Question about Split Compliment Color Scheme

[JIVA*SOUL]

When you're using a split compliment, say pure red w/ yellow green & blue green, is it "okay" to mix the yellow green and blue green and use the pure green, or will that wreck the harmony?

thanks~

[Elwell]

It's OK to do anything that looks good.

[JIVA*SOUL]

yea...but since "looks" are relative, I'm seeking the absolute in this case.

thanks though.

[Elwell]

There are no absolutes in this case.

[JIVA*SOUL]

Well, I'd say the absolute would be a balanced split comp as opposed to a balanced triad or a balanced tetrad. These are all specific harmonies that yield very specific results.

People may or may not like any given color for any given reason, maybe their dad hit them with a purple shoe and now they hate purple, I don't know. In this case I'm trying to reach an absolute ideal of the balance of a particular harmony [as opposed to another] that follows very specific rules to achieve specific results.

[Elwell]

It's complicated. Depending on what color model you're using, exactly which hues are complimentary can vary greatly, and different models set different numbers of divisions in the color wheel. Concepts like split compliments, triads, etc, are useful as initial frameworks, but they aren't hard and fast rules. Also, they deal only with hue while ignoring value and chroma, and all three are important elements in color harmony.

[JIVA*SOUL]

I don't agree, but I appreciate this conversation, and don't intend to be antagonistic.

Red mixed with blue/green makes black...all the colors in the split [when mixed with white] create light colors...and mixing red with either split gives you the desaturation in chroma.

[Mikko K]

This thread just reminded me of a quote from Richard Schmidt which was a reply to a similar question: "paint it how it looks like, and it'll look right".

Post something and we can give feedback, barely discussing art theories is a bit like dancing about literature.. hard to understand since these theories mean different things to different people.

[JIVA*SOUL]

Splits, triads & tetrads don't mean different things to different people.
That's why they have specific labels. It's an exact science proportioning a perfect balance of color.

And the word "theory" when used in "art theory" is defined as "a set of principles on which the practice of an activity is based."

Don't get hurt cause people are discussing topics you don't understand.
Not everybody wants to use color like Schmid.

If you want to give feedback, answer the specific question I asked in the first place.

[Hyver]

When you're using a split compliment, say pure red w/ yellow green & blue green, is it "okay" to mix the yellow green and blue green and use the pure green, or will that wreck the harmony?

thanks~

it might wreck the harmony, but it's still ok

[briggsy@ashtons]

JIVA*SOUL, these pages give a little more detail on what Elwell was trying to get you to understand about the different hue circles:

http://www.huevaluechroma.com/071.php
to
http://www.huevaluechroma.com/075.php

I'm curious to know what precisely-defined hue circle you are using for your "exact science"? Hopefully not the conventional artist's colour wheel, which is a compromise of pigmentary and opponent relationships, and in which the colour names themselves have no precise definition.

[waranghira]

and those theories don't work too well as it is in paintings and illustrations.
you have to have a mood, and the mood changes the painted color of a color drastically.

for example: your mood is in blue, and you applied split complimetary to it with b,yo,ro.
assuming that all the colors are in the same value and saturation, the red orange and yellow orange must be painted in lesser saturation as to the blue.
now that is in a simple nutshell, it becomes more complicated. just try to observe.

If you don't do that, your work will become disoriented, not unified, and all over the place.

[JIVA*SOUL]

Thanks for all the feedback.


@ Briggsy:

Thanks for those links- I'll check it out - actually I was just looking for the answer to the question, out of curiosity. As far as the traditional color wheel goes, have you heard of Johannes Itten? He'll have more to say about the "exact science" of subtractive color.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johannes_Itten


@ Warangira:

So I don't understand, what's complicated about your example? When you're using only one pure color, blue, then the other colors create mutes that enhance the blue. You said "If you don't do that, your work will become disoriented..." but by the very nature of the split complimentary, unity is guaranteed. There's no way to mess it up. It's already arranged in a perfect harmony. There's no way unification can't happen, that's the beauty of it.

[CCThrom]

For my own curiosity about your original question... I initially assumed you're talking about painting since you asked about mixing colors. Is that correct? I think a certain amount of mixing for all 3 colors is inevitable while painting... of course not everyone paints that way.

[briggsy@ashtons]

JIVA*SOUL: Actually it was Itten's colour wheel that I was afraid you were using, for reasons you'll soon see.

[Mikko K]

It's an exact science proportioning a perfect balance of color.

If you want to discuss art, there's so much more to it than what you're talking about. If you indeed want to dwell on exact science, sorry I misinterpreted your post. Art to me doesn't have a formula of perfection, it's subjective.

Here's some more insights about color, if you're into art. Images copyright Ron Lemen. (hope it's okay to post them?)

[pencilgeek]

maybe their dad hit them with a purple shoe and now they hate purple,
lol ha ha he!!

[Serpian]

James Gurney says:

Read this (http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/2008/01/color-wheel-masking-part-1.html) and this (http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/2008/02/shapes-of-color-schemes.html) and this! (http://gurneyjourney.blogspot.com/2008/02/from-mask-to-palette.html)

[JIVA*SOUL]

This is why split compliments work:

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f304/jivasoul/colorz.jpg

[Craig D]

Your pic does not demonstrate that split complements "work". At least in part
because you do not define what you mean by work. Work in the sense of creating a pleasing harmony?
If so then I would have to say it fails.

[briggsy@ashtons]

JIVA*SOUL, WHAT have you been EATING?

[Hyver]

i'm betting on complementary mushrooms

[Elwell]

This is why split compliments work:

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f304/jivasoul/colorz.jpg
Fixed

443225

[JIVA*SOUL]

hahaha
Tristan's example must be me on opium.

Maybe Craig will like this better, maybe not. I think it's beautiful.
To each their own, a split comp can be skillfully handled to suit any mood.

And the beauty is that they're 12 split comps to play with, not to mention tetrads and triads.
There's a combination to match everyone's tastes.


http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f304/jivasoul/santashelper.png

[Zaxser]

Actually, I'm with elwell. I find his version to be much more pleasing.
What'd you do?

[waranghira]

and its not even a split compliment nor a double split.
Elwell's the true split.

[Jazz]

JIVA*SOUL, I don't understand: You were asking if certain split compliment colours are "okay" mixed with other colours, but you're arguing with everyone who's giving you an explanation on the possibilities that will work. Why are you doing that?

Elwell's example is very pleasing and harmonious...some colours stand out just enough without clashing or strangely bleeding with other colours here. Well, that's one thing I find pleasing about it. Good to learn about.

What you have for the first example...I see a lot of different colours, different mixtures, rather bright hues overall. That's not exactly complimentary for the entire example.

And I wonder what a person on opium sees now, cuz I sure don't get it. :P

[Jabo]

JIVA*SOUL, the links in your signature make certain things in this thread appear a lot clearer.

[JIVA*SOUL]

Hey everybody, I really don't mean to come off as argumentative or antagonistic. Sorry if I did.
Trying to keep this good-natured & purposeful. Jabo, I'm glad that you've got some clarity.

I'm seeing this situation very clearly & logically, so forgive me if I can't communicate it very well.

Basically- I'm interested in the exact science that I've learned from another person. This isn't about me & my discovery- it's about something that's already been established by other people, specifically Johannes Itten and Wassily Kandinsky. So I'm not "arguing" to defend my own view, just a system that by nature can't have interpretations, because it already exists as an exact system. If you don't agree with it, fine, then you shouldn't waste your time commenting on it.

The dynamic at play here- if you choose to agree or not- is that since red and green obviously contain all the colors in nature and are perfectly balanced, then by logic splitting the green into YG and BG will continue the perfect balance. And since red with YG make a muted orange and red with BG make a muted blue, you have a harmony that is focused on red and green with a lack of pure orange, blue, yellow and violet. And this is true in any case...there's always a situation where some colors are pure and others aren't. The beauty of this system is that you have 12 split comps to choose from, for which ever situation in which you are focusing on certain colors. In my example, I used the entire harmony. You'll notice that there are no pure blues, oranges, violets or yellows. Tristan did the same thing, he just used pure reds & YG's and BG's without mixing many colors. It's just like the primary triad- the more you mix, the less saturation & purity you have.

This doesn't seem complex to me, that's why I'm astonished that people are missing the point.
I really can't believe that people aren't backing me up on this, and I'm glad that some people will benefit.

Initially, I just asked a simple question in the beginning, based on a sound logical concept, which no one has clearly answered.
That was my intent for this thread.

[Craig D]

I'm not sure which error in logic this is but try reading here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

You are assuming that what you have read in the past is 100% acurate,
which it probably is not.

[Anid Maro]

This doesn't seem complex to me, that's why I'm astonished that people are missing the point.

The problem you're running across is that you are insisting that this color model you've read about is accurate... and it's not. I wouldn't know quite as much about color theory as either Elwell or briggsy@ashtons, but I do know enough to say that currently color theory is less than exact and that no color model available is as robust as you are assuming Itten's to be.

You might find the following link fascinating. It explains color vision, color models, and I've got you linked to the part about "imaginary or imperfect primaries (http://www.handprint.com/HP/WCL/color6.html#imaginary)".

The most astonishing part, in my opinion, is how well that quote I took from you matches with what I'm saying in my post.

[briggsy@ashtons]

The thing is, JIVA*SOUL, Itten is the colour theory equivalent of creationism. Your "simple question" was a bit like asking for details of the sleeping arrangements on the Ark.

[JIVA*SOUL]

Thanks everybody...I appreciate the sincere time invested & the great color links...if anybody with an interest in split compliments has an answer for the original question under the terms it was presented, I'd appreciate it. Some of my favorite artists have used this system successfully, and that's enough for me to want to continue.

Good luck with all of your art & I hope your color turns out exactly how you want it!

[JIVA*SOUL]

PS:

I just wanted to concede that I could be entirely wrong about the validity of the split compliment coloring system, and I don't have a problem admitting fault.

Personally, I just like the results of this system and the results I've seen from other people...and if art is subjective, all that matters is that I'm satisfied, right?

[briggsy@ashtons]

Very right.

Just to clarify, JS, as far as I'm concerned there's nothing at all wrong with the idea of split complementaries, only with the idea of treating the colour wheel used by Itten as "scientific" or authoritative. Various "scientific" hue circles, based on additive complementary relationships, psychological opponency, etc, have been developed over the last hundred and fifty years, but Itten's stands completely apart from them. Its colour categories are undefined, and historically it can be seen to be based on an attempt to force colours into a single hue circle to represent both paint-mixing and psychological complementary relationships, relationships that are now known to be inconsistent. It's a really bad choice of a colour system to go all fundamentalist over.

To me the split complementary is fine as a concept, but it's really just a specific case of the more general idea of building a colour unity into a picture by choosing a limited palette/gamut rather than the whole range of possible colours. A complementary contrast is a particularly effective choice visually in that the two main colour groups mutually enhance each other by simultaneous contrast, although this will be most effective if you choose your complements using a hue circle based on additive relationships, with red opposite cyan rather than green. But complementary contrasts, triads, and other conventional colour harmonies are only some of a virtually limitless range of possible ways of choosing a limited palette, any of which may be of use for obtaining a specific expressive effect.

Nobody can give an authoritative answer to your question because the fact is, NOBODY is an authority on these matters. All I can say is to use your own eyes. And I'd suggest that when choosing between different possible combinations, a better question to be asking than "which combination is correct colour harmony?" would be "what is the expressive effect of each combination?"

[steve kim]

you know, just cause there's color gibberish out there doesn't mean that it's right

it also doesn't mean you have to believe in it

just cause 'some people' 'said so' doesn't mean anything.

to me, it sounds like the OP wants formula so he doesn't need to think for himself or make his own decisions, which, in the end, are the HARDEST part of artmaking.

but... if you want to believe in pseudo-science bordering on religion then, well, it's a free country

[JIVA*SOUL]

You had to go in and fuck up a perfect conclusion.

:(

But thanks for assuming you know how I approach art.

[Baron Impossible]

My knowledge of colour theory is zero and this thread reinforces my desire for it to remain that way.