A year ago I posted on how ancient buildings are usually depicted as colorless, even though they were brightly colored, and suggested this is because we think about the distant past in far mode. I’ve argued
That's a long list of colors. What isn't on it? red? Half of it sounds like shades of brown, but orange, purple, flax blossom, 3x green, and maybe philly mort sound bright to me. (and that's not counting the many I can't identify)
For physical dyes, like woad, it's easy to go to google images and see modern images of fabric dyed with it, but the photographs are taken before any wear and the process may be better today than in the past.
When you move away from dyes to names, it is even harder to assess the past. Robin Hood wore Lincoln green, and today we portray him in bright green, but some people claim that Lincoln green was olive. But with at least three greens on the list, can they all be dull?
they has colour *painting*. The peasants in Bruegel paintings look about how you would expect from people with vegetable-dyed clothes, lots of brown, and red.
I am reminded of a bit in "Albion's Seed" where he mentions that Puritans wore "sadd" (serious) colors, which most people nowadays assumed meant black. but in fact that was not plain enough for most of them! Popular colors were "liver color, de Boys, tawney, russet, purple, French green, ginger lyne, deer colour, orange", "puce, folding color, Kendall green, Lincoln green, barry, milly" and "philly mort". I have no idea what most of those are.
First off, yes, the colours was much less available to the poor back then as easily verified, and second off, the reason for colourlessness bias is easy to see - black and white photography. The colors available might have been restricted. In that sense, color was "less available." The cheap colors seem to be odd, with strange names. What colors were available could depend on what grew in your vicinity. But if it can be verified that the poor in this epoch were colorless, I'd like to see it.
Black and white photography is a good alternative explanation to construal that Hanson should consider if he hasn't. But I don't think the argument is as simple as it seems. Black and white photography doesn't dictate that the viewer interpret the scene as really colorless. But I think there is a cognitive bias to think that what isn't apparent isn't there. That bias might compete with construal-level theory in explaining the colorless view of the far past.
There's another bias that needs to be considered. We assume that colors are far less important than other things, like nutrition. So, even if dyes were cheap, if they cost anything, why would people fighting hunger spend on color? I think that may be the main bias gripping some ultrarationalists like gwern, who are prone to assume the hard reality of the "utility function."
The testimony of the curator himself, if we are to believe your claims about how the article is written: "Though not a traditional textile or costume exhibition, the trove of fabrics recasts much of working-class London in a vibrant, colorful light, opposing the drab, gray palette depicted in the writings of Samuel Johnson and his contemporaries...." What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
> were there dyes accessible to poor people before the industrial revolution?
Of course dyes were 'accessible'; but as I *already* pointed out, accessible is meaningless - gold is accessible, and one could compile an exhibit of gold from peasants and poor people if one dredged enough sites - the question is whether bright expensive dyes were common among the poor to the extent that depictions of a grey drab past are inaccurate.
> (Again, it would be deceitful for the curator or reporter to use the word "much" in the misleading manner you insinuate.)
It would be a perfectly ordinary misreading or hasty reporting job, as is endemic in the mass media. Your faith in them is touching, though.
---
And still no reply to my question: do you seriously believe that the Industrial Revolution did not massively cut the cost of clothing and dyes?
It's perfectly possible that these peasants - the subset which had any colorful attachment at all! - had a handful of outfits and a few colorful small items they used on holidays or for special occasions like church, and the most colorful of those were left with the babies and the most colorful of the most colorful of these small items are what are on display.
First you flatly denied saying they had multiple outfits ("no I don't [claim they had multiple outfits]") Now you assert (without evidence) that they had a "handful of outfits." [Edit. You onw limit the ones with multiple outfits to a "subset," but how many epicycles of carping need we endure.]
If you decline to offer authority for your supposedly authoritative statements, there's not much left to say on the main subject: were there dyes accessible to poor people before the industrial revolution? The evidence before us is that there were, regardless of what you might have been taught in elementary school.
And incidentally, why would one favor a highly unusual collection of small swatches over the testimony of the people who, you know, actually lived back then?
What testimony? If you could present that, you would probably prove your point.
'Much' is not much of a specific word.
And that kind of carping is the sum and substance of your critique. (Again, it would be deceitful for the curator or reporter to use the word "much" in the misleading manner you insinuate.)
'Much' is not much of a specific word. (And incidentally, why would one favor a highly unusual collection of small swatches over the testimony of the people who, you know, actually lived back then?) So no, I don't think the curator necessarily agrees with Hanson that the past was extremely colorful and similar to today, even if we take the reporter's writing as being the
curator's view.
> This assumption is precisely what is being contested. You haven't supported it--you appeal to authority, but without citing any.
So let me see if I've gotten this straight. You don't think textiles got massively cheaper during the Industrial Revolution. And you want me to support this claim.
No thanks. This is in schoolchildren's textbooks. Maybe you should go back there if you didn't pay attention in history class.
> You assume they had multiple garments, and that they could afford "treasured" garments that they seldom wore. (You also turn what are reported as swatches into "tiny garments.")
'garment: an item of clothing'; same root as 'garnish'. But no, I'm sure you're reading what I wrote perfectly accurately and I think that poor people back then were tiny little dwarfs who wore individual swatches as clothing...
What I meant, as you would see if you were reading my comments non-moronically, is that garment is a generic term applicable to swatches and shirts alike. If someone pins a ribbon - or swatch? - to themselves and their dreary ordinary clothes, they have put on another garment. It's perfectly possible that these peasants - the subset which had any colorful attachment at all! - had a handful of outfits and a few colorful small items they used on holidays or for special occasions like church, and the most colorful of those were left with the babies and the most colorful of the most colorful of these small items are what are on display.
The curator is not making Hanson's argument. At most, he makes a comment about some designs being 'relatively cheap' and this demonstrating some consumerist 'roots'
"Though not a traditional textile or costume exhibition, the trove of fabrics recasts much of working-class London in a vibrant, colorful light, opposing the drab, gray palette depicted in the writings of Samuel Johnson and his contemporaries."
In context, this represents the curator's point of view.
This is ordinary consumerism history. Textiles were expensive pre Industrial Revolution. Dyes were likewise expensive.This assumption is precisely what is being contested. You haven't supported it--you appeal to authority, but without citing any.
No, I don't.
"parents leaving behind a child forever grabbed one of a few tiny treasured brightly colored garments and left it with the child,"
You assume they had multiple garments, and that they could afford "treasured" garments that they seldom wore. (You also turn what are reported as swatches into "tiny garments.")
I don't claim the curator represents anything. Exhibits often 'show a collection' while not showing the entire collection; it's a rare and small collection which can be exhibited in its complete entirety bar none.
> the curator conceals this crucial information.
The curator is not making Hanson's argument. At most, he makes a comment about some designs being 'relatively cheap' and this demonstrating some consumerist 'roots'. I don't accuse the curator of concealing crucial information because he's not making the argument that it's relevant to.
> You have what amounts to a conspiracy theory about the exhibit, based on what: your unsupported assumption that all dyes were too expensive.
This is ordinary consumerism history. Textiles were expensive pre Industrial Revolution. Dyes were likewise expensive. What, did you think the Industrial Revolution with the textile sector as its leading wing didn't drop prices massively or something? Seriously? *Of course* clothes and dyes were expensive before.
> You also have the unsupported (and bizarre) assumption that the very poor owned multiple outfits.
You're arguing that the curator of the exhibit "cherry picked" swatches while representing that they're the complete set of remaining swatches. Presumably, only a subset of swatches were preserved--it would be relevant to know why some were preserved and others not--but you assume that only the colorful ones were preserved and that the curator conceals this crucial information.
You have what amounts to a conspiracy theory about the exhibit, based on what: your unsupported assumption that all dyes were too expensive.
You also have the unsupported (and bizarre) assumption that the very poor owned multiple outfits.
The literature of the times (including "Tom Sawyer") suggests that ordinary people only had one or two changes of clothing, and I've seen descriptions of important people suggesting that they had only one set of truly good clothes, so that they could be directly identified by what they wore.
Also, the economics of children was much different then, food was a much higher fraction of living expenses. Colored clothes may have been expensive to the point that one could not own many of them, and yet still be inexpensive compared to the costs of feeding a child.
> A year ago I posted on how ancient buildings are usually depicted as colorless, even though they were brightly colored, and suggested this is because we think about the distant past in far mode.
This is just getting ridiculous. First off, yes, the colours was much less available to the poor back then as easily verified, and second off, the reason for colourlessness bias is easy to see - black and white photography. (That being said, there were bright colours that were cheap, and which you could see in traditional dresses if you lived in Europe and had such thing as traditional dresses. Worn for special occasions).
Yes, I don't know what most of those are either, or what colors didn't qualify.
That's a long list of colors. What isn't on it? red? Half of it sounds like shades of brown, but orange, purple, flax blossom, 3x green, and maybe philly mort sound bright to me. (and that's not counting the many I can't identify)
For physical dyes, like woad, it's easy to go to google images and see modern images of fabric dyed with it, but the photographs are taken before any wear and the process may be better today than in the past.
When you move away from dyes to names, it is even harder to assess the past. Robin Hood wore Lincoln green, and today we portray him in bright green, but some people claim that Lincoln green was olive. But with at least three greens on the list, can they all be dull?
they has colour *painting*. The peasants in Bruegel paintings look about how you would expect from people with vegetable-dyed clothes, lots of brown, and red.
I am reminded of a bit in "Albion's Seed" where he mentions that Puritans wore "sadd" (serious) colors, which most people nowadays assumed meant black. but in fact that was not plain enough for most of them! Popular colors were "liver color, de Boys, tawney, russet, purple, French green, ginger lyne, deer colour, orange", "puce, folding color, Kendall green, Lincoln green, barry, milly" and "philly mort". I have no idea what most of those are.
First off, yes, the colours was much less available to the poor back then as easily verified, and second off, the reason for colourlessness bias is easy to see - black and white photography. The colors available might have been restricted. In that sense, color was "less available." The cheap colors seem to be odd, with strange names. What colors were available could depend on what grew in your vicinity. But if it can be verified that the poor in this epoch were colorless, I'd like to see it.
Black and white photography is a good alternative explanation to construal that Hanson should consider if he hasn't. But I don't think the argument is as simple as it seems. Black and white photography doesn't dictate that the viewer interpret the scene as really colorless. But I think there is a cognitive bias to think that what isn't apparent isn't there. That bias might compete with construal-level theory in explaining the colorless view of the far past.
There's another bias that needs to be considered. We assume that colors are far less important than other things, like nutrition. So, even if dyes were cheap, if they cost anything, why would people fighting hunger spend on color? I think that may be the main bias gripping some ultrarationalists like gwern, who are prone to assume the hard reality of the "utility function."
> What testimony?
The testimony of the curator himself, if we are to believe your claims about how the article is written: "Though not a traditional textile or costume exhibition, the trove of fabrics recasts much of working-class London in a vibrant, colorful light, opposing the drab, gray palette depicted in the writings of Samuel Johnson and his contemporaries...." What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
> were there dyes accessible to poor people before the industrial revolution?
Of course dyes were 'accessible'; but as I *already* pointed out, accessible is meaningless - gold is accessible, and one could compile an exhibit of gold from peasants and poor people if one dredged enough sites - the question is whether bright expensive dyes were common among the poor to the extent that depictions of a grey drab past are inaccurate.
> (Again, it would be deceitful for the curator or reporter to use the word "much" in the misleading manner you insinuate.)
It would be a perfectly ordinary misreading or hasty reporting job, as is endemic in the mass media. Your faith in them is touching, though.
---
And still no reply to my question: do you seriously believe that the Industrial Revolution did not massively cut the cost of clothing and dyes?
Well, I guess we're done here.
It's perfectly possible that these peasants - the subset which had any colorful attachment at all! - had a handful of outfits and a few colorful small items they used on holidays or for special occasions like church, and the most colorful of those were left with the babies and the most colorful of the most colorful of these small items are what are on display.
First you flatly denied saying they had multiple outfits ("no I don't [claim they had multiple outfits]") Now you assert (without evidence) that they had a "handful of outfits." [Edit. You onw limit the ones with multiple outfits to a "subset," but how many epicycles of carping need we endure.]
If you decline to offer authority for your supposedly authoritative statements, there's not much left to say on the main subject: were there dyes accessible to poor people before the industrial revolution? The evidence before us is that there were, regardless of what you might have been taught in elementary school.
And incidentally, why would one favor a highly unusual collection of small swatches over the testimony of the people who, you know, actually lived back then?
What testimony? If you could present that, you would probably prove your point.
'Much' is not much of a specific word.
And that kind of carping is the sum and substance of your critique. (Again, it would be deceitful for the curator or reporter to use the word "much" in the misleading manner you insinuate.)
'Much' is not much of a specific word. (And incidentally, why would one favor a highly unusual collection of small swatches over the testimony of the people who, you know, actually lived back then?) So no, I don't think the curator necessarily agrees with Hanson that the past was extremely colorful and similar to today, even if we take the reporter's writing as being the
curator's view.
> This assumption is precisely what is being contested. You haven't supported it--you appeal to authority, but without citing any.
So let me see if I've gotten this straight. You don't think textiles got massively cheaper during the Industrial Revolution. And you want me to support this claim.
No thanks. This is in schoolchildren's textbooks. Maybe you should go back there if you didn't pay attention in history class.
> You assume they had multiple garments, and that they could afford "treasured" garments that they seldom wore. (You also turn what are reported as swatches into "tiny garments.")
'garment: an item of clothing'; same root as 'garnish'. But no, I'm sure you're reading what I wrote perfectly accurately and I think that poor people back then were tiny little dwarfs who wore individual swatches as clothing...
What I meant, as you would see if you were reading my comments non-moronically, is that garment is a generic term applicable to swatches and shirts alike. If someone pins a ribbon - or swatch? - to themselves and their dreary ordinary clothes, they have put on another garment. It's perfectly possible that these peasants - the subset which had any colorful attachment at all! - had a handful of outfits and a few colorful small items they used on holidays or for special occasions like church, and the most colorful of those were left with the babies and the most colorful of the most colorful of these small items are what are on display.
The curator is not making Hanson's argument. At most, he makes a comment about some designs being 'relatively cheap' and this demonstrating some consumerist 'roots'
"Though not a traditional textile or costume exhibition, the trove of fabrics recasts much of working-class London in a vibrant, colorful light, opposing the drab, gray palette depicted in the writings of Samuel Johnson and his contemporaries."
In context, this represents the curator's point of view.
This is ordinary consumerism history. Textiles were expensive pre Industrial Revolution. Dyes were likewise expensive.This assumption is precisely what is being contested. You haven't supported it--you appeal to authority, but without citing any.
No, I don't.
"parents leaving behind a child forever grabbed one of a few tiny treasured brightly colored garments and left it with the child,"
You assume they had multiple garments, and that they could afford "treasured" garments that they seldom wore. (You also turn what are reported as swatches into "tiny garments.")
I don't claim the curator represents anything. Exhibits often 'show a collection' while not showing the entire collection; it's a rare and small collection which can be exhibited in its complete entirety bar none.
> the curator conceals this crucial information.
The curator is not making Hanson's argument. At most, he makes a comment about some designs being 'relatively cheap' and this demonstrating some consumerist 'roots'. I don't accuse the curator of concealing crucial information because he's not making the argument that it's relevant to.
> You have what amounts to a conspiracy theory about the exhibit, based on what: your unsupported assumption that all dyes were too expensive.
This is ordinary consumerism history. Textiles were expensive pre Industrial Revolution. Dyes were likewise expensive. What, did you think the Industrial Revolution with the textile sector as its leading wing didn't drop prices massively or something? Seriously? *Of course* clothes and dyes were expensive before.
> You also have the unsupported (and bizarre) assumption that the very poor owned multiple outfits.
No, I don't.
You're arguing that the curator of the exhibit "cherry picked" swatches while representing that they're the complete set of remaining swatches. Presumably, only a subset of swatches were preserved--it would be relevant to know why some were preserved and others not--but you assume that only the colorful ones were preserved and that the curator conceals this crucial information.
You have what amounts to a conspiracy theory about the exhibit, based on what: your unsupported assumption that all dyes were too expensive.
You also have the unsupported (and bizarre) assumption that the very poor owned multiple outfits.
The literature of the times (including "Tom Sawyer") suggests that ordinary people only had one or two changes of clothing, and I've seen descriptions of important people suggesting that they had only one set of truly good clothes, so that they could be directly identified by what they wore.
Also, the economics of children was much different then, food was a much higher fraction of living expenses. Colored clothes may have been expensive to the point that one could not own many of them, and yet still be inexpensive compared to the costs of feeding a child.
Naturally...
> A year ago I posted on how ancient buildings are usually depicted as colorless, even though they were brightly colored, and suggested this is because we think about the distant past in far mode.
This is just getting ridiculous. First off, yes, the colours was much less available to the poor back then as easily verified, and second off, the reason for colourlessness bias is easy to see - black and white photography. (That being said, there were bright colours that were cheap, and which you could see in traditional dresses if you lived in Europe and had such thing as traditional dresses. Worn for special occasions).
No indeed; it is a quote from the link.
Fixed.