| > Is there any online fulltext link to that? I looked for one but could not find. This is unusual for me as I prefer to have the full text of anything I cite. For me (someone who has an interest in computational aesthetics) the value of such studies is that they confirm what we already know. I explain the key difference between lightness and hue/saturation to my student in this way: ==> Lightness evolved as a matter of necessity. Any light-dwelling creature without it will quickly become food. This accounts for the co-evolution of so many eye-types (fly, mammal, octopus' etc... all structurally distinct). ==> In primates, Hue/lightness vision evolved in response to the rare treat of fruit-sourced carbohydrates. In other words: lightness is a requisite of survival, hue/saturation is a pleasurable elaboration. It is likely for this reason that in a traditional art school education, you are taught lightness before colour. > It's pretty weird you used the exact same reference with the exact same format as your own earlier comment in this 2021 submission https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26489887 I had completely forgotten that I had referenced this before. Likely the similarity in format is a result of my having copy/pasted from my co-authored book 'Computational Approaches in the Transfer of Aesthetic Values from Paintings to Photographs'. In this book I address similar subject to the ones raise by the OP. |