No color tells you something itself.
It's tempting to think that red = danger, gray = boring, blue = business, but these are meanings attached by people, not integral ot the colors itself (there are however certain customs in use of color, but these can be different in different parts of the world, for instance - people wear white color at funerals in Buddhist cultures).
A good answer to someone who says "red means danger" is to ask, why the hell do you eat strawberries then?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Very interesting thought, I just seem not to get to terms with it really well. I can't help thinking that this is anyway generally so. Not only when it's about colors. But that's a stupid thing to say, since saying that "something is generally so" would mean to assume I know pretty much everything from here until the end of the universe (or at least the restaurant door there).
For example: The arrow sign that points to the left where the street makes a turn? The meaning of this pointed end of a line is attached by people, too. Not inherent to the shape.
As a slightly different example: The Greek/Bulgarian (and possibly existing elsewhere, too) way of shaking and 'nodding' your head to say yes and no is a nice example.
Probably (?) it's fair to say that these attached meanings have their relevance, as they are commonly understood, and therefore they can be actively used to convey a particular message (and just as well you can use them to convey a different message, resp. to ironically break their inherent message). In this way, I would say colors in communication have a similar functionality as cliche's: If you use them, you know what the viewer will understand. You can use them straight-forward, or play with them, or break them, or ironically juxtapose them, etc.
An interesting follow-up, thanks. Agree, that there are lots of things to which we have attached meaning to (ironically i just remembered that i had been thinking about arrow issue a while ago, thinking about who "invented" the arrow, but wiki does not help in this case...).
To continue the discussion, an interesting thing is, that it seems one thing in humans is inherent - the meaning of facial expressions. At least that's what couple of scientists are saying, after a large cross-cultural study, which can be read in Malcom Gladwell's "Blink".
Yes, I've read about that. Makes sense that this is inherent in humans, since after all, we're just an animal that has... well... culturally diversified across the globe, split into tribes that became what we call cultures, since a short while sometimes even nations.
Even though I assume even monkeys or any other animals that inhabit different regions/continents probably have their own 'dialects' in the sounds they make; still it makes sense that facial expressions are determined on a lower/deeper level.
Which obviously isn't the case with moves that express specific meanings (not emotions, but "meanings"), such as the nodding/shaking of the head; the different ways to 'press thumbs' or 'cross fingers'; and other sign language.
Possibly there would still be other things are inherent, too. But I really wouldn't be able to think of any right now.
Post a Comment