07 October 2015

world wide wednesdays :: the other african americans

during the 1960s and 70s, there was a wave of interest among young black americans in reconnecting with the african cultures from which they were descended. the civil rights era not only meant increasing freedoms to live as white americans always had and increasing participation in america's cultural life, but also a freedom to discover who they were before they were shuttled over to the united states as slaves [knowledge whites have always been able to take for granted]. interestingly, though, not all american blacks had lost touch with their culture. one group had kept close to their roots while at the same time incorporating elements of the new world and they still exist, guarding their unique culture today.

the people, called the gullah or gullah geechee, have been in the united states for hundreds of years. they were brought over as slaves from west africa, primarily sierra leone, ghana, senegal, the gambia and especially from angola. slaves from these areas were in particular demand in the coastal areas of the carolinas and georgia, because the tribes of that area had for thousands of years cultivated african rice. so the slaves who were settled in those regions were not brought in merely as cheap labour, but as experts in the cultivation and management of rice fields.

expertise wasn't all that the africans brought with them either. within a few years of their arrival, yellow fever and malaria began to run rampant. the black slaves had been exposed to these diseases before and had a certain level of immunity to them. the white landowners had never been exposed and had just barely become used to living in a subtropical climate like the low country along the atlantic coast. many grew sick and died, meaning that more and more slaves were required to manage the lucrative rice business. by 1708, south carolina had a majority black population and within the century, the coastal areas of georgia would as well.

with killer diseases on the loose, white landowners began to leave the coastal district and while they didn't abandon their land and the profits made from it, they did end up leaving the daily management of the land to the most experienced of their slaves. they were still owned, but the slaves who remained suddenly found themselves living on productive land in relative isolation from their "masters". it can't have been easy, since there were members of possibly a dozen different tribes living in the region, with the only common denominator being that they knew how to farm rice and they had been torn from their homeland and dropped in a completely different part of the world.

early photo of the gullah community
the default language was english, since all of them had had to learn at least some to communicate with the whites and with each other. but a distinct language developed, a creole or patois [called geechee] that blended english with common terms from west africa, because the people of the region had only to communicate with each other- very rarely with those from outside. likewise, the people who formed the gullah lived on fertile land for rice and had been brought there because of their knowledge about the crop, so their cuisine remained heavily influenced by their african roots rather than anything they picked up in the new world.

when the civil war broke out, the gullah lands were the first to be liberated, because when the union army arrived, there was no one there resisting their advance. instead, many of the gullah joined the army and left to fight in the war. after the war, they returned home to find that the whites that had remained had more or less gone and that other freed slaves had no interest in moving onto the gullah lands because they were no longer immune to yellow fever or malaria than the whites. so life for the gullah continued much as it had, in even greater isolation. they continued using their language and cooking their african-influenced foods, weaving baskets and cloth as their families had done in the old country, living along the coast and in the sea islands from jacksonville north carolina to jacksonville florida.

of course, people eventually did move back and in the twentieth century, many moved north as well. [although it was still relatively common for children to spend summers with their grandparents, allowing for the passing down of culture across geography and generations.] but after so long being on their own, the gullah have proven resistant to assimilation. their lands, however, are increasingly threatened.

map of gullah territories
with the malaria and the yellow fever long gone, the sea islands off the coast of georgia and the carolinas has become a hotspot for hotel developers, driving up the cost of living and pushing out people who have been there for generations. it's a common enough story in any area that has been commercialized or gentrified, but in this case, there is also a unique culture and language being threatened, one that has managed to hold on against all odds. to save their culture, the gullah geechee sea island coalition was founded in 1996 by the woman who now serves as the people's "queen quet" or head of state for the gullah geechee nation, marquetta l. goodwine. much of their battle has been to promote knowledge of the gullah not just as a historical curiosity [which is how they are usually mentioned, when they're mentioned at all], but as a living cultural group, still proudly distinct from the rest of the country.

in 2006, the gullah geechee heritage corridor [their traditional lands], a territory crossing four states and composed of 8.2 million acres, 9 complete counties and parts of 18 others, was designated  a heritage site. that helps to ensure that work is done to identify and protect areas of cultural and historical significance, but it falls short of the protections offered to areas included in the national park system. it's a limited victory, but an important one for the nation. in 2013, the won a different sort of victory when gullah candice glover won american idol and called attention to her heritage.

in 2015, however, there was a shock to the community when white supremacist dylann roof killed nine african americans at the emanuel african methodist church. while not specifically a gullah institution, the two hundred year old church is located in the heart of the gullah land and clementa pinckney, the state senator who was among the dead, had been a public proponent of the importance of gullah culture. people who survived slavery, disease, hurricanes and crop failures have found that their existence is under constant and sometimes violent threat from the people who descended on the lands where the gullah had lived since the seventeenth century.

the continued survival of the unique gullah culture is certainly at risk from the hegemony of the nation that surrounds them. like other linguistic, racial and religious minorities, remaining different is far more work than simply moving along with "progress". but having resisted thus far, you have to think that the gullah will never go quietly into that good night.

the queen quet surveys her land

armchair centre back :: things i learned about employment by watching the premier league

van gaal and his best "fuck you" smile
my primary motivation in watching soccer is that i like the sport. it's simple, but at the same time involves a range of skills [although each player has a position, everyone is expected to attack and defend], exceptional communication and trust between teammates, and endurance [most players average 8-10km per game, running the whole time]. the saying is true, that sport is a crucible in which we can see the many aspects of life: it's thrilling highs, crushing lows, grotesque unfairness when mike dean is in charge... but lately, i've also realised that there are more specific life lessons one can draw from the beautiful game. specifically, there are lessons to be learned for both employers and employees. to whit:

promote from within :: swansea city aren't going to make it into the top three teams anytime soon, but last season was record-breaking for them. they won beat both their previous points total and their previous finishing position in the table, and they did it with a 36 year old manager who'd never coached a game in his life. when he took over as manager [still less than two years ago], garry monk was still technically registered as a player. since his promotion, he's locked down players like team captain ashley williams and midfielder ki-sung yueng [who later said that he would have left had the previous manager continued], who have made a huge difference. he brought back gylfi sigurdsson, who had had a great year on loan at swansea two seasons previously. he signed arsenal goalkeeper lukas fabianski, bafétimbi gomis and andre ayew for a grand total of nothing. most interestingly, in three matches against manchester united's all-star dutch import louis van gaal, his side has won all three. swansea's chairman huw jenkins looks like a goddamned genius for putting his faith in his team's former midfielder and, despite a patch of "meh" in september, the team seems to have come together like something out of the movies. comparing the team budget to those that finished above them last season, they've been a frigging miracle. don't assume that your best option is to capture a high profile person from somewhere else. a deserving face from inside the organisation can do wonders and already knows the lay of the land.

i'm still in the premier league and a bird shat on my head...
believe in yourself, but remember that your powers aren't infinite :: there are precisely no people who guessed that, nearly a quarter of the way into the 2015/6 season, chelsea would be languishing in sixteenth place. after they galloped across finish line and claimed first place with a few weeks to spare last season, most people figured that they'd be one of the teams to beat this year. they didn't spend a lot in the off season, but given their phenomenal form last year, it didn't really look like they had to. i'm not going to say "i told you so", because i never did, but i did get an inkling that all would not go smoothly when chelsea manager and erstwhile antichrist jose mourinho signed radamel falcao after he'd proven to be such a turd during his season on loan for manchester united. reputedly one of the best forwards in the world, none of his colombian teammates seemed to miss him during their incredible run at the 2014 world cup and his exceptional form in france's ligue 1 has evaporated in the much tougher english premier league. however, jose decided that manchester united [and his mentor, louis van gaal] just hadn't made the best of him and that he would show the world the real falcao. nearly two months in, it looks like we all got to see the real falcao last year. despite a spiffy new haircut that alerted many to the fact that he's a damn fine looking man, falcao has had zero impact and has looked exactly like the player he was last year. i once had a human resources person tell me that a manager who could make a bad employee into a good employee was incredibly rare and that they could rarely achieve the feat with more than one person. if someone isn't cut out for the job, don't assume you can fix them through the power of your awesomeness. you're not that special, jose.

i am a beeeegg fish right now
consider the advantages of the small pond :: when people achieve a high profile in a smaller arena, we're tempted to dismiss their inflated sense of importance by calling them a big fish in a small pond. and while i'm not in favour of getting a swollen head because you happen to be the world's foremost expert on the measuring of striations in middle neolithic granite structures, i do think it's worth considering that being part of a smaller team has some advantages. consider the case of wilfried bony. last year- actually earlier this year- manchester city spent thirty million pounds to buy him from swansea city. while he has had some occasional game time [including scoring a goal against his former club last spring], his role at manchester city has basically been to keep the benches warm while he waits for sergio aguëro to get injured. with swansea, he was the top scoring player for the entire league in 2014. he was a demigod among the fans. since his departure, bafé gomis- who chafed at the reins when he was considered the secondary striker- has come into his own, not only scoring goals, but becoming a lynchpin for the team. his impact at man city has been nearly nothing, and swansea didn't seem to miss him for long. another example would be dutch striker robin van persie, who left arsenal [not exactly the smallest pond] for manchester united in 2013 because he wanted to win trophies and didn't think arsenal had it in them. indeed, he did get to be part of a premier league winning team that first year, but the team went nowhere in the champions league, didn't even qualify for the europa league the next season, finished seventh overall and in the early part of the 2014-5 season, his former team arsenal had one two league trophies before manchester united had won a single game. van persie was sold off this season to turkish side fenerbahçe, where his team sits in third place and he's mostly been sitting on the bench.

the current leading scorer in the premier league is leicester's jamie vardy and with all due respect to that young man, he wouldn't get a look-in at either manchester club. but now anyone following the league knows who he is and he gets a lot of the credit for the fact that his team are currently sitting fourth, despite having allowed more goals than any other team. if they can maintain anything like the form they've shown thus far, vardy will likely be playing in europe next year and he will have done it with a team where he can feel like his contributions are of the utmost importance.

the moral of the story is this: don't assume that bigger is better. if you have a good thing going with a company that maybe isn't the biggest and richest and most successful, consider the possibility that that means that your efforts get noticed more and that you might be appreciated more.

this meme is several years old. he now has 200 million.
know when you need help :: this one's for all the arsenal fans out there, all those poor people who have gone prematurely bald from ripping out their hair in the weeks before the close of the transfer window as they watched their manager to very little to shore up resources. in the last few years, the premier league's longest-serving and most frustrating manager has finally started to add some world-class talent. mesut özil and alexis sanchez are huge additions. the thing is, they are additions that have been needed for some time. arsenal have also needed a top class keeper for years; that's not to say that they didn't have good options, but every year the team that wins the premier league does so with a keeper who's among the top in the world and neither david ospina nor wojciech szczesny were at that level. chelsea's petr cech is at that level and so many fans breathed a huge sigh of relief when arsenal signed him this season. [the fact that it apparently happened in the teeth of jose mourinho's opposition and that the loss just about broke his heart can be considered a happy side effect.] but then, things came a little off the rails. or rather, they came to a screeching halt, because arsenal signed no one else before the close of the transfer window in september. immediately, every fan shifted uncomfortably with a profound sense of déjà vu.

the problem is that arsène wenger runs his teams much like a lot of start-up owners run their companies: by adding talent in the right places at least a year after everyone else in the organisation has realised it was necessary. fans have been screaming for both a defensive midfielder and a striker for years and wenger's response has been to play musical chairs with what he has. i love a boss who's willing to stick with his employees and who believes that his team is capable of amazing things, but at a certain point dedicated starts to become delusional. i'm still not entirely convinced that the gunners need to splash mad money on a striker, because i like the wenger way of creating a team where everyone scores some goals, but you're not reliant on one person to score lots of goals. but even i can see that he needs to sign one or two people who are capable of scoring more goals on a regular basis. wenger has the promoting from within thing down [ask francis coquelin], but sometimes you just need a new sort of employee to move things forward.

never underestimate the power of a great boss :: a very smart friend once said something that's stuck with me lo these many years: in every workplace, you're going to reach a point where employees have no motivation beyond the inspiration they get from their manager. there will come a time when things get so tough that the rewards of salary, greater bonuses or commissions, the sense of accomplishment at solving a problem, all those things that normally get people to work harder, are not going to be enough and when that happens, you have to be confident that those employees will still keep working because the person in charge is that strong a leader. and it does happen, although not very often.

i'd argue that it happens in sport more often than in other businesses, but the lesson is still applicable. if you want to be a boss, you need to think about ways in which you can lead so that people feel good just because they work for you. if you're an employee, think about your boss and whether or not you could feel that way about them. if you can't imagine it, that's a bad sign.

last year, manchester united set a record with the signing of angel di maria from real madrid. after a few impressive games, di maria collapsed like a dying star, reaching the apex of fail when he received two yellow cards in thirty seconds, the first for diving and the second for giving referee michael oliver a shake in protest of the first.

di maria's meltdown was popularly credited to either not being able to cut it in the english league [if you're a united fan] or the fact that manager louis van gaal is impossible to work for [if you're anyone other than a united fan]. radamel falcao was apparently reduced to tears at times because he hated the united experience so much. robin van persie, who worked with van gaal as part of the dutch national team as well as for a year at united, has been loud and clear through his silence on the subject, even when he rattled off an encyclopedia of thanks to everyone who had supported him in england. the list included arsenal fans, who had booed him without mercy for three years since his departure, but didn't include van gaal.

on the other end of the scale, you have someone like yohan cabaye, who's proving to be an excellent addition to crystal palace this year. he had been in england before, at newcastle under manager alan pardew and while higher profile clubs [like arsenal] had been interested in his services, he ultimately decided to leave a comfy position on the bench at perennial french champions paris st. germain to play for a team that's come close to relegation two years running. lots of people hate pardew, but i'm not one of them. because when it comes down to it, when he needs his players to really step up, they do. they did it after an atrocious start at newcastle in 2014. they did it when he moved to crystal palace at the beginning of 2015.

there's talk about him taking over as england manager after roy hodgson and i personally would love to see if he can translate his skills to a national team that isn't playing together as much or as regularly as a professional team. [i'd also like to see him headbutt cristiano ronaldo at an international game, but that's probably asking too much.]

i could go on, but i've already gone on a lot and so i'll wind up with this: there is something to the metaphor of sport being like life, condensed, and while it can be exhilarating just to watch, you can also find some surprisingly useful tidbits of information inside the condensed world. 

05 October 2015

mental health mondays :: #crazylivesmatter to john oliver

it's said that talent borrows while genius steals, in which case, i am a genius today. a lot of you are probably already fans of john oliver, but in case you missed his brilliant segment lasts night on mental health in the united states, i'm posting it here.

i'm also posting this so that i can spare you yet another rant about the automatic linking of [white] mass murderers with mental illness, which is trotted out as the counter-argument for gun control when a massacre happens [as if working on mental health crises and implementing greater gun control were somehow mutually exclusive]. after all, it's something we've dealt with here so many times before.

if you're in the united states, or have family there, you might be stymied for creative solutions to deal with the crisis that poor management of resources has created. in that case, you might want to look at [and direct your elected officials to look at] successful strategies implemented in other countries.

in the meantime, thank the gods for john oliver giving a higher profile to the issue and calling out the politicians who use it as a convenient excuse.

04 October 2015

paranoid theory of the week :: is the discovery of water on mars an environmentalist hoax?

mars: not filled with caramel and nougat
when nasa announced that they had found flowing water on mars, dom [who is a serious nasa and space-o-phile] looked at me and joked that he wondered how long it would take before people started claiming it was some sort of left-wing or obama plot. the answer to that question proved to be about twenty-one hours, i believe, not that it was a question either of us expected to have answered. after all, nasa is pretty much neutral, right? [unless you count the whole moon landing was faked thing, in which case this would be totally in keeping with nasa policy.] and no one has anything to gain from saying that there's water on mars when there isn't, right?

i'm honestly kind of ashamed that it continues to surprise me when conspiracy theories pop up about this sort of thing, as if, despite all of the time i spend listening to and reading about the paranoid mindset, i don't realise that anything can generate a conspiracy theory. it's like my brain blocks parts of itself from discovering the stuff it's learned so that i can maintain a modicum of hope about the thought patterns of human beings in general.

but a narrative has emerged about the water found on mars and i am compelled to investigate, especially since it's so hot off the proverbial presses and hasn't been complicated by generations of retelling.

the theory ::
the announcement that flowing water was discovered on mars is a lie designed to further the agenda of environmentalists.

the origin ::
i'd say dom's imagination, but i just don't think he's at the point where he can cause his thoughts to assume real form yet. so instead, we're going to go with the often controversial rush limbaugh, who addressed the topic on his show on september 28, also known as the day nasa made their announcement.

the believers ::
rush limbaugh, obviously. [or not. i always have a sneaking feeling that he and ann coulter are, in fact, the greatest performance artists in history and are secretly laughing their asses off at all of us.] there are probably others, but this is a very new story, so not a lot of high profile people have bought in. some have made noises about how the timing is coincidental with the release of the martian, a movie in which nasa scientists have been heavily involved. if that's the case, i seriously want to shake the hand of every individual on their marketing team because damn. i like to think that i've put together some impressive campaigns in the past, but having nasa fake the discovery of liquid water on another planet is just... wow. on a slightly different path, author richard hoagland has averred that the discovery of flowing water was made years ago, but that nasa is withholding information and releasing it slowly and cautiously to fit the agency's needs.

the evidence ::
well, it's a logical impossibility to prove prima facie that something doesn't exist. the burden of proof is to establish that it does exist, and then further arguments can attack that proof. so the first thing we should look at is the evidence that nasa cites that there is liquid water on mars. fortunately, in the age of technology, it's really, really easy to find that information. for instance, here's an hour-long video of the press conference about the announcement where nasa scientists discuss the information that they used to come to the conclusion that there is liquid water on mars:

knowing that a lot of people are not going to watch the full hour, allow me to offer this inadequate layman's summary: mars has streaks on its surface that have thus far been impossible to explain. using a fancy science machine [a spectrometer], scientists have determined that the streaks are the result of certain minerals, but only if those minerals are hydrated. if there are wet things on the surface of mars, it means that there must be liquid to make them wet and since the markings are specifically typical of hydration, that means that it's water causing the wetness.

no one is claiming that they've collected water, or that they've seen the water rolling over the surface. what they've seen are the effects and those effects have been made recently enough that scientists are satisfied that they are not the result of an ancient source of water now frozen or dry. the presence of hydrated minerals means that something is hydrating them now.

clearly, there's a lot to be learned here. the average temperature on mars is frigid even at the warmest points. [although at least once a year here in montreal, usually in january, some smart ass meteorologist likes to point out that our temperature that day will be lower than it is on mars. hey mr. or ms. smarty pants, mars is a whole planet, so it can't be the same temperature all over. but yeah, if you've ever wondered why people leave a city like montreal, winter temperatures colder than a planet that's further away from the sun is one reason.] in order to be in a liquid state, the water needs to be mixed with something else, most likely salt, in order to lower its freezing temperature. that's not outlandish. our oceans don't freeze over, even in the coldest places. of course, mars isn't exactly a clone of earth. it's a frozen wasteland with no evidence of life existing for millennia. but where there is water, there often is life, so the discovery of liquid water begs the questions: is there life on mars that we haven't identified yet? was there life on mars previously and if so, what happened that made the planet virtually uninhabitable now?

if nasa has any information on the former, they're not talking [yet]. on the latter, the theory is that there is that mars experienced some form of climate change and that this somehow altered the surface conditions sufficiently to move it from a moist, life-friendly planet, to a frozen hellhole that even the tundra has abandoned. one wishes that they could have come up with a way, any way, of saying what they meant that didn't involve the use of the words "climate" and "change". not that those aren't the correct words and not that they aren't equally applicable to conditions here on earth, but even saying them is like waving the proverbial red flag before the bull. [and i do mean the proverbial red flag. real red flags aren't any more interesting to real bulls than green or blue ones.] and it does seem to be that choice of words that set our principal figure, rush limbaugh, off.

minerals in the gale crater
in his initial response to the new that there was liquid water on mars, limbaugh questioned why he should believe the claim, since he says nasa has been falsifying weather data on earth for the last eighteen years. when his assertions were questioned by left-wing media outlets, limbaugh doubled down on his claims, saying that it wasn't possible for nasa to determine that there had been oceans a mile deep on mars [which they do], that they could not be correct in their assumption that a catastrophic event had shifted the martian climate and made it inhospitable and that nasa's work was corrupted because the organisation had been "converted to muslim outreach".

that last comment may sound a little odd, even by limbaugh's standards, but there is a kernel of truth behind it. it stems from comments made in 2010 by obama's appointed head of nasa, charles bolden, who had said that among his primary goals was to conduct outreach to muslim and arab nations and to make them feel a part of nasa's history, since so much of the work that its scientists have done was built on the discoveries of scientists from the arab world. it is interesting that obama would consider that a particular priority, but it's far from the entire agency being converted to muslim outreach.

if his reasons for disbelieving nasa are because he thinks that they have been falsifying weather data, he's wrong. this is a lie dragged out by climate change deniers ad nauseum and it's based on bad science.

as far as how nasa could know that there were once oceans on mars, they use the same geology that we use here on earth to determine that ice ages have occurred at different times. we do not need to have been present in order to know what happened: the planet itself bears witness. i'm not requiring that limbaugh believe in any of this science, but if he discounts what has been observed on mars, he needs to clarify that he is likewise discounting observations that have been made about earth. 

i'm not sure what he means exactly when he says 

How can there be a catastrophic event on Mars when there is nobody there to experience the catastrophe?

there have been catastrophes here on earth that have gone unwitnessed by humans in the past, such as the events that killed the dinosaurs and have the flora and fauna on earth sixty-five million years ago. i'm going to assume here that he meant that there weren't people on mars to do the research required to establish the type of event that took place the way that there are on earth and that's not untrue. however, science has advanced to the point where it isn't always necessary to use live human beings in research. furthermore, no one at nasa has made a definitive statement about what happened, just that something happened. they don't have any information older than forty years and even some of that is pretty sketchy. as with all things in science, it's a theory that needs to be tested. 

the ultimate problem that limbaugh and his followers have, however, is with the use of the term "climate change", because they are incorrectly linking it to the way in which it's used to describe events here on earth. here, "climate change" is a short way of saying that there are shifts in the climate of the earth that are outside the normal range and that are not caused by external forces acting on the planet or its atmosphere, but rather are caused by the activities of human beings. and even what i've just said there is a simplification. 

"climate change" in the martian context just refers to the fact that planetary climates do, in fact, change on their own, just like ours has in the arrival and departure of ice ages. on mars, climate change is a bigger factor for a few reasons

photo of the environmental effects of flowing water on mars

  • the shape of its orbit makes it more susceptible to changes than we are 
  • mars has a thin atmosphere, which is essentially like saying it lacks an airbag; here on earth, external shifts are absorbed largely by our big blue bag, but mars takes the impact full on
  • the surface of mars is exceptionally dusty and its winds cause massive dust storms to form. those may cause further climactic blight by doing things like blocking the sun, as we've occasionally witnessed here in the wake of very large volcanic events. 

no one is claiming that the climate change that occurred on mars is like the climate change that's occurring on earth. correction: no one is saying that except rush limbaugh and he's only doing it to confuse people into believing that someone at nasa thinks that humans are causing global warming on mars. 

the likelihood :: 0/10
seriously, if you believe this, you need to get help. nasa have presented very credible evidence of why they believe that there is liquid water on mars. if that's being disputed, it needs to be disputed by a scientist who understands and has reviewed the evidence and who is willing to have their work reviewed by their peers in order to confirm that their methods are sound. the careful detailing of methods and analysis in order to allow work to be replicated by others is actually what distinguishes good from bad science. science isn't about making the discovery: it's about making a discovery that can be made again by anyone following the same procedure, like baking a cake. 

the problem with this sort of reflexive distrust of government agencies like nasa is that it denies the importance of knowledge and expertise. limbaugh asks how nasa can know certain things, but doesn't bother to familiarize himself with the actual science of how they could know it. he assumes that because he [and his listeners] don't know how it's done that no one else could either. i can be pretty arrogant, but i will never assume that something can't be done simply because i can't do it. you could leave me alone for ten years and the only method i would figure out to avoid freezing to death would be to set stuff on fire. that doesn't mean i don't believe in my radiators. 

rather than allowing something like this to gain strength and followers, let's just all take a moment this week and think how incredibly cool it is that we live in an age where there are people smart enough to deduce that there might be flowing water on the planet closest to us. ignorance is awful. science is awesome.

all images taken from mars.nasa.gov

03 October 2015

making faces :: fall for all, part 2 [a seasonal colour analysis experiment]

well, installment one was the easy part: coming up with autumn looks for the autumn seasons. now we move into seasonal colour types that aren't as well-aligned with the typical autumn palette. first up, we deal with the winter seasons: dark, true and bright.

in colour analysis, each "parent" season- spring, summer, autumn, winter- overlap with each other season in one colour dimension- hue [warm/ cool], value [light/ dark] and chroma [saturated/ muted]. autumn is warm, dark and muted [relatively speaking], whereas winter is cool, dark and saturated. so you can see that the points of crossover in palettes, the places where you can emphasize autumn's attributes, is in the darker shades.

it's unsurprising that as fall transitions into winter, you get the darkest shades of all. we've seen the warmer equivalent in the dark autumn look from last time, so from there, as with all neutral seasons, we move from the warmer to the cooler cognate...

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...