Humanities Homework Help

Part 1:

question: On page 104, Batchelor refers to this idea that laughter is beyond language as well as colour. This is a really interesting concept in regards to the language of colour. Do you think this could relate to the resonance, or tone of voice, that colour seems to have?

part 2:

1- I’ve had a harder time understanding the previous chapters throughout this course, and this chapter was no exception. Although it took me a couple of re-reads through pages, in the end, this concept is very interesting. In a way, this chapter and chapter 4 are the least frustrating within the whole book. Overall, I think that my perspective has changed on how I see the world and the color that makes it up. Bachelor makes it obvious that everything relates back to color, and the color itself has no boundaries. Much like the color as bachelor portrays it to be, laughter to me goes beyond language. While one can literally make remarks about being upset or happy, I feel that emotion, and the way emotion makes us react says more than words ever could. There are so many ways that a laugh can come across depending on the context that it’s in. Written words, text messages, billboard signs, or any type of word that is displayed can’t possibly give the same type of emotion as laughter could, or the way that we react to emotions and feelings in general (laughter being one of them since it is the main topic of this discussion). Regarding to the language of color overall, I’d say that to me, it is made up of representations that could never be verbal. While we can state the physical name of a color, I can’t describe it properly without giving an example that is an item that already exists, or other combinations of other colors. Color quite literally defines the world around us, and I don’t think written language could be the same if it wasn’t for color itself.

2- When I think of laughter, I do not see any relation to color itself. The relation to the resonance of color exists in connection to emotions. While I do not associate any color with laughter, I find laughter to fall under joy and happiness. For this reason, I associate brighter colors with joy and laughter.

I do see the potential link between laughter and communication. It is similar to how we use nonverbal communication. This type of communication can be done consciously or it can happen automatically without thinking. Laughter too can be utilized on command when you want to show appreciation or express the hilarity of a situation, however, it may not always be genuine. Batchelor calls laughter a “wordless language” to which I agree to a certain extent. I do find that laughter is communication as it conveys a feeling to others, but it is not an entire language of its own. As waving can be understood as hello, laughter can in turn translate to joyous humor.

3- My understanding of his quote is related to over-exposure, and the emotions colors elicit diminishing as their abundance and vibrancy increases. While I feel that his statement may be true in a vacuum, it does not apply in every circumstance. Take for example The Grand Budapest Hotel, a film from a few years back. Through much of its runtime it is set in a 1930’s hotel full to the brim of bright, colorful, pastel visuals. As the setting changes to the 1960’s (and eventually ’80’s) the color pallet becomes much more muted and toned down. The juxtaposition between the two pallets creates a stark contrast and evoke very different emotion, one full of life and motion, the other drab and unenthused, but neither devoid of feeling and clear visual messages. One could argue then that Huxley’s statement holds true, considering not every work holds this kind of contrast, but I still posit that an overabundance, or lack of vibrancy in a work both send clear messages, and can be skillfully put to use in the right context.

4- At first the passage made me a little confused, however after looking at it and considereing the book’s message as a whole, I began to understand.I think that this last paragraph, along with most of this book indicate the answer to colour is that colour really cannot be universally defined; and that has been recognized for a long time (as it is noted that the passage is from the early 1800’s). Sure, colour can be reduced to it’s most simple form; but even the simpliest forms of colour cannot be universally definded, whether that be through opinion, perception, language, etc. colour is something subject so personal perception. Wide-range perceptions of colour can be seen across cultures/ countires but as we can see from many examples of cultural signifigance of colour; there is no one answer or one true ‘correct’ answer. They are all the correct answer. Colour is so much more complex that blue, red, green, etc. It has feelings it has emotions and those feelings and emotions can be different person to person; culture to culture; language to language.