The Müller Formula (or: Predictable Color Preferences)
More than half a century ago, Aemelius Müller, professor at the academy of Winterthur, Switzerland, came up with a formula that could predict the appreciation of a color-combination. In other words: Müller was able to predict which combination of colors most people would probably like.
 |
Müller's formula predicts that these color combinations will be considered as ugly by most people. | |
 |
While these will be liked. How is this possible? |
 |
First we need to consider the 'natural' brightness of the colors of the color circle, as discussed in this post about Brightness vs. Whiteness. You will notice that yellow, for instance, is a lot brighter than blue. | |
 |
On a scale from 1 to 100, bright yellow has a brightness value of 90, while bright blue has a value as low as 35. Likewise, every hue in the color circle has its own 'natural' brightness. |
 |
Now take this combination. All three colors have the exact same hue of blue. The only difference between the colors is their brightness. |
Now we pair the last combination with the 'ugly' combination on the left and the 'nice' combination on the right.
See what happened? Towards the 'ugly' (left) side the dark blue shifted to a greener hue, while the bright blue shifted to a more purple hue. This is contrary to the 'natural' brightness of the colors. After all, if you check the color circles you will see that green is much brighter than purple. Towards the 'nice' (right) side the dark color shifted to purple while the bright color shifted to green. This shift is in accordance with the 'natural' brightness of the colors.
The same goes for the red combinations. Towards the 'ugly' side the colors shift contrary to the 'natural' brightness while on the 'nice' side they shift in accordance with the natural brightness.
So here's the simple formula: If a combination follows the natural brightness of colors, most people will like it, if a combination contradicts the natural brightness of colors, most people won't like it.
There is some dispute in academia whether or not to interpret the 'nice' color combinations as good taste. The obvious implication being that the 'ugly' combinations are of bad taste. I myself tested the formula on many occasions when lecturing a group of people. It never fails and it's always fun to confront people with the predictability of their taste. But I also noticed that people in creative professions, such as artists or designers, often tend to like the 'ugly' combinations. Because people in this group often lay claim to 'good' taste, in my opinion the 'taste' hypothesis doesn't hold. As far as I'm concerned no one can lay claim to good taste. People like it or they don't. Good or bad taste is a non issue.
However, while Müller's formula may not determine the difference between good or bad taste, it sure does predict common taste. And that makes the formula quite useful for any designer.
About the Guest Author, Igor Asselbergs
Website: http://www.livelygrey.com
Igor is a color professional and currently ceo of Colorjinn. He writes his own color blog at Livelygrey.com
Search The Blog
Subscribe & Share
Our Latest Tweets
It's #AustralianOpen and we witnessed an epic match between Nadal Vs Tsitsipas. Sharing with you colours of the Aus… https://t.co/qYMRKJ3mk0
Tweet this ArticleFollow @COLOURlovers
about Feb 17, 2021
klip
manekineko
bijouloveshues
My theory for the reason designers enjoy 'ugly' things or colours is that they spend so much time studying the 'proper' proportions for things, that the deviations are welcomed excursions... and maybe a lesson in learning to appreciate beauty in all forms.
Thank you for the excellent article - very useful and provoking!
_stefan
Aside from that it's a very interesting article. Thanks a lot!
empirionx3
GamehenGraphics
I've never heard anyone equate luminance with color preference. Pretty interesting stuff. I wonder what his sample size was.
retsof
What happens if there are three ugly blogs in a row?
michael_art
So even if you only shoft the hue up and down, you can archive (with most colours) archive the look of brighter and darket coulours. If you combine this with the fiddeling a bit on the brightness, you get coulours with a stronger contranst, than by shifting the brightness on its own.
It is argueble, weather this pair is more pleasing, but it at least has a richer contrast.
A much more miraculous phenomenon in colour theory - worthy of a long article - is the shere concept, that the experience colours in a coulor circle. I mean, isn't it absloutly amazing? What we experience as coulours is a linear spectrum of wave lengthes of electromagnetic waves. But our preception bends this linear spectrum into a full circle, so two coulours on the complete opposite ends of this spectrum (red=longest wave lenght and violett=shortest wavelegth) somehow seem to be close related to each other.
klip
michael_art
But still, does anyone know any sources about that? Or is this one of the principles that simply are there, but nobody ever bothered to find out why?
calf
deliquescence
the gradation incorporates a hue shift, which I feel, makes it much more interesting than with only a single hue throughout. this is what a large number of my palettes sport. however, i quite like the effect of one colour being blended into another one with the 'unnatural' type of hue shift. though unnatural, i wouldn't say it is displeasing to the eye. one example would be two-toned silk fabrics... from one angle, you can see orange and from a different angle you'll see purple or some other colour that would make for an 'unnatural' hue shift from the orange.
manekineko
andrewjbarnett
gibbitz
I am appalled at the number of designers that are mystified by color (because they were too cool for the design theory courses taught in their undergraduate schools) and simultaneously look down their noses at me because I am a painter by training. Most young designers I know think there is a rule or a magic bullet that makes good design. Welcome to the box you're supposed to think outside of. THERE IS NO MAGIC BULLET.
manekineko
I submitted that same work, now with an F on it, to an art competition marking myself and the teacher as collaborators, and it was juried to 3rd place out of over 1000 submissions and sits in a Smithsonian archive.
There are two sides to art snobbishness, neither are necessary.
MattyD
As painter I paint for myself-- if someone else appreciates it then great, if not...
As a designer, it a consensus of what the masses appreciate and will accept; that's okay as the masses expedite my paycheck indirectly so I aim to please.
From the given palette examples I chose the "ugly" one as nice and the "nice" one as plain blatant and boring. I prefer "ugly"-- this is where true beauty lies: found battered objects in the streets of Manhattan, scraps of wet paper, old pieces of forgotten metal, thriftstore paintings, Brut Art, prison art, children's art, "Outsider" Art, FOLKART! Yes, I am an art snob too at times (often) preferring Classical painting, 1800's Literature, and the best foods but, sometimes, I really only see myself truly smile when I come across an unnoticed stripe of fluorescent orange street paint faded and chipped rolled over 1-Million times by anonymous times by cars and semis on some Federal roadway. Hang that in your gallery.
MattyD
zcoelius
lukeyg
Anyways, it definitely works on me - I much prefer the müller combinations. I made some palettes to try it out:
manekineko
lesaint
I agree that the two form a sort of genotype grid that results in four palette characters: ugly and unharmonious, ugly but harmonious, appealing and unharmonious, and appealing and harmonious.
I think ultimately ugly vs. appealing is purely a matter of taste, while harmony, although we can sense it viscerally, has at least some science behind it.
blessy
===================================================================
Bless
gaiagraphics
Good to remember.
aeriise
leslie
abcallforlove
terrysanders
Post a Comment