What's your personality? color quiz

  • Thread starter moose
  • Start date
  • #51
Evo
Mentor
23,161
2,857
The instructions don't say that. They say you shouldn't try to select the same colors the second time. Some look better when they are next to one color than another, so I didn't end up selecting the colors in the same order the second time.
Yes, you are supposed to do both parts. I was referring to huckleberry's statement that every time he took the test *again* and changed his choices that the results changed. Well, yes, they would, you're not supposed to keep retaking the test every few minutes and changing the colors. It's supposed to be your initial gut choices. At least wait a few days before taking it again if you don't like the results.
 
  • #52
Evo
Mentor
23,161
2,857
If anyone wants their home done in shades that suggest a 'mystic fusion of erotic harmony' then I'm your man.
:blushing: Get back Moonbear, he's doing my bedroom first.
 
  • #53
Kurdt
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,812
6
:cry: Ahh If only my personality matched my profile.
 
  • #54
794
1
:cry: Ahh If only my personality matched my profile.
maybe its a hidden talent that hasn't emerged yet, --from the last line in your profile:

"is seeking different conditions in which he will have greater opportunity of demonstrating his worth. "

potential, rather than kinetic--at the present time
 
  • #55
Kurdt
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
4,812
6
maybe its a hidden talent that hasn't emerged yet, --from the last line in your profile:

"is seeking different conditions in which he will have greater opportunity of demonstrating his worth. "

potential, rather than kinetic--at the present time
My profile neglected to mention how incredibly modest I am. :shy::smile:
 
  • #56
794
1
My profile neglected to mention how incredibly modest I am. :shy::smile:
Time to take out that paintbrush from its hiding spot and let the world see what it can do!!

----

Do something in POLLACK-style!!!

----------

I was just thinking---but, who would want their bedrooms painted like a Pollack painting?
 
Last edited:
  • #57
Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,490
52
Time to take out that paintbrush from its hiding spot and let the world see what it can do!!

----

Do something in POLLACK-style!!!

----------

I was just thinking---but, who would want their bedrooms painted like a Pollack painting?
I've seen places painted like that. Not too much worse than the do-it-yourself sponge painting some people do. You can get a nice effect with sponge painting, or you can get people with no sense of color or how to blend and you can have walls that look like they've been painted by a kindergartener.

While on vacation in NY, I headed to the Metropolitan Museum of Art (a regular haunt of mine when visiting). I usually avoid the modern art gallery, because it holds very little interest for me, but after that Pollack thread, I had to check it out. I was hoping that maybe, just maybe Pollack's work would suddenly jump out and look better if viewed in person rather than just looking at photographs of it posted online. Nope. Stand close, stand far away, read the descriptions of it...nothing helps. Actually, the only thing that helped was a description of one of the works that explained he painted something else on the canvas first in yellow, and then would proceed to obscure it completely with the layers of paint splatter...yep, made me want to ask for paint stripper to see if there was any talent in the thing he painted first (they don't tell you what it was). There were other cool paintings in the gallery, not by Pollack, though, so it was worth getting me into the gallery. The cool ones would look like one thing if you stood up close (lots of colored dots, or lines) and something else when you stood back at a distance (in one, a scene of a whole village along a river emerged...pretty neat actually). There was another that looked like fish scales up close and then became interesting floral patterns at a distance. And then there were the other ones that left me wanting to find a docent to ask why it was considered museum quality art...three primary colors painted across a canvas, or a row of panels that looked like paint swatches (just arranged in color order like a rainbow...I looked close and far and saw nothing special about them, just solid colors painted on canvases all arranged in a row...I might decorate a kid's room that way, but don't see how it's art). Makes me want to paint a canvas in canvas color and entitle it "Gotcha!" and see how much they'll pay me to display it. :biggrin:
 
  • #58
794
1
I'm a little jealous, there, MB----I've only been to the Met once, along with a lot of the other more major museums quite a while ago. To me, they're inspiring of what's possible.

As far as Pollack, I can see the relevance of his work, but it still is down on the list of what I like on the walls.

Most of the time I go by the 'rather' method of what to hang on my own walls. I go by what I like and what I can afford at the time for a certain spot on the wall. My 'rather' method is: would I rather have a blank wall, or.... a Jackson Pollack (Pollack). Would I rather have a Rossetti or a Pollack? (Rossetti). Then, it also comes down to: would I rather have a print (repro print) of the painting I like, or some original piece of artwork that I like and can afford?--Usually I choose the original artwork.

One of these days (years), I still would like to paint a Italian/French fresco-like 'something' on the ceiling of the bedroom--too many other things to do instead right now though.

When I went to MOMA, it still had 'Guernica' and, one of my favorite Picasso's "Woman before a Mirror"-a great piece of work for examining the idea of the self-conscious--in the same room/gallery--whoa!!.
 
  • #59
459
7
well, huck, all that shows you have some insight (post 43)

so, do you see the 'test' as a 'offense', or something as an written 'insight' (something concrete visibly put down in 'black and white') that you can help you?
I don't find it offensive or insightful. I don't think it's very accurate. If I had never taken the test before and decided to take it today I would get a different result. People will select different colors just as a result of coincidence or a change in mood. Any of the results I could look into and see something that resembles aspects of my personality.

It's just for fun, and maybe people will think about who they are. Besides that, this test has little value.
 
  • #60
ShawnD
Science Advisor
668
1
We need some more full read-out of some others --especially the more 'psychologically' challenged members


POST NOW--and we'll send 10 grains of rice to someplace for someone



Sensitive; needs esthetic surroundings, or an equally sensitive and understanding partner with whom to share a warm intimacy.
Wrong

Has an unsatisfied need to ally himself with others whose standards are as high as his own, and to stand out from the rank and file. This subjects him to considerable stress, but he sticks to his attitudes despite lack of appreciation. Finds the situation uncomfortable and would like to break away from it, but refuses to compromise with his opinions. Unable to resolve the situation because he continually postpones making the necessary decision as he doubts his ability to withstand the opposition which would result. Needs the esteem of others, compliance with his wishes, and respect for his opinions before he can feel at ease and secure.
This is true for almost every human.

Willing to become emotionally involved and able to achieve satisfaction through sexual activity.
Circumstances are such that he feels forced to compromise for the time being if he is to avoid being cut off from affection or from full participation.
This is also true for all humans. (expect to be lonely forever if you are unable to comprimise with friends, lovers, or family)

His need to feel more causative and to have a wider sphere of influence makes him restless and he is driven by his desires and hopes. May try to spread his activities over too wide a field.
True of all humans. (unless you know of somebody who is driven by thier lack of desire and is controlled by desperation)

The tensions induced by trying to cope with conditions which are really beyond his capabilities, or reserves of strength, have led to considerable anxiety and a sense of personal (but unadmitted) inadequacy. He reacts by seeking outside confirmation of his ability and value in order to bolster his self-esteem. Inclined to blame others so that he may shift the blame from himself. Anxiously searching for solutions and prone to compulsive inhibitions and compulsive desires.
True for all humans. (seeking inner confirmation as opposed to outside confirmation is called "Schizoid Personality Disorder")

Feels insufficiently valued in his existing situation, and is seeking different conditions in which he will have greater opportunity of demonstrating his worth.
True for all humans. (something like 75% of people think they are smarter than average; this is the same thing)


What a lousy test.
 
Last edited:
  • #61
Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,490
52
I'm a little jealous, there, MB----I've only been to the Met once, along with a lot of the other more major museums quite a while ago. To me, they're inspiring of what's possible.
They have two new wings open now too! I ended up spending two days there (and getting a membership while at it). The stores were too crowded for shopping, so I decided to just enjoy taking my time working through the museum over two days instead of racing through all the new exhibits. One of the new wings was fabulous...it has a collection of African art and a collection of art of Oceania...or perhaps they should be called artifacts. Anyway, really cool stuff. The room housing the Oceania art is huge, and on the ceiling is a roof from a men's hut that's just enormous and very striking in that room...big windows along the side of the room too. The other wing is the American Wing. That isn't so nicely done. There's interesting stuff in there, but there's a room of furniture that sort of looks like they're still unpacking the way it's displayed. It's all just stacked up warehouse style on shelves enclosed with glass. I can't even see what's on the top shelves...they're all too close together so you can't even stand back to see what's on the top shelf. Very weird. I half expected to see price tags on the shelves.

They also FINALLY reopened the Japanese art exhibit, all redone. Very tranquil with a fountain in the middle.

I kept getting lost in there though. There's another wing being remodeled, between the Japanese art and the American wing, so you can only get to some areas from certain floors and not others, and I managed to get myself all sorts of turned around.

It was worth going before Christmas. They have a Christmas tree and nativity on display in the Medieval art gallery, right in front of the large choir screen, that is really impressive (alas, no photography permitted of that, so I can't share).

Oh, and they also have another exhibit, The Age of Rembrandt, which does include a few actual Rembrandt paintings. I've never seen any of his work in person before, but once I found the first one, it got really easy to pick out the others amongst the contemporary paintings in that gallery...they just stand out as so much more lifelike/realistic portraits. Having them side-by-side with other portraits done by painters of the same period really helps to appreciate why they are so special.

I thoroughly enjoyed myself this time (other times I've not been as impressed, either because favorite exhibits have been closed, or the special exhibits haven't been things that really interest me, but this time, all of them were fascinating, and having so many new exhibits open was really fun for me to explore).

You should get yourself back there.
 
  • #62
47
0
Your Existing Situation

Relatively inactive and in a static condition, while conflict of one sort or another prevents peace of mind. Unable to achieve relationships of the desired degree of mutual affection and understanding.


Your Stress Sources

Has an unsatisfied need to ally himself with others whose standards are as high as his own, and to stand out from the herd. This desire for preeminence isolates him and inhibits his readiness to give himself freely. While he wants to surrender and let himself go, he regards this as a weakness which must be resisted. This self-restraint, he feels, will lift him above the rank and file and ensure recognition as a unique and distinctive personality.


Your Restrained Characteristics

Feels that he is burdened with more than his fair share of problems. However, he sticks to his goals and tries to overcome his difficulties by being flexible and accommodating.

Trying to calm down and unwind after a period of over-agitation which has left him listless and devoid of energy. In need of peace and quiet; becomes irritable if this is denied him.

Egocentric and therefore quick to take offense. Sensitive and sentimental, but conceals this from all except those very close to him.


Your Desired Objective

Feels the situation is hopeless. Strongly resists things which he finds disagreeable. Tries to shield himself from anything which might irritate him or make him feel more depressed.


Your Actual Problem

The need for esteem--for the chance to play some outstanding part and make a name for himself--has become imperative. He reacts by insisting on being the center of attention, and refuses to play an impersonal or minor role.





ugh I may seem emo right now but I will be amazing latter. It is correct!
 
  • #63
794
1
Ahhh-MB---that sounds like it was a great time!!! Ewe lucky traveler, ewe!!!

Rembrandt is one that I look for too---he was able to bring something into his work that others just didn't get.

I think even the people that put up the exhibits get tired of looking at 'lined up' works of art, so they do 'different types--maybe that's a theme for the 'shelves' exhibit (artists in their own area).

One other facet of the 'no photography' rule (light degrades everything-the 'flash') is that by not being able to take photos, it creates a desire to go back to see things more often (and to sell their own books).

Inspiring--especially when you think that most of the works there were done by 'individuals' like you or I, and that, IF one wanted to, they (anyone) could be capable of creating similar objects --maybe not as great--but who knows unless they try. But, the nice thing is that THEY did, and its (they're) there for our enjoyment, inspection, homage, etc.


Yeah--I'd like to see it all again one of these days (?). One thing nice, they can keep expanding into the park and keep getting bigger, to show more stuff unlike other places that have to rotate items.


Did you get a chance to do/ go other places?

------------------------------

I wonder how Rembrandt would have done on the 'color quiz'?
 
Last edited:
  • #64
Evo
Mentor
23,161
2,857
Rew, have you or Moonbear been to the Louvre? That was the first GIGANTIC museum I've been to and it was amazing. Of course the Egyptian wing just blew me away, I had no idea what everything looked like in person

In 2006 I spent several days at the Smithsonian and was lucky to catch the Hokusai collection at the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery. I love his art. We also went to 117 painting Cezanne exhibit at the National Gallery and :zzz: By the end of the gallery, we were trotting to get out of there, I'm sorry, but that is some *boring* art.

I love all of the museums at the Smithsonian and as many times as I've been there, I always love going back. The Museum of Natural History is my favorite.
 
Last edited:
  • #65
84
0
I have basically no artistic abilities. My 'rule' is that if I could reproduce a 'work of art' so that the average person couldn't tell which was the original (not that I'd make an exact copy, but do you really remember exactly which color is where in a Pollack?), then it's not art and doesn't belong in a museum.

Personality test... Since it is based on a little something, can we just call it a 'lukewarm reading?' Interesting, but eh?

Your Existing Situation
Sensitive and understanding but under some strain; needs to unwind in the company of someone close to him.


Your Stress Sources
Unfulfilled hopes have led to uncertainty and apprehension. Needs to feel secure and to avoid any further disappointment, and fears being passed over or losing standings and prestige. Doubts that things will be any better in the future and this negative attitude leads him to make exaggerated demands and to refuse to make reasonable compromises.


Your Restrained Characteristics
Unhappy at the resistance he feels whenever he tries to assert himself. Indignant and resentful because of these setbacks, but gives way apathetically and makes whatever adjustments are necessary so that he can have peace and quiet.
Able to achieve satisfaction through sexual activity.




Your Desired Objective
Demands that ideas and emotions shall merge and blend perfectly. Refuses to make any concessions or to accept any compromises.


Your Actual Problem
Disappointment and the fear that there is no point in formulating fresh goals have led to anxiety, emptiness, and an unadmitted self-contempt. His refusal to admit this leads to his adopting a headstrong and defiant attitude.

I'm surprised it didn't offer me to enter a cult afterwards.
 
  • #66
Evo
Mentor
23,161
2,857
Ok, I'm going to be the one to correct everyone, I made the correction before, but no one noticed. It's Pollock, not Pollack. :smile:
 
  • #67
Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,490
52
Rew, have you or Moonbear been to the Louvre? That was the first GIGANTIC museum I've been to and it was amazing. Of course the Egyptian wing just blew me away, I had no idea what everything looked like in person
Nope, never been there. But, if I get a chance to head to France, it'll certainly be high on my list of things to do.

I didn't go to any of the other museums this time. I've been to MOMA and The Museum of Natural History (or is it The Natural History Museum?...I always get the name wrong), and was going to do that again while on this trip (hadn't made up my mind of which one), but then decided to go back to the Met a second day. I haven't been to the Cloisters yet. I think I'll plan to do that my next time in NYC (I visit somewhat often, and that will be more often now since I have a friend with a condo in the city so I don't have to pay for hotels anymore). That sounded like a bit of a hike from the subway in an area I'm not very familiar with, so I figured I'd wait for nicer weather to do that (they day I thought about it, it looked like it might rain, though it didn't). My friend joked that I was eventually going to get tired of the museums, since it seems I always wind up at one of them when I visit, but there is always more to see. Even in exhibits I've seen many times, now that I've done the overview of the gallery and looked at the obvious, I can spend a long time enjoying the details of just one item.

As for photos, yeah, I think it's mostly so you have to go back, or so you have to just tell others about the exhibits so they need to see for themselves. There's no flash allowed anywhere, and that's obviously to protect the art, but just a few exhibits have restrictions of no photography at all. I could understand in the room with tapestries...easier for the guards to stop people as they pulled out the camera than to yell at them after the fact when the flash was still on...they even had the room lights very dim to protect the tapestries (one would have probably never gotten a decent photo with that lighting anyway). On the other hand, it was a bit challenging to view the tapestries in such dim lighting. There was another furniture exhibit where the lighting was so dim, you couldn't read the cards describing the items. That was rather poorly done. I wasn't the only one struggling with that, because I overheard another couple there saying the same thing, that if they could read the descriptions, it would be much better. They could have put small spotlights under the railing aimed only at the cards describing the items so people could read what they said, or else add those to the audio tours so you can listen. I basically started thinking their curators for furniture exhibits were a bit daft.

Oh, the other thing that bugs me from time to time is when they just list what an item is or what it was used for, but you sit there staring at that name thinking, "I have never heard that word before, what is it?" I want a glossary of terms for some exhibits! Next time I'm going to bring along a notebook to jot down the terms so I can look them up later.
 
  • #68
794
1
Ok, I'm going to be the one to correct everyone, I made the correction before, but no one noticed. It's Pollock, not Pollack. :smile:
yes, dear....... we'll pay attention from now on
 
  • #69
794
1
Rew, have you or Moonbear been to the Louvre? That was the first GIGANTIC museum I've been to and it was amazing. Of course the Egyptian wing just blew me away, I had no idea what everything looked like in person

In 2006 I spent several days at the Smithsonian and was lucky to catch the Hokusai collection at the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery. I love his art. We also went to 117 painting Cezanne exhibit at the National Gallery and :zzz: By the end of the gallery, we were trotting to get out of there, I'm sorry, but that is some *boring* art.

I love all of the museums at the Smithsonian and as many times as I've been there, I always love going back. The Museum of Natural History is my favorite.
You're lucky (?) to be able to get around so such--no, haven't been there, nor to the Smithsonian.

I'd like to go sooner, but it will probably be later, though. Cezanne, to me is like <strike> Pollack<strike> Pollock--he pushed the limits of the niche that he found.

Japanese artwork is pretty nice. I have a few pieces but nothing major. The woodblock prints seem to be one of the easier places to start a collection, esp. since there have been even woodblock copies of the original woodblocks.
 
  • #70
794
1
Nope, never been there. But, if I get a chance to head to France, it'll certainly be high on my list of things to do.

I didn't go to any of the other museums this time. I've been to MOMA and The Museum of Natural History (or is it The Natural History Museum?...I always get the name wrong), and was going to do that again while on this trip (hadn't made up my mind of which one), but then decided to go back to the Met a second day. I haven't been to the Cloisters yet. I think I'll plan to do that my next time in NYC (I visit somewhat often, and that will be more often now since I have a friend with a condo in the city so I don't have to pay for hotels anymore). That sounded like a bit of a hike from the subway in an area I'm not very familiar with, so I figured I'd wait for nicer weather to do that (they day I thought about it, it looked like it might rain, though it didn't). My friend joked that I was eventually going to get tired of the museums, since it seems I always wind up at one of them when I visit, but there is always more to see. Even in exhibits I've seen many times, now that I've done the overview of the gallery and looked at the obvious, I can spend a long time enjoying the details of just one item.

As for photos, yeah, I think it's mostly so you have to go back, or so you have to just tell others about the exhibits so they need to see for themselves. There's no flash allowed anywhere, and that's obviously to protect the art, but just a few exhibits have restrictions of no photography at all. I could understand in the room with tapestries...easier for the guards to stop people as they pulled out the camera than to yell at them after the fact when the flash was still on...they even had the room lights very dim to protect the tapestries (one would have probably never gotten a decent photo with that lighting anyway). On the other hand, it was a bit challenging to view the tapestries in such dim lighting. There was another furniture exhibit where the lighting was so dim, you couldn't read the cards describing the items. That was rather poorly done. I wasn't the only one struggling with that, because I overheard another couple there saying the same thing, that if they could read the descriptions, it would be much better. They could have put small spotlights under the railing aimed only at the cards describing the items so people could read what they said, or else add those to the audio tours so you can listen. I basically started thinking their curators for furniture exhibits were a bit daft.

Oh, the other thing that bugs me from time to time is when they just list what an item is or what it was used for, but you sit there staring at that name thinking, "I have never heard that word before, what is it?" I want a glossary of terms for some exhibits! Next time I'm going to bring along a notebook to jot down the terms so I can look them up later.
Haven't been to the Natural History Museum either (what a sheltered life I've lived!)

We did make it to the Cloisters--from what I remember we took the subway out of Grand Central almost to the spot --maybe a bus after that(?)----It was close to stepping into the Medieval world--hard to believe it was all dismantled to be re-mantled over to that spot. Long ride up there--a lot of time to talk along the way. If you don't like the Medieval/pre-Renaissance/early Renaissance, though, it may not be worth the trip.

This is one of the more known works there:

http://www.metmuseum.org/works_of_art/images/cl/images/cl37.80.6.L.jpg [Broken]




Museums are always changing exhibits, like the Guggenheim (F W Wright design)--besides their permanent, they had a Rothko retrospective--which some may compare to Pollock:smile:.

In a way, the 'color quiz' reminds me of looking at Rothko and the relevance of how his work deals with more or less color fields and the associated meanings of how color is incorporated into attitudes.

--------------------

here's a link to Rothko's images for those who don't know his work:

http://images.google.com/images?q=Rothko&ndsp=20&svnum=10&um=1&hl=en&start=0&sa=N
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Threads on What's your personality? color quiz

Replies
16
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • Poll
  • Last Post
4
Replies
89
Views
16K
  • Last Post
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
58
Views
7K
  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
81
Views
6K
Top