[BLanen]

> But when everything is colorful, nothing stands out. Everything being colorful is as monotonous as everything being, well, monotone.

This is meaningless.

"When many things are different, everything is the same".

Its a sentence that seems meaningful, but actually is not. It's just abstraction without generalizing.

"000000000000000000000000000" is a sequence just as something as "H90F3iJsjo$(4Opla1zSKX@)!2k" because in the second sequence they're different and in the first they're all the same? Great, you just discovered sets and the axiom of choice.

We are literally discussing the difference within the sets! Obviously the second sequence is more diverse.

First, I thought your argument was going somewhere but then it took this turn.

I would agree with the first part and then argue that before the synthetics-revolution things were mostly just shades of browns(which is a type of dark unsaturated orange). Except for the upper classes who could afford the expensive colors. Now that color is cheap and normalized, it lost (some) of its allure. Not being able to signal your wealth anymore.

Now adding just a conjecture of mine; Now that 'clean' is still somewhat more expensive(upper classes still being able to afford more cleanliness by using other peoples labor), minimal textures(not literal textures but design-wise) are more attractive because it displays your wealth. Plain-white being the easiest to see blemishes on. With black being easier look unblemished. Also, 'tasteful' color arrangements will still signal your class somewhat due to requiring cultural knowledge.

[crazygringo]

I'm going to change your first example. Can you see what stands out?

"00000000qq000000000I0000000"

Now I'm going to change your second example, also by three characters. Can you see what stands out?

"H90F3iJsjo$(4ORma1sSKX@)!2k"

Is that a clearer example of what I'm trying to say? In the second example, because every symbol stands out, no symbol stands out. Or to put it more technically, noise has overwhelmed any signal.

[anigbrowl]

But you're contrasting chaotic use of many different colors with neutrality, and arguing for environments with very little color rather than well-coordinated color; you argued above that color was just one element along with size, shape, texture etc., as if these qualities were mutually exclusive and design should only emphasize one at any given time.

[tracker1]

I would describe it more as noise... When there are loud, clashing color patterns everywhere, it all turns into noise and nothing really stands out. It's like watching analog TV with poor reception... there's stuff there, but really hard to make out or focus.

I'm with GP on this, I'd prefer most things be somewhat subdued and letting key pieces come out. The subdued doesn't have to expressly be a shade of gray or brown/tan either.

[taneq]

Modern SCADA systems are designed like this too. They used to be a riot of programmer art in primary colours, with most things blinking at any one time. Now they’re grey-on-grey for anything “nominal” with alarms in orange or red. Far less migraine inducing and far easier to see the important things.

[IshKebab]

> Its a sentence that seems meaningful, but actually is not.

It's perfectly meaningful. When everything is colourful you can't use colour to stand out. It's very simple. Obvious even.

[roenxi]

Sure you can. Red rose in a field of green for example. Human eyes evolved to see the colours the way they do precisely because they were working in a world where nearly everything is colourful and some things needed to stand out.

[jryle70]

> When everything is colourful you can't use colour to stand out. It's very simple. Obvious even.

Why not? Different colors stand out. Even gray on black does. They are just not colorful.

Look at this painting - [0]. Are you telling me the red tone doesn't stand out?

[0] - https://largemodernart.com/products/original-abstract-art-oi...