The point being, while it is valid to call purple "violet" in "art," that is not an end-all be-all definition. That is all I'm doing; pointing out that while that is an accurate statement, it isn't an absolute or objectively true statement. Other perspectives are not only possible, they are reasonable and supportable. My concern isn't over "colors" or "art" but the conflation of a simplistic representation of reality with the reality itself.
Which gets to an underlying frustration I have: the assumption that one subjective perspective is the only valid perspective. Color just happens to be the guise under which this happened today.
I never said I only use the term "violet" and never say "purple".
Violet is the proper term when you're in art school, like I said in the first post I made about this. Jesus.
It's not the end-all be-all, and it's not a generalization. It's a specific place and setting with specific terminology. Color is not a guise under which anything happened today, except misunderstanding intent. I'm not generalizing, I'm specifying.
It's like, when you ask a normal person when the Declaration of Independence was signed, they'll say July 4th. When you ask a historian, they'll say, that's a generalization. Specifically, different people signed different days, and most of them signed in August.
Or Columbus was the first person who discovered America. No. It was Vikings who got here "first". Unless you count people who aren't white, in which case it was the Native Americans who migrated from a land bridge between Canada/Alaska area and Russia that is now covered in water.
But the generalized answer remains the public view.
