08-11-2024, 02:36 PM
I was also thinking about using a larger variety of shades of colors, but I thought that it would be basically impossible to distinguish between a shade *because the painter wanted a shade* and a shade *for any other reason*.
What I did consider during my brief session was to simply compare how often more than one clearly distinguishable shade occurs on plants.
I think that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is the best example I can think of.
Comparing different colors between different pages can be very difficult: every time they mix new paint, it can be difficult to get the correct ratio and correct painting.
But You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is one coherent plant, one piece of artwork, and yet it has many different shades. It is clear that whoever painted it wanted there to be different shades on the plant. It is not an accident that all the petals have different colors: it is not because they ran out of color, it is not because of loss of color over the centuries.
With all of that said, I do think that, if others who are much better at color and statistics than me, will agree that there is a difference in the usage of red (or any other color), then that is clear evidence that the color is original, because, as I argued above, no one not familiar to the painting process would have made any distinction between the plants in Herbal A and Herbal B. Any difference, whatever it may be, is a strong indication that the painters also added the color (which makes sense logically and is sort of Occam's razor what we would expect anyways).
I'm still not at the point of "so what does red mean?" That is a completely different question and I don't know enough about the manuscript yet. I heard somewhere that it's actually chanting and I sort of liked that idea, but I'm also inclined to it being complete gibberish. Anyways, I think that the difference in color use between the scribes must be clear indication that the color is original.
What I did consider during my brief session was to simply compare how often more than one clearly distinguishable shade occurs on plants.
I think that You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is the best example I can think of.
Comparing different colors between different pages can be very difficult: every time they mix new paint, it can be difficult to get the correct ratio and correct painting.
But You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is one coherent plant, one piece of artwork, and yet it has many different shades. It is clear that whoever painted it wanted there to be different shades on the plant. It is not an accident that all the petals have different colors: it is not because they ran out of color, it is not because of loss of color over the centuries.
With all of that said, I do think that, if others who are much better at color and statistics than me, will agree that there is a difference in the usage of red (or any other color), then that is clear evidence that the color is original, because, as I argued above, no one not familiar to the painting process would have made any distinction between the plants in Herbal A and Herbal B. Any difference, whatever it may be, is a strong indication that the painters also added the color (which makes sense logically and is sort of Occam's razor what we would expect anyways).
I'm still not at the point of "so what does red mean?" That is a completely different question and I don't know enough about the manuscript yet. I heard somewhere that it's actually chanting and I sort of liked that idea, but I'm also inclined to it being complete gibberish. Anyways, I think that the difference in color use between the scribes must be clear indication that the color is original.