Comment by crazygringo
2 days ago
It's not "losing" color.
At periods when technology resulted in new color possibilities, people went overboard with color. Make all the things colorful!! Think of the technicolor sixties. And we can go back in history and see the same thing with new clothing pigments, new paint pigments.
But when everything is colorful, nothing stands out. Everything being colorful is as monotonous as everything being, well, monotone.
Modern taste is more about more neutral-colored foundations with color accents. Don't paint a whole room green -- have a gorgeous green plant that stands out all the more against its neutral background. Don't paint a whole wall orange -- have a beautiful orange-hued piece of art on the wall. It's just more tasteful to use color as one element, along with size, shape, texture, and so forth. Making it the main element in everything is just overdoing it. It's bad design.
I don't want constant "riotous color", as the article puts it, in my home, or my workplace, or while I'm driving. It's visually exhausting.
> At periods when technology resulted in new color possibilities, people went overboard with color. Make all the things colorful!! Think of the technicolor sixties. And we can go back in history and see the same thing with new clothing pigments, new paint pigments.
Based purely on intuition, I want to agree with you. However, the data in the article suggests there's been a fairly consistent decrease in color of media since the 1800s. You would expect an explosion of color in the 1960s and then a decrease, but one does not exist. At least, the "explosion" the data shows is a very minor increase that does not affect the overall pattern.
The data in the article is either not representative or didn't go back far enough.
The best example, cars, only goes back to 1990. And the museum objects are objects a science museum happened to keep, that go back to 1800? Hardly representative of consumer objects in general. There isn't even a single chart about clothing.
Glancing through historical clothing and car magazines from the past century is going to tell you a lot more.
So do you have actual own data to counter this?
1 reply →
If you look closely, there's actually an increase of red, green, blue, etc. at the same time as the increase in black and white, and it's the brownish colors of undyed organic materials that are decreasing. (Or maybe they were originally dyed and the color faded over the last 200 years.)
Whereas before you might've been limited to a choice of lighter or darker wood for your furniture, now you can have it in any synthetic color you want, including pure black and pure white.
Yeah I'm pretty skeptical of that visualisation anyway. It sure looks like there's more grey scale, but that's because they've grouped it all at the top. If you actually look at the pixels in the below "white" a lot of them are very dark and unsaturated too.
I don't think it's really a meaningful visualization. They're trying to show something 2D in 1 dimension.
> You would expect an explosion of color in the 1960s and then a decrease
The data shows an explosion of "new" colours in the 1960s, although the trend never stopped. Technology is still no doubt the answer – including the explosion in the black to white spectrum. We aren't limited to natural colours or colours, period, like we once were.
The big difference between 1800s and the 1960s is that oil paints were mixed “onsite” for color and the the 1960s had the commcerialization of latex paints and Pantone colors.
I should mention that the Bauhaus (1920s)broke out color theory as separate from graphics representation.
Geocities were explosion of color.
Also, pop art.
> You would expect an explosion of color in the 1960s and then a decrease
What happened was a lot of muted colors, earthy yellows, browns, and oranges in the 70s followed by an insane amount of the brightest colors possible in the late 80s and early 90s where fluorescent blues greens and pinks were everywhere. It seems like everything got a lot more bland after that and we've never recovered to happy medium.
> But when everything is colorful, nothing stands out. Everything being colorful is as monotonous as everything being, well, monotone.
This is meaningless.
"When many things are different, everything is the same".
Its a sentence that seems meaningful, but actually is not. It's just abstraction without generalizing.
"000000000000000000000000000" is a sequence just as something as "H90F3iJsjo$(4Opla1zSKX@)!2k" because in the second sequence they're different and in the first they're all the same? Great, you just discovered sets and the axiom of choice.
We are literally discussing the difference within the sets! Obviously the second sequence is more diverse.
First, I thought your argument was going somewhere but then it took this turn.
I would agree with the first part and then argue that before the synthetics-revolution things were mostly just shades of browns(which is a type of dark unsaturated orange). Except for the upper classes who could afford the expensive colors. Now that color is cheap and normalized, it lost (some) of its allure. Not being able to signal your wealth anymore.
Now adding just a conjecture of mine; Now that 'clean' is still somewhat more expensive(upper classes still being able to afford more cleanliness by using other peoples labor), minimal textures(not literal textures but design-wise) are more attractive because it displays your wealth. Plain-white being the easiest to see blemishes on. With black being easier look unblemished. Also, 'tasteful' color arrangements will still signal your class somewhat due to requiring cultural knowledge.
I'm going to change your first example. Can you see what stands out?
"00000000qq000000000I0000000"
Now I'm going to change your second example, also by three characters. Can you see what stands out?
"H90F3iJsjo$(4ORma1sSKX@)!2k"
Is that a clearer example of what I'm trying to say? In the second example, because every symbol stands out, no symbol stands out. Or to put it more technically, noise has overwhelmed any signal.
But you're contrasting chaotic use of many different colors with neutrality, and arguing for environments with very little color rather than well-coordinated color; you argued above that color was just one element along with size, shape, texture etc., as if these qualities were mutually exclusive and design should only emphasize one at any given time.
5 replies →
I would describe it more as noise... When there are loud, clashing color patterns everywhere, it all turns into noise and nothing really stands out. It's like watching analog TV with poor reception... there's stuff there, but really hard to make out or focus.
I'm with GP on this, I'd prefer most things be somewhat subdued and letting key pieces come out. The subdued doesn't have to expressly be a shade of gray or brown/tan either.
Modern SCADA systems are designed like this too. They used to be a riot of programmer art in primary colours, with most things blinking at any one time. Now they’re grey-on-grey for anything “nominal” with alarms in orange or red. Far less migraine inducing and far easier to see the important things.
> Its a sentence that seems meaningful, but actually is not.
It's perfectly meaningful. When everything is colourful you can't use colour to stand out. It's very simple. Obvious even.
Sure you can. Red rose in a field of green for example. Human eyes evolved to see the colours the way they do precisely because they were working in a world where nearly everything is colourful and some things needed to stand out.
2 replies →
> When everything is colourful you can't use colour to stand out. It's very simple. Obvious even.
Why not? Different colors stand out. Even gray on black does. They are just not colorful.
Look at this painting - [0]. Are you telling me the red tone doesn't stand out?
[0] - https://largemodernart.com/products/original-abstract-art-oi...
2 replies →
> Modern taste is more about more neutral-colored foundations with color accents. Don't paint a whole room green -- have a gorgeous green plant that stands out all the more against its neutral background. Don't paint a whole wall orange -- have a beautiful orange-hued piece of art on the wall. It's just more tasteful to use color as one element, along with size, shape, texture, and so forth.
I don't consider this to be a be-all, end-all of design, but I appreciate that designs following this approach can be stunningly beautiful. That said, this is not the problem. The problem is, what happens these days, someone films your room with that "gorgeous green plant that stands out all the more against its neutral background" and... color grades the shit out of color, making it near pitch-black on non-HDR TVs (and most computer screens) and merely grey with tiny amounts of trace color on HDR TVs.
This is the problem - or at least its TV aspect. That Napoleon example was spot on - most movies these days look like the right half, whereas anything remotely approaching realism would make it look like the left half. And TFA correctly notices the same washing out of colors is happening to products and spaces in general (which means double trouble when that's filmed and then color-graded some more).
The drained-color thing is exclusive to a certain type of TV/movie drama, and then also a serious technical problem involving HDR device-side (which is a whole other story).
But if you watch any comedy, or reality show, or plenty of "normal" dramas, on a regular TV, the color is normal.
However, yes, there has been a certain trend involving Christopher Nolan, "gritty realism", and legal-political-military-crime themes, to do color grading to massively reduce saturation and aggressively push towards blue. I don't like it much but you can also just not watch that stuff. It's stylistic the same way film noir was. Some people hated that back in the day too, now it's just seen as a style of the time.
> The drained-color thing is exclusive to a certain type of TV/movie drama
It's not. There's even a term coined for it, "intangible sludge". https://www.vox.com/culture/22840526/colors-movies-tv-gray-d...
> I don't like it much but you can also just not watch that stuff.
It's now permeated everything, so it's hard to not watch stuff, as it's everywhere, with few exceptions.
10 replies →
> The drained-color thing is exclusive to a certain type of TV/movie drama
You're absolutely wrong, it happened to video games too. The industry defended it by saying it made games look more "realistic", but have since backed off after consumers revolted and dubbed the aesthetic "piss filter."
Started in the mid 00s, went strong for about a decade and still persists to a lesser degree today. Only designers like it, consumers broadly hate it.
1 reply →
> color grades the shit out of color
Color grading itself isn't the problem. It's just a creative tool that can be used well or poorly. The problem is the intentional stylistic choices being made with the tool. I don't have strong opinions about TFAs arguments re: color in general but as someone deep into cinema production technology, there's a troubling lack of visual diversity in modern cinema and it's not just color, it's dynamic range and texture too.
It's crazy because this is happening in an era when digital cinema workflows from cameras to file formats to post-production allow everyone to capture, manipulate and distribute visuals with unprecedented levels of fidelity and dynamic range. Even DSLRs down to $3000 can capture full frame 4k camera raw with >14 stops of dynamic range which is insane. The great cinematographers of the past needed incredible skill to capture dynamic range from deep shadows to punchy highlights on film and it was always a risk since they had to wait for dailies. And they had little latitude to manipulate the image captured on the camera negative in post.
Today's imagers, formats and tools make capturing immense dynamic range not only fast and easy but cheap and virtually risk-free yet so much cinema looks flat and boring - and there's no technical reason for it. This video shows compelling examples contrasting recent movies with those shot on film in the 90s but also movies shot on much less capable digital cinema cameras in the early 2000s proving it's not digital or grading that's driving this. "Why don't movies look like movies any more?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwTUM9cFeSo.
According to Hollywood cinematographers in the video it's partly intentional artistic choices, part the impact of composing and lighting for HDR, part lack of creativity and production skill and a big part over focus on flat lighting for VFX shots (because the more expressive the digital camera negative is, the harder it is for VFX teams to match with CGI). I'd add another factor which is that younger cinematographers, LDs and camera ops who learned on high dynamic range digital cinema cameras have been trained to shoot a flat LUT. While this technically maximizes the latitude available for color grading in post (which is generally a good thing), the issue is that many extend this to composing and lighting shots that have virtually no expressive look in the captured digital negative at all. Color grading in post should be for small tweaks, conforming shot-to-shot variance, mastering and, occasionally, saving the day when something goes wrong with a shot. While modern editing and grading tools are immensely powerful, re-framing and grading in post cannot substitute for creative on-set lighting, lensing, composition and exposure choices. Great cinematographers still create their looks with lighting, lens and camera as if there were going to be no grading in post. Unfortunately, this seems to increasingly be an under-valued skill.
The requirements of modern VFX also contribute in an indirect way as well. It takes on-set time and energy for the camera teams to capture and check the increasingly complex list of clean plates, reflection map spheres and color/contrast references with specialized LUTs and metadata at a variety of apertures for every shot. This takes time away from traditional lighting and composition and ultimately producers don't budget enough time. When something has to give - it's not going to be the VFX plates. In modern effects-heavy productions, the VFX director always has a team on-set for every shot verifying they're getting what they need. While this is necessary and understandable, unfortunately, the reverse is rarely true. The cinematographer is not supervising the lighting and composition of all the major VFX elements because they are being produced by a dozen different vendors over a year-long post-production cycle. This can still work when you have a director like a James Cameron who's hands-on throughout the process and has top-notch VFX director and cinematography skills. But that's not the norm. This creates systemic incentives for directors, cinematographers and LDs to lens flat, unexpressive shots. Because if there's not consistent, hand-on creative direction over the whole process, the editor and colorist are left trying to stitch together a bunch of shots and elements that weren't created to exist cohesively in the same frame. I suspect not managing this complexity is how visual disasters like Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania happen.
Sadly, there's no reason it has to be this way. Technically, it's entirely possible to create a VFX-heavy movie that looks like every part of every frame was lensed by a master like Bernardo Bertolucci. There's nothing required that's even that hard or expensive compared to modern VFX blockbuster complexity or budgets. I think the reason we haven't seen it yet is two-fold: today's top producers, directors and cinematographers rarely have the new and diverse skill sets required in one person and none of the few with the skills and experience has had both the creative intention and budget to do it. I'm actually hopeful that maybe in the next few years someone like a Nolan or Cameron will decide to try to take it to this level as an aspiration. Currently, many of those with the budgets and cred are choosing to address the challenge by reverting to creating effects with practical sets and in-camera techniques. This can avoid the problem but it's looking backward instead of embracing the challenge and doing the pioneering work of figuring out how to push through and solve it. Whoever does it may discover all-new creative and expressive capabilities.
The video you link has turned into a classic.
But I also disagree with its claim that black shadows everywhere are "cinematic" and desirable.
They're a limitation of film at the time. When I watch those classic movies, I don't like the fact that all the shadows are crushed. I feel like half the frame is hiding texture that ought to be there. I like the dynamic range of modern cameras.
We didn't "forget" how to "make movies look like movies". We decided that there's a wider range of ways movies can look, and we're intentionally taking advantage of that for creative freedom. And like always, people will disagree over aesthetic choices.
I totally understand what you mean, though, about lighting vs grading, and where what gets done, but there are good arguments for doing more with grading rather than in the lighting. It ultimately allows the editor+grader+director to make a lot more choices, and that's generally a good thing. You say "color grading in post should be for small tweaks" but I respectfully disagree. And obviously, there isn't even a choice when it comes to the outdoors in daytime -- it has to be done in the grading.
4 replies →
> I don't want constant "riotous color", as the article puts it, in my home, or my workplace, or while I'm driving. It's visually exhausting.
could a factor driving current monotone style be less about aesthetics and taste and more that we're all just cognitively exhausted?
everything is fighting for our attention because our attention has been monetized. so when something bland shows up, it simultaneously provides a bit of respite and can seem more 'trustworthy' because it isn't clamoring for your attention.
if i were buying some kitchen appliances and i had a choice between a brightly colored models or a stark, utilitarian models, i have to admit that the stark ones have appeal because they "look professional" (even though it may not actually be pro quality) and "the color is just a sales gimmick" (even though boring industrial grey is also a sales gimmick)
> we're all just cognitively exhausted?
If you include electronic media as a source of this cognitive exhaustion, then I'm with you. If greyscale dominates the physical environment, then it's a reaction to something equally pervasive.
> If greyscale dominates the physical environment, then it's a reaction to something equally pervasive.
My impression from the data is not that greyscale now dominates the physical environment, but that browns once dominated. Presumably because things like wood, copper, etc. once dominated the materials we engrossed ourselves in. As we've expanded the paints and other materials we live with, we've found much more balance.
2 replies →
I think the sensory load idea is productive, but I'd add a related idea of drawing attention to key things only.
I don't care if my kettle looks "professional"; one is pink, another is orange.
But I prefer walls around me to be white or very lightly colored, not, say, intensively red. That would constantly distract me.
Code in my editor is colorful like a Christmas tree, bur most of the interface is muted beige and green. This is about certain things requiring my attention, and others sparing it.
When everything is loud, nothing is, nothing stands out. Bold colors often work better as accents.
(Sometimes it's about non-aesthetic considerations. I prefer my car to be approximately white to soak in less of the hot summer summer sun.)
I have a different take on interior wall colors: any shade too far off from white actually darkens the room no matter the color.
Paint colors subtractively from light: you never get more light into a room when you're knocking out wavelengths rather then reflecting them. Whereas with whiter walls you always have the option of manipulating color by using colored lighting.
> cognitively exhausted?
i find it cognitively exhausting to watch movies that are so dark that most times i cannot even see the eye color of the cast
Well, visually exhausting is something that imho happens only if you find unpleasant the colors you're seeing. The wonderful island of Burano is something I would never get tired of, yet it's so colorful.
I think that the visual exhaustion comes from the fact that the thing we see everyday are made to catch our attention and not to decorate. So ads, shits and giggles that don't really add to our experience but that catch - and drain - our attention
Then again I'd probably be fine with a super duper wallpaper like this so perhaps we won't agree on some things such as having few colorful elements https://www.photowall.com/ee/memphis-piazza-panorama-wallpap...
I don't hate the wall art in your example... it's not quite my taste, but it doesn't make me pull my hair out. If you look at something like the link below, I'd hate having to be anywhere near it. Busy patterns and mixes of color just feel like noise and give me (sometimes literally) a headache.
https://www.apartmenttherapy.com/vintage-bathroom-makeover-p...
Ok, I don't like that mess too
> It's visually exhausting.
This. It's about managing stimulation levels and contrast. If the environment is continually shouting at you it's hard to hear the whispers, where the meaning is.
I bet one of those color comparison graphs of the average website in 1998 through today would show the same trend. I wish the inflationary trend in linguistic overstatement did the same.
> I wish the inflationary trend in linguistic overstatement did the same.
Nowadays literally everything I read is the most egregious overstatement I've ever seen.
Love the phrasing. I found myself in the past few days getting in a pair of disputes in HN comments that may have boiled down reading the exaggerated adjectives literally, when the authors may not have intended that.
> I bet one of those color comparison graphs of the average website in 1998 through today would show the same trend.
Pretty much every retail store is like this. I mean, it's been this way for a while, but there is so much loud colorful advertizing that having a quiet place to live in feels much better.
> If the environment is continually shouting at you it's hard to hear the whispers, where the meaning is.
So do we currently live lives completely devoid of meaning? That's certainly what it feels like. That's certainly what the color schemes available to us connote.
So much fear of meaning we remove all meaning from our environment....
The example they use of Baroque art actually perfectly demonstrates this. It primarily consists of neutral tones that integrate well with the blues and muted oranges woven through it. Not exactly riotous color, as they put it - but very similar to the use of color you see both in modern designs and older cultural traditions.
(edit) I do think we've swung a little hard in the direction of color minimalism recently; it can get oppressive when combined with the trend towards minimalism in structure and form too. But I think it's fine for the default to err toward inoffensiveness and color to be used purposefully, and if/when public opinion shifts away from that there isn't exactly any impediment to design shifting with it.
Isn't all that art faded out, though? I wouldn't be surprised if Baroque period art was originally painted with riotous color first and then faded over time to where it now looks merely like an "opinionated use of color".
In a similar vein, all those old grey marble statues the Greeks and Romans made used to be bathed in riotous color before the paint flaked off.
I just searched for some colorised Roman statues and they don't seem to be overusing color. Even complex designs might be basically three colors (e.g. red, blue and white, plus with brown hair and eyes), and the colors themselves are a bit muted. I guess the have been painted based on modern interpretations of the original colors based on whatever limited evidence remains, so maybe those aren't the original colors, but it doesn't seem like a 1990s era website or a garish collection of first gen iMacs and iBooks.
Yes and, part of it is advertising visually tormenting us. They throw uber catchy colorful banners of stuff we're often not interested in the slightest, doing everything to get our attention. Also, websites featuring advertisement are encouraged to have more muted tones so they stand out. That gets tiresome and we tend to want rest for private spaces.
But overall I agree. If everything is uber-colorful, that can become just overwhelming. Also we are a lot more stimulated throughout the day with screen and movies and games. In the olden days you didn't have a smartphone with a colorful screen, so putting lots of colour in your house or your church made more sense.
I'd want less advertisement, and more thoughtful color choices throughout cities and digital spaces.
Whatever colour you put on the wall at home, you get used to. Your senses acclimatize to it because you see it all the time, even if it initially seemed "riotous".
Once you step outside, it does matter though. If your own home is shades of grey, then any colour you encounter outside is going to seem garish.
Visually exhausting you say? If you are being stressed by the colours of the world, then that's a problem of your own making.
Even if it's in one's own living space it's possible to not get used to something. In those cases, for those types of personalities, it'll usually get replaced or painted over. One thing I completely abhor are busy tile patterns, it can be the shapes or colors, and no, I wouldn't get used to it.
In terms of the colors of the world... I'm fine with nature... it's the man-made that gets to be garish at times.
Then what happens, if you're that type of person, after you've replaced or painted over something? Do you relax and become comfortable with what's left? Or do you move on to the next irritant, that will bug you until you've replaced or painted over that?
I saw some pictures from a house where everything was white. The walls were white, the tables and chairs were white, the pillows were white, lamps were white, etc. But I bet the owner didn't see it as everything being white, like I did. I bet that when they'd look at the same pictures, they'd see all the little details here and there that were not white, or not quite white enough. I imagine them being in a constant state of stress over the non-white blemishes.
I don't know them, I just saw the pictures, so I don't truly know how they feel, I could be just imagining things. But my gut feeling is that someone with a home like that is not at ease with themselves.
1 reply →
You can see the same thing in music recordings during the 60s. Stereo and quadrophonic sound was new so everything was panned all over the place really hard. Drums all on the left, vocals hard right etc. It's an interesting effect sometimes, but generally a gimmick and/or distraction. We don't really do that anymore, for good reason.
I don't think we stopped doing it because it's gimmicky.
Recordings in the 1960s were mixed to be played back on stereo speakers. You can hard pan stuff and in your living room where you listen to it, it will produce a nice pleasant stereo image because each ear can hear some of both speakers.
Today, audio engineers mix music to be listened to primarily on headphones. If you pan something hard left, it's literally not going to be heard in the right ear at all which sounds horrifically artificial.
So now music has to be mixed to synthetize a pleasant soundstage when heard on headphones.
IIRC, the Beatles “Sgt. Pepper” album was among the first stereo-mixed albums released. As much fame as that particular album has, the original mix is really bad. Drums all left, guitars all right, nothing in the center. It sounds weird to modern ears!
Also IIRC, I believe George Harrison’s kid remixed it properly, just a handful of years ago.
One of the reasons being that more people had mono systems so the stereo mixdown was just kind of a "for fun" afterthought. They didn't take it as seriously.
Even worse is when they keep screwing with the panning. I can't stand Led Zeppelin II for that reason. Someone just couldn't stop messing with the damn slider, right in the middle of songs. The ones with merely bad, but static, panning are far more tolerable.
Because the analog equipment back then could only do binary panning.
I've heard this is a recommended paradigm for mixing, to only ever pan things R, C, L and nothing in between, but it doesn't make sense to me. Possible because i have to mix on headphones, but it sounds much too extreme to me. Sure, _some things_ can go all the way but i generally enjoy to fill the space between the far edges, and allow some reverb busses to blur the lines a bit if needed.
Is hard panning really strongly recommended like that, or just a hold over that the old heads learned and passed down
1 reply →
That’s totally not true. The original stereo patent from the 1930s is based on M+S signals, not separate channels, and was born out of a desire to position sound across a stage (movies).
By the time the hard-panned records of the 60s were made the technology was already old, it was just a stylistic choice.
Speak for yourself then because I think this looks great and fun.
https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/1jnr4bz/...
By the comments, I don't think I'm the only one.
Look at the logo evolution.
https://www.reddit.com/r/LivingMas/comments/17yizkw/evolutio...
Why is Taco Bell slowly losing color like a vampire is draining it of fun and blood? I see these driving around and I just shake my head, what about light purple and white represents Mexican culture and food? It's the whitest thing they could do without making the sign all white. Same thing with Target. Now some of the logos are white on white!
https://www.designyourway.net/blog/target-logo/
It's odd that in this era where we are supposed to be embracing diversity and difference that we are homogenizing our logos to white or gray goo.
I dunno, I think the purple and white is quite in line with the degree to which Taco Bell food represents Mexican culture and food.
I agree. I'd even say it embodies optimism.
Are you young? I've noticed the upcoming generation has begun rejecting their parent's bland aesthetics.
No, I'm not young. I remember all those Taco Bell logos from 1985 up pretty much. :)
I'd rather movies and TV shows look more realistic than washed-out, unless there is a good stylistic reason for it.
Same.
Sensory overload argument is particularly painful here, because it's essentially saying that the one thing you and me want to look colorful - the entertainment we choose - is doomed to be washed out because the stuff we don't want to see - advertising - has to overdo stimulus to catch attention.
No thank you. I prefer rich colors, they consistently make world look a more lively place, the more the better. There is some getting used to of course, but it doesn't normalize at the same bottom that sea of grey/white/black is.
I hate this with passion with cars - sea of grey in western Europe. Heck, both of our cars are grey - we always buy used ones and there was simply no other option that wasn't 10k more expensive for params we wanted and were willing to pay. It looks bland, boring, unimaginative. One of top reasons why buy new - one can actually choose something nicer.
I've spent 6 months backpacking all over India and boy do they use crazy intense colors all over and everywhere including clothing - orange, purple, pink, very bright, both men and women. A very, very nice visual experience one doesn't get used to. Then coming back to western civilization where literally everybody dresses in black or dark grey during winter. Its just sad view, like winter with low amount of sunlight isn't depressing enough, no lets add some more monotonous colors.
As an Indian living in a western European country - I very much prefer the gray/ neutral colors here. I always found the excessive and ugly use of color in India overwhelming. Though, I agree, a bit of more colors in winter wear would be nice.
> Making it the main element in everything is just overdoing it. It's bad design.
I disagree. The 60s through the 80s had a wide color palette with extremely good design. Early 1900s too. Heck even the Greek statues were extremely colorful.
I don't know about that... the 70s is called "the decade that taste forgot" for a reason...
There's definitely a cultural component to "modern taste". South Asian cultures have a preference for warm tones and many vibrant colors. East Asian cultures from developing and developed countries these days have lots of cool tones and monotone aesthetics. While I found the article a bit short on the "why", I do agree that the West has had a philosophical disdain for color from the Industrial era.
You're right, modern design often favors neutral bases with pops of color.
However, if everyone followed that same "modern taste," everything would look alike. Just as the technicolor era had its appeal, so do bold color palettes.
The best approach depends on the desired effect and overall design.
> Don't paint a whole room green -- have a gorgeous green plant that stands out all the more against its neutral background.
You've got me imagining a bright green room filled with silver appliances and white furniture.
Your conclusion is not supported by data, you basically made the periods thing up to confirm your own preference.
Gentrification of certain areas are definitely making things visually stale.
What does your desktop look like?
I mean... ish? There is something to be said for a minimal styling, but there is clearly an aesthetic change to things. As an easy example, wallpaper used to be far more common, and was often far more busy than the neutral colors people insist on in homes nowadays. Not just more colorful, but with designs on them.
You can see the same with dishes. Clothes. Book covers.
I can agree that I don't want everything to look like a riot, as it were. I do sometimes think a bit more color would be nice.
The pic featured on TFA evidently shows that color is going down vs. black/white.
This is a trend, not an opinion.
When I was a kid Santa Cruz's Highway 1 had all these bushes with flowers, and lots of ice plant. It's now asphaul, concrete, road debris. The flowers were never distracting and I actually much preferred the drive in the past. When I go back today it's just grey and dreary, not 'focus enabling'.
Fuck modern taste. I have a bedroom where the walls and bedding are deep blue and it's accented with neutral colors. There's another room which is a rich shade of purple. Doing without bold use of color isn't tasteful, it's just boring.
> But when everything is colorful,
But nothing is colorful. Every damn thing is a shade of gray. It's like "50 shade of gray" fans started doing UIs.
I think technology certainly had an effect. I remember pre-2008, the design trends were mostly centered around pushing the boundaries in terms of software capabilities. For example shiny/translucent 'pill buttons' became insanely popular as image editors became good at creating rounded corners and gradients with alpha transparency and layering them... Then eventually the trend became minimalist with a focus on simpler shapes and colors and larger fonts to make interfaces look less cluttered.
I think the duller colors we see nowadays has something to do with the ongoing minimalism trend. Minimalism is seen as professional-looking. Unfortunately, now we have the problem that brands struggle to differentiate themselves because any overly creative design risks coming across as 'unprofessional'. The balance of 'appearing unique' and 'appearing professional' has shifted towards the latter.
In a broader sense, it reflects society's shift towards increased centralization and conformity and an intolerance towards outliers.
That misrepresents Technicolor. The 3-film process was adopted in the 1930s. It was the most popular, but not first, incarnation of Technicolor.
Kodak also had Kodachrome by the 30s, despite nostalgia for Paul Simon's early solo work.
The more common earlier color adoptions had to do with pigments in paint and especially fabrics. Bold red was so popular for shirts for men over a century that hand-me-down worn-out pinks were considered "boys colors."
https://www.thevintagenews.com/2019/05/01/pink-blue/
> It's bad design
Says whom? Do you represent the design police? I was never there, don't know the person, and don't know what a person even is, so I'm not guilty, occifer! I'd like a lawyer present, please.
[dead]
[dead]
Man the world you paint is just not one I want to live in. Without color what's the damn point? I'd rather be corny than have to live like this.
[flagged]
Cars suck then. We have destroyed our environments, both natural and human made, because of them.
I don't think anyone would argue the point of cars is to look pretty or make the environment more balanced. Cars are successful in spite of looking like shit and damaging the environment.
the history of cars in the US is pretty complicated tbh. most major cities had street cars and rail systems for a long time before major government initiatives ripped them out in favor of highways and streets. I'm not sure cars would be as popular without that major push towards car-centric infrastructure.
1 reply →
"Everything being colorful is as monotonous as everything being, well, monotone."
What a load of crap. Where do you live, in a cave? have you ever been in a jungle perhaps? what about birds with colorful feathers? you want to wash out those colors too? jesus, nature dictates and nature is full of vivid colors. so your argument goes down the drain.
there is no such thing as modern taste. there are trends dictated by a handful of psychotic gatekeepers who got hooked on their own farts.
old movies had the absolute best coloring. compare those movies to the ones seen now and you are on the verge of retching. these superficial, devoid of human value superprocessed heaps of shit they try to force feed to people, just plain unwatchable. not just the story lacks, it has zero message, nothing to chew on, just some brainwashing action scenes. that's good for the plebs they say while squeezing people for money.
absolutely reprehensible, that a handful of gatekeepers put people into these literal psycho gardens that is devoid of anything resembling human. what's missing is the human part. the humanity is slowly missing from everything.
Jungles are actually a great example. They are mostly neutral browns and dark greens that form a pretty neutral background... with the occasional beautiful bright accent colors from a bird or flower or something. But if you trek through the jungle, it's pretty boring color-wise most of the time. Which is why spotting a colorful bird is such a joy.
But can you please take the personal attacks elsewhere? HN is not the place for those.
no personal attacks. attacks against idiotic oversimplifications.
do not hide behind some weeny invisible bs wall you erected
1 reply →