Do you consider these to be textures?

I thought texture was the feel of something.. like the surface of it.
The others are just elements, aren’t they?

Hmmmm…
no.

@squidcake Why?

Texture is not only tactile but visual. If it has depth it has texture.

@ChazMaz That’s a good point. Implied vs. Real. Why am I thinking so hard this early?

This is really the kind of question a trip to the dictionary would settle.

You don’t “feel” fire or wind. You only feel the effects of them.

@kikibirdjones
To me something can only have texture if it’s definite. Fire, wind, etc. constantly change dimensions.

Good points. I know the definition, obviously. It was an interesting thought.

I would consider fire, and wind/air a sort of texture, because you may not be feeling an actual object, but you do get some sort of feeling from them (well, hopefully not fire). I can certainly see the difficulty in classifying and visualizing them mentally, but I would still consider them some sort of texture.

Hot and cold are temperatures as opposed to an actual thing/force/whatever you wanna call it, so I would not consider them textures.

I’m probably not technically correct, but this is how I visualize them.

That is the on going debate with Film Vs. Digital.

Film and photographic paper have an emulsion. After exposure, it develops texture that translates well.

With digital that simple and physical texture is hard to replicate.

@squidcake Would you consider water to have a texture? It’s constantly changing dimensions.

I think it would be interesting to see how the students would interpret the texture of those elements. It is certainly done in fashion all the time.

I too think it would be fabulous to stretch the definition in your
response to the assignment.

@ChazMaz agreed.

And on a side note, have you experienced the new line of baryta ink jet papers? They contain the same baryta layer as traditional fiber based prints, thus keeping the ink on a separate layer away from the actual paper. I worked in a fiber based print lab in the early eighties, and these new baryta coated papers look and feel just like air dried fiber based silver halide prints.

The stuff even smells the same as a box of old Ilford or Kodak fiber paper. It’s quite nostalgic. It other words, the longevity, and texture have indeed been duplicated, to my satisfaction at least. And the tonality has increased ten fold. It’s amazing stuff.

I use the Ilford Gallery Gold Fiber.

In what sense are you talking about textures? web applications? poetry? conceptual art? fabric design [although there the texture of a fabric would be in the material itself, the image would be pattern]
If it is some sort of imaging you are talking, if you can visualize it you can do it. However a good texture for web applications should be seemless and not obnoxiously repetitive as tile edges or very dominant small details ruin them.

@jeffgoldblumsprivatefacilities Good point on the water. I can see what @squidcake is saying though.

I would say that water can have texture, as it has mass and you can compress it. Fire, not so much, as it is a chemical reaction. It may stem off of something that has texture, but does not itself. Wind is iffy, you could in theory compress wind (read: air), but it is harder to define. I’ll leave wind (air) in limbo-land.

Specifically though, when I think of texture I think of carpet.

I wouldn’t consider any non-solid to have texture. Water is close, but I don’t think it has texture, either. To have texture, something must not change from instant to instant. The feel of it’s surface can not be changed by wind or water (unless those things work on it for a long, long time).

Texture is the feel of higher and lower parts of the material. The difference must be distinguishable.

The texture of water is expressed further with steam or ice. Both those words are often used to describe the textures of other things, and can even describe the textures of emotions and relationships between people. “Her response was icy cold, though our relationship was steamy”.

Wind is different. What you feel is particles moving about in the air. You feel the particles, but not the wind itself. Same as fire. You don’t feel fire. You feel the reactive molecules that moving at hyperspeed, and we translate that effect as heat. For heat to have a texture, we must tag it with a textured property such as a “dry heat”, or a “moist heat”.

The texture of water is called “fluid”.

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I would say “dry” or “moist” heat is more like a characteristic, rather than a texture. But at this point, this is all hair splitting and personal views anyways.

“all hair splitting and personal views anyways.”

I don’t think so. Water has Surface tension. And even smooth is a texture.

But, visually any series of offset colors or dimension can produce the illusion of texture.
I think visual texture is more of a “feeling” then a feeling.

We still do not know within what context @kikibirdjones is asking about textures

@anartist Art is listed under the topics section.

Fire can be used as a texture if as a visual medium.

Burned stuff can be used as a texture.

texture is tangible:
Merriam Webster
Etymology: Late Latin tangibilis, from Latin tangere to touch
Date: 1589
1 a : capable of being perceived especially by the sense of touc

Fire and wind maybe, but not heat. Very interesting thought. By the way, do you know Twelfthgecko? Because you user name is very similar to her pseudonym.

@PacificToast Me? No, I don’t know her! How interestiiinnnnggg.

@kikibirdjones Just Google her or look her up on deviantART here. She’s quite the artist.

I think this has been answered already, but to restate: texture is more about touching than feeling. You can feel wind and fire, but you can’t touch it. It can touch you, though.

No, fire is not a texture. The student would have to come up with something else.

In order to have texture, you must have a surface. Water is the closest of the elements.

@ChazMaz I was referring to “dry/moist” air being a characteristic. I too think that water has a texture.