two colors (wavelengths) making white, instead of three for RGB.>>16143910our cones are the firewall for "outside". whatever goes to them can vary, like green+blue OR cyan photons, but from eyes to brain you'd have the very same signals. so "energy" is about how much it stimulates one of the three color cones.
>>16143917>and I think white but I'd have to test it. there should be a mix of orange and some lighter blue that stimulate all color cones to make for white light. in this case you'd have two colors (wavelengths) making white, instead of three for RGB.Well that's how opposite colors work, if you mix Green light with Magenta light it will make white, if you mix Yellow light with Blue light it will make white, if you mix Cyan light with Red light it will make white
>>16138265>In ancient Greece they also did not have a word for blue separate from green. These distinctions are a linguistic thing.>>16138220>many african tribes don't have the concept of blue and green.I've read this before. It is very interesting to think about. Language has more of an effect of how we think and perceive the world than we grant it, I feel. At the same time, I don't think we should ignore biological explanations. Leaves/trees are green. Blood is red. The sky is blue. It makes sense (to me) that these colors inherently have different effects on us.
>>16138327I always associated red with night time and blue with day time for a similar reason and implement that color scheme into my art. It's what I see in reality.
>>16143956As for me I associate green with the natural and magenta with the supernatural
>>16143972nice, i also associate deep blue with sleep and magenta with dreams
>>16143943>Green light with Magentaye but those are three wavelengths, it's literally mixing RGB photons, clearly white. the point is you could get white with only two wavelengths, which makes for "fake" white
>>16143943but ye cyan photons + red should also make white, and yellow +blue photons. the idea is to stimulate all three types of cones equally
people in this thread are completely retarded, colors are not related to wavelength at all and magenta is one hint at such thing
>>16144432all of them are absolutely related to wavelength in our brains, else your colors would constantly randomize. even if the brain made them up.
>>16143811Magenta still "exists" as much as any other colour, it's a specific field excitation which our brain associates with a colour
>>16144487>it's a specific field excitationcone excitation. we see colors depending on how much R/G/B cones are stimulated
>>16144494And what do you think is stimulating them?
>>16144499light clearly. just that light stimulates the cones not the brain. the brain doesn't directly experience light. "colors" is just info received from the cones. remove the cone and input the correct electrical signal and you'd still see that color. and it wouldn't be created by light.
>>16144509>>16144499Ask yourself if you can imagine colors, or if you see colors in your dreams, you technically ain't receiving any physical light present here
>>16144487I agree, that's why I used the quote marks.
>>16144511What the fuck are you smoking, retard, I said in my first post that colour is a construct of the brain, but that colour is associated with a specific wavelength, which magenta has, because despite being a "combined wavelength" it still propagates as a singular wave on the quantum scale
>>16144515So you have Asperger syndrome, got it, you can leave the thread now if you don't want to pollute it further.
>>16144519
>>16134433Are you one of those retards who wanna surprise the world with a new "all colors are equal" theory?
>>16144524Why did you post an image of yourself being ridiculed?
>>16144519shut up idiot
>>16144547I see you have trouble with reading, as well.
>>16144565Why are you projecting your problems into me?
>>16144567*ontoas in it ontologically follows that without the prerequisite interaction with electromagnetic waves your brain wouldn't have associated anything with colours and there would be no "electrical signal", in fact the electrical signals you are talking about are themselves electromagnetic phenomena and no different from the stuff hitting your cones
