No "Blue" in the ancient world?

[MacSpon]

A couple of articles (or, well, one article in two parts) on the subject:

The bronze sky
The wine-dark sea

[Biffster]

@DSeid

In fact blue is no more “primary” than magenta, yellow, and cyan (which is turquoise not blue), which are the pigments printers use. Or red, green, and blue, like in television monitors.

As Chronos points out, an artist in the ancient world simply did not have blue to work with until Egypt and the Mayans independently developed blue pigments. It easy to avoid that which does not exist.

Anyway primary colors as far as biology goes are the three different cone receptors, which have peak reactivity at a violet blue (S), at a greenish cyan (M), and at a yellowish (L), with ranges around each of less strong response. (Note that red does not get any of them as a peak response but the brain interprets the experience as red when L>M>>S stimulation, which red light does, while blue is experienced when S receptors are stimulated much more than L and M ones.) And farther upstream the main color themes are the opponent processes of green vs magenta and blue vs yellow.

In no real physical or physiological or technical way is blue any more “primary” or “distinct and fundamental” than is green or violet or magenta.

This is fascinating stuff. It also begs the question, was Captain Kirk’s tunic gold or green? It might surprise you to know that the color was called avocado green, but because of a combination of the material used and the studio lights, his tunic always looked more goldish on TV.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MrDibble]

@DSeid

Cite for significant use of azurite before the Egyptians used it please.

I’m saying the Egyptians used it before they developed Egyptian Blue…

[MrDibble]

…also the Chinese, before they developed Han Blue.

[DSeid]

@MrDibble

I’m saying the Egyptians used it before they developed Egyptian Blue…

Yes … and? In the Fourth Dynasty apparently, in the same dynasty that they developed the dye “Egyptian Blue”, Egyptians first worked with a pigment they developed using azurite, quite rarely as it was hard to find. Which contradicts the statement that

@me

an artist in the ancient world simply did not have blue to work with until Egypt and the Mayans independently developed blue pigments.

how exactly?

Again, the point remains that artists throughout most of the ancient world did not have much blue to work with for most of the history of humanity making art. The Mayans developed a pigment and the Egyptians worked with blue some, first rarely using azurite, then with a synthetic dye. And that was “lost” for a bit during the Middle Ages.

Azurite, for what it’s worth, was also used some in China and Japan.

For the vast vast majority of the history of humanity making art blue was easy for an artist to avoid as it did not exist as a pigment on the proverbial palate for most of it and was very rare there for most of the rest of human history.

The idea that artists through history had to use blue because that’s how an artist creates green and purple from the other “primaries” is just wrong. Green and purple were easier to find naturally. So were red and yellow and orange. Blue though, that was rare.

[MrDibble]

@DSeid

Yes … and? In the Fourth Dynasty apparently, in the same dynasty that they developed the dye “Egyptian Blue”, Egyptians first worked with a pigment they developed using azurite, quite rarely as it was hard to find. Which contradicts the statement that how exactly?

You want to believe the Egyptians first developed an artificial blue pigment, and then went on to use earth pigments they’d rendered redundant with an artificial substitute, be my guest.
To me, the progress is clear - they used the expensive earth pigments first - azurite naturally occurs in close association with the malachite we know they used as a pigment in pre-Dynastic times. And that drove them to develop the artificial one.

Again, the point remains that artists throughout most of the ancient world did not have much blue to work with for most of the history of humanity making art.

They had blue to work with - what they didn’t have was a blue that was both lightfast and chemically stable.

For the vast vast majority of the history of humanity making art blue was easy for an artist to avoid as it did not exist as a pigment on the proverbial palate for most of it and was very rare there for most of the rest of human history.

I disagree. Only if you consider painting to be all of art was blue a rare pigment. For tapestries, for body art, in glassworks and enamels - all of these had blue pigments that were in common enough use.

The idea that artists through history had to use blue because that’s how an artist creates green and purple from the other “primaries” is just wrong.

Agreed

Green and purple were easier to find naturally. So were red and yellow and orange. Blue though, that was rare.

What’s rare was a vivid, lightfast, stable blue. There were sources of other blue pigments - but what worked at colouring glass, like cobalt, doesn’t last as a paint pigment. Just like there were lots of reds, but carmine was special.

[yo_han_go]

If we are still talking about semantics, I can confirm, as a natural speaker of one of Slavic languages, we indeed have two words for blue. Sky blue (plava - plavalaguna anyone) and ocean blue (modra). You can test it in 5s with google translate.

[DSeid]

@MrDibble

You want to believe the Egyptians first developed an artificial blue pigment, and then went on to use earth pigments they’d rendered redundant with an artificial substitute, be my guest. …

What the heck are you talking about?

I suggest you reread for comprehension.

[DSeid]

Also check your history some … the first examples known of cobalt glass are from about 2000 BC, after the Egyptian 4th Dynasty that had used azurite and then developed “Egyptian Blue.”

If have some examples of art that used blue significantly before the Egyptian 4th Dynasty please do share. I’d be curious to learn. Cobalt glass warn’t one of 'em.

[MrDibble]

@DSeid

Also check your history some … the first examples known of cobalt glass are from about 2000 BC, after the Egyptian 4th Dynasty that had used azurite and then developed “Egyptian Blue.”

The reference to cobalt, specifically, was a general reference to your “artists** through history**” not Ancient Egypt in particular.

Blue glass, on the other hand, predates cobalt glass specifically - Are you even aware of how Egyptian Blue was made? Why its alternate name is Blue Frit?

If have some examples of art that used blue significantly before the Egyptian 4th Dynasty please do share. I’d be curious to learn. Cobalt glass warn’t one of 'em.

Faience (which can run from green to blue) was around from pre-Dynastic times, and actual lapis lazuli was used as an inlay material or justas an art medium itself.

[MrDibble]

@DSeid

What the heck are you talking about?

I suggest you reread for comprehension.

I suggest you write for comprehension.

[DSeid]

This really gets into a tiresome hijack and engaging more with someone who reads

In the Fourth Dynasty apparently, in the same dynasty that they developed the dye “Egyptian Blue”, Egyptians first worked with a pigment they developed using azurite, quite rarely as it was hard to find.

As saying

the Egyptians first developed an artificial blue pigment, and then went on to use earth pigments

is silliness at best.

But no, the cobalt glass reference I just made was not for Egypt, it was for the world. The earliest example, which is found after Egyptian Blue was developed, was in Mesopotamia, not Egypt. And feel free to educate me about how blue glass predates Egypt’s 4th Dynasty

Faience, is a reasonable example of one, albeit it was apparently more often a green-blue. Lapis was just way too rare to count as a material artists had significant use with.

What “much blue” that was just not “both lightfast and chemically stable” did “artists throughout most of the ancient” have to work with?

[MrDibble]

@DSeid

Faience, is a reasonable example of one, albeit it was apparently more often a green-blue.

Comes in a range of blue shades, and anyway, to the Egyptians it was all wadjet.

Lapis was just way too rare to count as a material artists had significant use with.

… he says in reply to a post that links to an entire pre-Dynastic statue of the damn stuff. I guess whole statuettes doesn’t count as “significant use”

What “much blue” that was just not “both lightfast and chemically stable” did “artists throughout most of the ancient” have to work with?

“throughout most of the ancient” what?
And yes - woad goes back to the neolithic and and indigo to the Indus - both are lightfast but not as stable as lapis or azurite when used as pigment not dye.