Also, when it comes to theory, Miles Davis for instance was very deep into his Jazz theory, you don't just whip through arpeggios of altered chords off the top of your head. Miles famously said, 'I've learnt every arpeggio for every chord..' It's clear he put in his time with theory.

If people are teling you theory is not important they are ignorant beyond belief, but still if someone promises you mastery through theory alone then again they're selling things short. You have to learn a language to speak it, and what makes what you say interesting, or valid, or accepted, is your take on things. But you still must learn the method in which to speak.

There's color, and then there's fit, fabric, memories, aspirations, context, and a bunch of other things I'm not even thinking about.

Last edited by Eckhart (2012-12-27 01:04:11)

What apart from the effect of sex hormones on developing fetuses?

if that isn't enough he is a run down of this..

Corpus Callosum:

''The corpus callosum is a thick band of nerve fibers that divides the cerebrum into left and right hemispheres. It connects the left and right sides of the brain allowing for communication between both hemispheres. The corpus callosum transfers motor, sensory, and cognitive information between the brain hemispheres.''

The differences between each hemisphere's operations has been studied extensively in stroke victims, people suffering other types of brain traumas, and/or brain disorders. 

The link between sex hormones, brain structures and behavioural effects is pretty well studied, I'm not suggesting inter-dimensional lizards just yet. So I'm not sure why I'm being bundled in with pseudo-science?

I will forward your findings to the Imperial College, Eckhart, maybe when I die from this hangover they can cut me open and trace the root of my imbecility.

No I don't directly mean you, or here, I mean generally. But I stand by what I say, most people on clothes forums are patrons of clothing and have a knowledge based on that grounding.

I've always shown examples of what I've said, not many others seem to bother, again because I don't think they like to loose face to something they don't understand, I'm interested in knowledge, and if someone proves otherwise to me I'm the first to u-turn, it's not important that it is my opinion, what it is, is my best understanding of truth. And without going too deep there is such a thing as objective truth.

I recommend if you are interested in the application of colour read Josef Albers and Johannes Itten,  the later was good enough to observe his pupils use and natural abilities with colour in his classes, which goes to show how colour is communication, intrinsic and learned, and also the the emotion and symbolism of colour which seems to be of interest to you. Same with Kandinsky and his book, Point and Line to Plane. 

As for your last point, people will have taste to coincide with their personalities, and that is the subjectivity that goes along with design and art, but like with music, there is a mathematic system behind it, there is no avoiding that. You wouldn't have the sophistication of harmony in Western music and Jazz if no one and uncovered a system of determining notes and their relationships with each other. Colour needs not to be any different because it is built on the same mathematics.

Further more, you have to use theory to then go on to create your voice. I really don't see how that is undermining human creativity. You wouldn't have the album Kind of Blue if it wasn't for Miles, Coltrane and Evans taking forward musical theory, to create a furthermore unique language to communicate with.

There is nothing to be scared of here, it is all furthering of knowledge. A lot of artists and musicians don't like to think in theoretic terms, but I know for sure the best ones did and do. It is unavoidable tackling the subject, unless of course you don't mind being ignorant. But then if you were really interested in something wouldn't you look to learn all you could about it?

Last edited by My Grandfather's Pants (2012-12-27 05:21:35)

To be honest I agree with what Formby says, art needs to mean something it can't be dead theory. But I'm accepting of that it is stupid to ignore it, but I think it is equally important to immerse yourself in the knowledge of a subject, and its theory, you'd get someone like Paul McCartney say I didn't need training I go on my ear, well, he wouldn't have been able to keep up with Coltrane, who utilised both his head, and his heart.

Haha, i actually hate free jazz on the whole, but if you are interested in advanced Jazz theory which is still based on Western Musical Theory try Giant Steps by Coltrane it was the first album to fully showcase his new approach to harmony, although he had hinted at it before on other albums.

Wiki explains it well..

Coltrane's theory - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coltrane_changes

and the album

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_Steps_(composition)

Also I'd like to point out that music couldn't have been written without his new approach which was based in theory. So much for theory limiting artists.

Last edited by My Grandfather's Pants (2012-12-27 07:03:40)