How colour is created in the mind

Illustration by Marie Montocchio / Ikon Images
What colour is the grass? It looks green to me, and you say it looks green to you, but are we seeing the same green? And what makes it green anyway – the light, or our brains? Welcome to episode one of Stories in Colour, a new podcast from the National Gallery.
This is a truly multidisciplinary endeavour – not just art but history, psychology, literature, sociology, economics and religion. World history is told through the story of pigments and how their development shaped centuries of artistic expression. Our emotional reflexes to colour – fear, disgust, calm – are put under the microscope. Paintings in the National Gallery's collection take centre-stage, with the mastery of Turner, Renoir and Monet dissected brushstroke by brushstroke.
But it begins with science, as Beks Leary from the gallery's digital department tries to understand what colour actually is and if it's even real. For this, she is joined by 'colour scientist' Professor Anya Hurlbert for a deep dive into physics and then evolutionary biology to understand why we see colour in the first place.
If you're still wondering whether the dress in the photo that went viral ten years ago was really blue and black or white and gold, Hurlbert has recreated the illusion in real life and can give you the definitive answer. More interesting, though, is why it divided the internet, with millions of people utterly flummoxed that they could view the same image yet see something so different. Colours are, it turns out, our 'personal possessions': real, but also something we create in our own minds, influenced by both our surroundings and our memories.
So is the grass green? You'll need a philosopher to answer that, not a colour scientist or an art historian. But the viral dress wouldn't have bamboozled Monet or Turner. Orange skies, a golden cathedral, fields laid out in purple – the minds behind some of the world's greatest artworks instinctively knew that colours aren't always what they seem.
Stories in Colour
The National Gallery podcasts
[See also: The BBC Sounds series 'Stalked' is thrilling and worrying]
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
Related

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Times

12-06-2025

• Times

The National Gallery, a Renaissance painting — and one very angry donor

Only last month the National Gallery and its director, Gabriele Finaldi, were basking in praise when the £85 million rebuild and rehang of the Sainsbury Wing was unveiled during the gallery's 200th anniversary year. The critics, including our own Nancy Durrant, were particularly impressed that Finaldi had managed to get more than 1,000 paintings on public display — 400 more than before the redesign. Unknown to critics and public, however, Finaldi is embroiled in an awkward dispute about an Italian Renaissance painting that isn't on display anywhere in the gallery but, its donor says, should be. The row raises wider questions about whether potential donors of artworks can trust our public museums and galleries to carry out their wishes. The work is Christ Carrying the Cross, attributed to the workshop of the 15th-century Venetian painter Giovanni Bellini. It's not a masterpiece but it is an intense image of an anguished Christ, donated to the National Gallery in April 2015 by the London art dealer Angus Neill. At the time the gallery described it as 'the first Venetian example of one of the most important genres of private devotional painting in Renaissance Italy'. Neill, 56, suggests that if offered at auction today it would raise between £3 million and £5 million. Neill says he didn't even claim the tax relief he could have done by donating an artwork to the nation — 'As a good Catholic I didn't want to make money from Christ,' he says. His sole motive, he asserts, was to get a rare Renaissance painting on public display for the first time. To that end he attached a stipulation to his gift. He obtained an assurance that the painting would be 'on permanent public display' or 'readily accessible as part of its reserve collection'. Neill says that he took the latter clause to mean 'not simply a storage facility but a dedicated gallery in the basement where important paintings — when not on display upstairs — were still available for everyone to see'. For the first few months, when the National Gallery was still under the leadership of Nicholas Penny, that pledge was honoured and the painting was on display in the main galleries. But after Finaldi arrived in August 2015, Christ Carrying the Cross was less often on view and subsequently disappeared altogether. Neill wrote to Finaldi in October 2023 asking why and Finaldi replied that, because of the Sainsbury Wing's temporary closure, far fewer paintings were on display. However, he continued, 'I suspect [ Christ Carrying the Cross ] will certainly be on display when we undertake the general rehang in 2025 when the Sainsbury Wing reopens.' • Imagine Neill's feelings, then, when the reopening happened and his donated painting wasn't there. Actually, you don't have to imagine, because Neill condensed his views into a trenchant email to the gallery. Pointing out that it now had 'ample wall space' to display the painting, he claimed that its continued absence 'does not align with the spirit of our original agreement'. He went on to 'request formally the return of the original artwork' so that he could donate it to another UK gallery that would put it on public display. Finaldi replied that he 'regretted' giving the impression that it was 'all but certain' that the painting would go back on display after the reopening. 'I should have been more circumspect,' he admits. His present Italian Renaissance curators were not as keen on displaying it, he said, as their predecessors in 2015. However, he continued, there was no question of giving back the painting to Neill. 'Because it now belongs to the nation it cannot be returned to the donor. As I'm sure you know, the National Gallery is not permitted by statute to divest itself of an accessioned work. Even if we wanted to agree to your request, we cannot do so.' So an impasse has been reached. When approached by The Times the National Gallery pointed out that the painting 'has been on public display for more than five out of the last ten years' since it was donated. 'Although it is not currently on display,' the gallery says, 'it has and will continue to serve the purposes of study, occasional showing in the gallery, potential loan and constant availability by appointment.' Neill rejects this compromise. 'I donated it for the world to enjoy, not for it to gather dust on a rack,' he says. 'Realistically, only a handful of scholars would ever go through the process of booking a private viewing.' • The National Gallery rehang review — a radical journey through art Clearly the message this affair sends to other potential donors is far from ideal. Even if you are assured at the time that your gift will go on 'permanent public display', a future gallery director could put it into storage. And because the law forbids national museums and galleries from 'deaccessioning' anything in their collections, the donated artwork cannot then be reclaimed or reallocated. Or is that the case? Neill argues that 'the spirit' of the original conditions under which he donated Christ Carrying the Cross has been breached and is contemplating legal action. Either way, it's surely time that Britain's national museums and galleries were allowed, in some exceptional circumstances, to deaccession some items (as America's galleries can do), not least to provide funds and display space for new acquisitions. Indeed, it's hard to see how the campaign to return the Elgin Marbles to Greece (which seems to be gathering steam yet again) can succeed unless the British Museum finds a legal way to overturn the deaccessioning ban. Whatever happens to Christ Carrying the Cross, though, Neill clearly feels he has been badly let down by the National Gallery, to the extent that his philanthropy will be directed elsewhere in future. 'My entire estate will now be bequeathed to the Wallace Collection, rather than the National Gallery under my previous will,' he says. 'I am not Mr Getty but every penny counts — in this case £3 million. Clearly that's now considered small change by Finaldi and his board.'

Evening Standard

12-06-2025

• Evening Standard

Dua Lipa confirms engagement to Callum Turner as she shares wedding and family plans

Despite the excitement, the couple aren't rushing into wedding plans. Lipa is currently on her Radical Optimism world tour, which will see her play her biggest UK shows to date at London's Wembley Stadium on June 20 and 21, before wrapping up in Mexico this December. Meanwhile, Turner is preparing to begin filming Neuromancer, a new Apple TV+ sci-fi series based on William Gibson's cult 1984 novel.

Daily Mirror

10-06-2025

• Daily Mirror

Incredible scientific discovery proves Moses did part Red Sea and how he did it

A key moment in Christianity, Islam and Judaism which requires a certain amount of faith to believe could have happened - now has a plausible scientific explanation The story of Moses parting the Red Sea - 'Yam Suph' in Hebrew - is one of the most well known parables of the Old Testament. It tells the tale of the prophet leading the Israelites out of slavery in the exodus from Egypt. According to the biblical narrative, Moses - led by God- raised his staff over the Red Sea, causing the waters to divide, which allowed his people to walk across on dry land. ‌ The pharaoh and his pursuing armies then perished after following the fleeing party as the sea closed back together, drowning them. ‌ This event is recounted in the Old Testament (Exodus 14: 19-31). According to the National Gallery in London: "When the Israelites reached the Red Sea Moses stretched out his hand and the waters divided, allowing his followers safe passage. The Egyptians followed them but God again commanded Moses to stretch out his hand and the sea engulfed the army." In the biblical account, after dispatching the seven plagues of Egypt, Moses led the Israelites out into the wilderness in search of the promised land, reports the Irish Star. The fleeing group found themselves trapped between the advancing army of the Pharaoh on one side and the Red Sea on the other. Depictions in films such as 'The Ten Commandments' or 'The Prince of Egypt' show Moses commanding the waters of the Red Sea to open long enough for the Israelites to flee Egypt which paints a vivid picture on the big screen. But now scientists have hypothesised that there may be a natural phenomenon which caused the sea to part and they argue that the real miracle would have been in the impeccable timing of the Israelites fleeing the Egyptians. According to the Daily Mail, the theory is backed up by computer modelling which indicates that a strong wind of 62 mile per hour (100kmph) winds blowing from the right direction could open a 3-mile-wide (5km) channel through the water. ‌ And, as those winds dipped, the waters would have rushed back with the speed of a tsunami which would have drowned the Egyptian army who were weighed down by chariots and other equipment. Carl Drews, an oceanographer from the National Center for Atmospheric Research, told MailOnline: "The crossing of the Red Sea is a supernatural phenomenon that incorporates a natural component - the miracle is in the timing." ‌ According to Dr Bruce Parker, former chief scientist of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the prophet could have used his knowledge of the tides to flee Egypt. This is also backed up in the Bible which states: "The Lord caused the sea to go by a strong east wind all that night and made the sea into dry and the waters were divided." Some scientific experts claim the mention of a strong wind is key to understanding how Moses really crossed the Red Sea. In an article for the Wall Street Journal, Dr Parker wrote: "Moses had lived in the nearby wilderness in his early years, and he knew where caravans crossed the Red Sea at low tide. He knew the night sky and the ancient methods of predicting the tide, based on where the moon was overhead and how full it was." ‌ Meanwhile, the Pharaoh's men lived on the tide-less Nile River and would have been unaware of the dangers that faced them - leading the soldiers to be ambushed by nature when the tide came rushing back in. One issue, however is the direction of the breeze mentioned in the Bible which is that it was a easterly wind. Professor Nathan Paldor, an ocean scientist from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, told MailOnline: "When a strong wind blows southward from the head of Gulf for about one day, the water is pushed seawards, thus exposing the bottom that was previously underwater." The professor's calculations theorise that a wind blowing between 65 and 70 kilometres per hour (40-45 mph) from the northwest could have made such a path for the Israelites in their escape from Egypt. A wind in the conditions mentioned blowing for an entire night could have pushed the waters of the sea back by up to a mile. It would also drop the sea level by about three metres and allow the Israelites to move across the floor on an underwater ridge. In his original research paper, Professor Paldor maintains that the original Hebrew description is 'Rauch kadim' which can mean either north-easterly or south-easterly. It may also be the case that the true direction was lost in translation at some point. There are also theories that the location of the event occurred elsewhere with others believing it could have occurred at the Lake of Tannis.