FRONTIERS OF COMBINING SYSTEMS 2, edited by Dov M. Gabbay and Maarten de Rijke, Research Studies, Baldock, England, 2000, xiii + 407 pp. ISBN 0–86380–252–4 (Hardback, $105.00).
FRONTIERS OF COMBINING SYSTEMS 2, edited by Dov M. Gabbay and Maarten de Rijke, Research Studies, Baldock, England, 2000, xiii + 407 pp. ISBN 0–86380–252–4 (Hardback, $105.00).
复制标题
FRONTIERS OF COMBINING SYSTEMS 2，由 Dov M. Gabbay 和 Maarten de Rijke 编辑，Research Studies，英国鲍尔多克，2000 年，xiii + 407 页。ISBN 0–86380–252–4（精装本，105.00 美元）。
DOI：
10.1017/s026357470021299x
复制
发表时间：
2001
期刊：
影响因子：
2.7
通讯作者：
A. Andrew
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Andrew
和《历史上的色彩》都很吸引人，在某些情况下，传达得令人钦佩。在其他情况下，我们只得到一些片段，还想要更多。毫无疑问，盖奇已经阅读了大量关于颜色的文献，但他常常认为普通读者已经走上了同样的道路，并且对他的注释比对完整的解释更感兴趣。尽管如此，这本书还是有很多有趣的地方。例如，一个插图提供了一个关于颜色互补现象的练习，其中红色的后像是绿色的，正如预期的那样，但正如Gage所说，在这种情况下，它实际上是蓝绿色的。根据作者的说法，“自1800年左右以来，红色的补色通常被简单地描述为‘绿色’——部分原因是在红、蓝、黄三原色体系中，每种颜色的补色被认为是其他两种颜色的等量混合。”色圈或色轮，在过去的三个世纪里得到了扩展和修改，在这种情况下有相当大的应用，但仍然引起物理和艺术之间的混淆。艾萨克·牛顿（1642-1727）最初致力于借助棱镜将白光分解成其组成颜色，并描述由此产生的线性光谱。当一束来自白炽灯的光穿过棱镜时，它会以光谱的形式出现，也就是所谓的彩虹的颜色。牛顿继续证明，“纯”色的光不能被进一步衍射，但最重要的是，白光可以从混合物中重建出来。牛顿的色圈（盖奇：图58，第136页）取自他1704年的《光学》，显示了光谱颜色按顺时针顺序为红、橙、黄、绿、蓝、靛、紫。这些圆盘最初的意义是当它们在顶部旋转时看起来是白色的。正是这种证据使托马斯·杨（1773-1829）提出了他的理论，即视网膜中有三种颜色受体——红、绿、蓝。詹姆斯·克拉克·麦克斯韦（James Clerk Maxwell, 1831 - 1879）进一步发展了这些观点，并且是最早雇佣一组观察者的人之一（包括他患有色盲的妻子）。在这个过程中，色轮更像是一种艺术道具，而不是一种物理工具。因此，现代版本有红色、黄色、绿色、青色、蓝色和品红。品红（一种紫红色），之所以被称为品红，是因为它是在品红之战（意大利，1859年）期间被染料工业发现的，它不是一种光谱颜色。为了对称，它被置于艺术色轮中，介于蓝色和红色之间，被认为是绿色的补充，就像黄色之于蓝色，红色之于青色（与上面提到的蓝绿色相比）。更多地关注这些历史方面可能有助于盖奇弥合科学与艺术之间的鸿沟。J.M.W.特纳（1775-1851）和乔治·修拉（1859-1891）都是色彩界的重量级人物，他们接受了新的治疗。盖奇让我们和他一起担心，他问：“这些艺术家到底在做什么？”在每一个案例中，作者都以不公平的暗示结束，即他们“假装”对颜色理论的了解比他们产品中显示的要多。盖奇似乎对特纳的局部（不自然的）色彩和修拉在同一幅画中混合的点和线的色彩感到非常困扰。所有这些都让我想起了一位支持建构主义的当地艺术家，他描述了他的一件作品的基础——数学级数。一位观众指出，在雕塑的半山腰处有一个看似突然的偏离。画家笑着说这是个错误，但整幅画看起来好多了。盖奇的格式需要为读者提供一些方向。每幅艺术复制品或线条画都附有一个标题，以圆括号内的黑体字数字结尾。这些都是数字，但从来没有这样描述过，只是由文本边缘浮动的普通数字引用。不要将它们与文献参考和注释混淆，它们在文本中以小的上标数字出现，并按章节分组在书的后面。在对一些关键项目进行了徒劳的搜索后，我对该索引失去了信心。在文字处理机的时代，构建一个全面的、丰富的交叉引用和故意冗余的索引，对过去的洗牌专家来说，已经不再是一项艰巨的任务了。令我失望的是，埃德温·兰德（Edwin Land）的假设——色觉的关键在于对一个黄色“支点”的波长长短的信息进行比较——在盖奇的著作中没有被提及。由于“科学”副标题中偶尔出现的空白和未能发展，本书不太可能找到大量读者作为主要来源。它将在研究生水平的课程中找到最幸福的归宿，在这些课程中，进一步的论文和讲座材料将补充当前的文本。有人认为这本书在英国也是这样被使用的，盖奇曾是英国艺术史系主任，目前是剑桥大学西方艺术史的读者。
and “Color in History” are appealing and, in some cases, deliver admirably. In others, we get little more than snippets and are left wanting more. There can be no doubt that Gage has read a good share of the literature about color, but too often he assumes that the general reader has already been down the same path and is more interested in his gloss than in a full explanation. Nonetheless, the book has many items of interest. For instance, one illustration provides an exercise on the phenomenon of color complement wherein the after-image of red is green, as expected, but as Gage remarks in this case it really is a blue-green. According to the author, “since about 1800, red’s complement has usually been described simply as ‘green’—partly because in the system of the three primaries of red, blue and yellow, the complement of each color was deemed to be an equal mixture of the other two.” Color-circles or color-wheels, extended and modified over the last three centuries, are of considerable application in this context but still cause confusion between physics and art. Isaac Newton (1642–1727) was initially occupied with splitting white light into its component colors, with the aid of a prism, and in describing the resultant linear spectrum. When a beam of light from an incandescent lamp passes through a prism, it emerges as a spectrum, the socalled colors of the rainbow. Newton went on to show that light of a “pure” color could not be further diffracted but, most important, white light could be reconstructed from a mixture. Newton’s color-circle (Gage: fig. 58, p. 136) taken from his Opticks of 1704 shows the spectral colors as clockwise sectors in the order of red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet. The original significance of these discs was that they look white when spun on a top. This was the kind of evidence that led Thomas Young (1773–1829) to his theory that there are three color receptors—red, green and blue—in the retina. James Clerk Maxwell (1831– 1879) further developed these ideas and was one of the first to employ a team of observers (including his wife, who suffered from a form of color-blindness). Somewhere along the way, the color wheel became more of an artistic prop than a physical tool. Thus a modern version has red, yellow, green, cyan, blue and magenta. Magenta (a purplish-red), so-called because it was discovered by the dye industry about the time of the Battle of Magenta (Italy, 1859), is not a spectral color. It is placed in the artistic color wheel, between blue and red, for symmetry and is deemed to be the complement of green, as yellow is to blue, and red is to cyan (compare with bluish-green mentioned above). More attention to these historical aspects might have helped Gage in his attempt to bridge the divide between science and the arts. J.M.W. Turner (1775–1851) and Georges Seurat (1859–1891), both heavy-hitters in the world of color, receive new treatments. Gage enjoins us to worry along with him as he asks, “What were these artists really up to!” In each case, the author ends with unfair suggestions that they were “pretending” to be more knowledgeable about color theory than is revealed in their products. Gage seems to be greatly bothered by Turner’s local (unnatural) color and with Seurat’s mixing dots and dashes of color in the same picture. All of this reminds me of the time a local artist, who favors constructivism, described the mathematical progression that was the basis of one of his works. A viewer pointed out a seemingly abrupt departure about half-way up the sculpture. The artist smiled and declared that it was an error, but the whole thing looked better for it. Gage’s format requires some orientation for the reader. Each artistic reproduction or line drawing is accompanied by a caption that ends with a number in boldface, enclosed in parentheses. These turn out to be figure numbers but are never described as such, and are referenced only by plain numbers floating in the margins of the text. They are not to be confused with literature references and notes, which appear as small superscript numbers in the text and are grouped in the back of the book by chapter. After searching in vain for a number of key items, I lost confidence in the index. In the age of the word-processor, the construction of a comprehensive, richly cross-referenced and intentionally redundant index is hardly the daunting task it was for the cardshuffling specialist of yesteryear. I was disappointed that Edwin Land’s hypothesis, that the key to color vision is the comparison of information of longer versus shorter wavelengths about a “fulcrum” of yellow, does not rate a mention in Gage’s work. Because of the occasional gap and failure to develop within the “science” subtitle, this book is unlikely to find a large audience as a primary source. It will find the happiest home among graduate-level courses in which further essays and lecture materials complement the present text. One supposes that the book is used as such in the United Kingdom, where Gage was formerly Head of the Department of History of Art and is currently Reader in the History of Western Art at Cambridge University.