Grumbling in the background

“Op these are normal things everybody does”

the balancer II

I don’t have kids

I don’t spend money on nicotine

I don’t gamble my money away on sports

I’m not reliant on a chat bot for all my life functions

I'd image having an alien who relies so heavily on cycles and repeated patterns in order to function normally would be mind-boggling to the Eridians. What do you mean it celebrates the exact day of its birth every so often, just because? Wait we need to program a reliable change in light levels to simulate its planet, which has almost no atmosphere? And we have to schedule any interactions we have with it around this cycle? Wait it tracks its age by the scientific year, not by life experience and physical aging?

So far I've only mixed up the main batch of colors, but I'll split them up and create a palatte of tints and shades once I have access to a scale again.

I don't have any fancy tools and have been blending the fiber by hand, so it's probably best I have a forced break for the sake of my fingers. Once I'm done I should have a very useful set of 57 2g swatches to play with! (Plus 5 more for a set of grayscale swatches)

The ratios are presented in the same order as the wool swatches in the photo above it. I didn't simplify any of the ratios so you'll have to deal with 2:2s instead of 1:1s, oops.

The second shows tufts of the various colours lined up together ready to be mixed. Blue by itself, blue and magenta, magenta and yellow, blue magenta and yellow, etc.

Third and fourth image show some of the resulting swatches - most of which are vibrantly coloured.

Final image visually shows the ratios of colours for all of the swatches in the fourth image, using lines of yellow, magenta, and cyan. The ratios are written below.

@desertedislands Ok thank you for asking actually. I don't think you're being rude at all. Nobody ever be afraid to ask me something, I will never intentionally be mean about it.

Basically: In discussions around art, some people will claim that art which requires external explanation is worse-quality art than art which does not require an external explanation. Some people will say it's the other way around. I think they're both wrong. I think this is the wrong way to approach art history for a couple reasons:

one, which I went into more detail about in the other branch of this thread: whether an image needs to be explained to the viewer depends on the viewer, not the image - so it's not a fair criteria for judging the quality or worth of an image.

“Tour Guides”