“I ask your indulgence if I close on a personal, existential note. We live in a time when we are flooded with information in every field of endeavor, a deluge from which Freud scholarship is not exempt. It has has become a veritable industry over which it is difficult to maintain even bibliographical control. The amount of sheer information increases incessantly. I confess that I have reached an age when I am haunted by the question of when information becomes knowledge. What I have presented here is only a special instance of that larger Angst. I am perhaps not yet old enough to seek the further line where knowledge becomes wisdom (Yerushalmi Series Z 1997).”

Flynn-Burhoe. 2000. ‘Memory – The Question of Archives’ Review of Yerushalmi, Yosef Hayim. 1997. Series Z: An Archival Fantasy’ Journal of European Psychoanalysis - Number 3-4 1997

Derrida’s presentation Archive Fever at the 1994 conference “Memory: The Question of Archives” was dedicated to Yerushalmi whose book Freud’s Moses had moved him. The conference was hosted by the Freud Museum and the Société Internationale d’Histoire de la Psychanalyse, London, June 3-5, 1994 and organized by Elisabeth Roudinesco. [Y.H.Y.]

Yerushalmi began his text with a Kakfaesque description of the archives’ doorkeeper. It is a thinly disquised reproach for the exclusivity of access to Freud’s archives, particularly to series Z. Yerushalmi was dismayed to find that access to Series Z, Freud’s archives in Washington, was severely limited to a group of insider scholars.

Yerushalmi notes the unique published citation by Freud where he used the term ‘archives,’ in an early paper (1898) on “The Psychical Mechanism of Forgetfulness” (Zum Psychischen Mechanismus der Vergesslichkeit). He writes:

Thus the function of memory, which we like to imagine as an archive open to any who is curious, is in this way subjected to restriction by a trend of the will…

Yerushalmi chose to focus his discussion only on archives. An archive is not a memory bank nor are the documents in an archive part of memory; “…if they were, we should have no need to retrieve them; once retrieved, they are often at odds with memory.”

Although Yerushami, the historian, has done research in archives in Lisbon, Madrid, Valladolid, Salamanca, Venice, Verona and Jerusalem but rarely in the Freud Archives.

Yerushalmi illustrated the persistence and continuity of the archivist as gatekeeper through the 1909 case of Robert Ross. Ross presented Oscar Wilde’s original manuscript of De Profundis to the British Museum on condition that it be sealed for sixty years to prevent it from falling into the hands of Lord Alfred Douglas, the agent of Wilde’s ruin. Through a 1913 libel suit Douglas, received a copy which he intended to publish. Ross speedily had his own copy published in New York which secured copyright. In 1949 Wilde’s son published the full and correct text but the British Museum respected Ross’ agreement and access is still denied.

Yerushalmi questions the logic behind restricting or forbidding access to certain documents well into the 21st century! He was not alone. Janet Malcolm’s 1984 publication “In the Freud Archives” made the inaccessibility une cause celebre.

Meanwhile, attacks against psychoanalysis, fused with assaults against the personal integrity of Freud himself, have by now reached an unprecedented crescendo of vilification. One result is a widespread belief that the real truth, for better or worse, is in the Archives, and that once they are fully accessible the truth will out. What both attackers and defenders of Freud have in common is a faith in the facticity of archives, in the archival document as somehow the ultimate arbiter of historical truth.

Yerushalmi traced the cult of the archive to the 1830′s and especially after 1860, when national governments eager to protect their collective histories, opened their archives to research. Lord Acton put the reason succinctly:

“To keep one’s archives barred against the historians was tantamount to leaving one’s history to one’s enemies.” Lord Acton

“The historians came, the writing of history (at least political history) was put on a firmer basis than ever before. It was the heyday of scientific history, full of optimism. The crisis of historicism was not yet on the horizon and the archival document seemed to herald a historiographical millennium. Paleography became a science and the archivist a professional, nowhere more superbly trained than at the École des Chartes, established in Paris in 1821. By the end of the century one spoke somewhat bemusedly in France of la fureur de l’inédit, the furor to publish the unpublished document.”

In “Monologue with Freud” Yerushalmi calls Freud’s archivists “zealous epigoni [who] have stationed themselves, like gnostic archons, to bar the way to the hidden knowledge.” (FM 1991:81)

By the late 20th century historians were more sophisticated; recognized the limitations of archival documents. And at that time series Z is unlocked. leading to anothfureur de l’inédit’. Yerushalmi questioned what that will change.

He described the ideal archival material:

  1. It should be naive, created for other purposes than research: the production, storage and maintenance of personal correspondence, tax records, contracts, deeds.
  2. It should be dusty from lack of handling. Half a century after the French Revolution a Prussian historian finally opened the dust-laden papers regarding the Reign of Terror, a proof of their legitimacy.
  3. The researcher recognizes that all archives are incomplete: not all documents are collected, archived and/or preserved. And any document requires contextualization by data both in and outside the archives and even the field of study.
  4. The “…archive is not a repository of the past, only of certain artifacts that have survived from the past, and we encounter them in the present. The contents of archival documents are not historical facts except on the most primitive level dates, names, places. The truly vital data in these documents do not become historical until, filtered through the mind and the imagination of the historian, they are interpreted and articulated.”

The zealous guardians of The Freud Archives including Anna Freud, Freud’s devoted daughter protected Freud’s reputation in the creation and maintenance of the archives. Yerushalmi compares these documents to “… André Gide’s journals, where one senses that as he writes one eye is gazing at posterity.” This contrasts with Kafka’s diaries, whose publication he never dreamed.

Freud’s papers have been handled regularly. Yerushalmi cites examples of discrepancies between Freud’s correspondance with Fliess and actual publications in which passages were excluded. “The most significant and irremediable gap in the Freud Archives is the result of Freud’s own doing. On two occasions [in 1885 and 1907], Ernest Jones observed, he completely destroyed all his correspondence, notes, diaries and manuscripts. The letter of April 28, 1885 to Martha, announcing his determination to thereby frustrate his future biographers, is too well-known to be quoted yet again.”

Yerushalmi concludes that “[n]othing in the Freud Collection nor in any other archive can possibly decide any of the major scientific or philosophical issues that have arisen in the ongoing controversies over Freud. No document can prove or disprove the validity of Freudian psychoanalytic theory nor the efficacy of psychoanalytic therapy. Infantile sexuality, the existence of the unconscious, the mechanisms of repression, and other central tenets of Freudian theory, are not subject to archival arbitration.”

“What do we really want to know, and how can the Archives be of help? My own order of priority would be: To understand Freud’s teaching; to understand the history of the psychoanalytic movement; to understand Freud’s life insofar as it relates to the first two goals.” “…[I]t entails coming as close as possible to his own intentions. This, as I have argued elsewhere must take pride of place. At least in his published works Freud was consciously trying to communicate various ideas to his readers. That these works, like all texts, also contain latent meanings of which he was unaware, that they can be approached with a variety of hermeneutic strategies, does not absolve us from rigorously seeking their conscious intentionality which, alone, can keep us from flying off the deep end. For that, not only is the value of a correct text self-evident, but any information relevant to its evolution, whether through variants or revisions, or through letters in which Freud discusses work in progress. It is in this sense that the letters in Series Z may make their most important contribution. But even then the archives are only an aid. Ultimately the student must bring to an understanding of Freud’s work his or her philological, literary, and historical instincts, and an entire culture derived from other fields. Philip Rieff’s Freud: The Mind of the Moralist (1959) remains, in my opinion, one of the most penetrating explorations of Freud’s thought. And Rieff never even consulted an archive. “

The history of the psychoanalytic movement (I have in mind only Freudian psychoanalysis). Here, surely, our men and women from many countries will have reaped abundant harvests. But how much wheat and how much chaff? Any history of the psychoanalytic movement cannot ignore the archives, but it must also transcend them. Once again all depends on how we conceptualize the problem. If we have in mind a historical narrative of its leading personalities, its congresses and schisms, its dispersal after the German catastrophe of 1933 and the Austrian of 1938, then certainly these and many other aspects will have been fleshed out by Series Z. But this kind of history remains business as usual. I shall take as an instance Phyllis Grosskurth’s The Secret Ring: Freud’s Inner Circle and the Politics of Psychoanalysis published three years ago to considerable acclaim. Assuredly the book contains new and sometimes vivid details Ms. Grosskurth had spent time in several archives, including the Rank papers at my own university, and she writes well. For me, however, the book, like so many others in the genre, represents yet another missed opportunity. That Freud’s secret entourage, the Committee was racked by dissentions, backbiting, competition for Freud’s imperious favor, was essentially known. The issue that is never addressed, is how this group of quite imperfect and in many ways incompatible men were able to sustain and propogate not only a therapy, but a teaching that became a vital component of Modernism around the globe. And, in a larger sense, is this not the issue for any history of the psychoanalytic movement worthy of itself not merely to describe its inner workings or proselytizing activities, but to ask what prior spiritual or cultural needs did Freud’s teaching fulfill that enabled it to spread from a small group of Jews meeting in 1902 at Berggasse 19, to become what W.H. Auden called after Freud’s death a whole climate of opinion?”
I come finally to the vexing question of Freud’s biography and here I am prepared to abandon my parable. I am only certain that the men and women from many countries will not find anything of significance about Freud’s childhood and adolescence. That stumbling block to biographers, especially those who are psychoanalytically oriented, will remain. Some information about Freud’s parents may perhaps yet be found in Moravian and Viennese archives. As for Freud’s mature life, for reasons already given I doubt that very much of a sensational nature will be found in Series Z, though of course one cannot be sure. Once again, however, I feel that the really important issues extend beyond the archives.

“The other issue is so vital and so complex as to require a conference of its own. I have in mind the relation between biography and a person’s achievement. How much of the former do we need to know in order to understand the latter?[...] How much about Freud’s life must we know in order to interpret The Interpretation of Dreams? Or would our interpretation simply be different, with less ferreting for biographical links and more concentration on what he was trying to teach us? [...]Ironically, it may have been Freud himself who first opened this Pandora’s Box, but let’s not hold this against him. Rather, let us ask must we really know whether Freud slept with Minna? Those who want to discover that he really did, are gripped by an unstated and faulty syllogism: a) Freud presented a public image of a devoted husband; b) Freud comitted incest with his sister-in-law; ergo Freud is not to be trusted, and so neither should his work… “

“I ask your indulgence if I close on a personal, existential note. We live in a time when we are flooded with information in every field of endeavor, a deluge from which Freud scholarship is not exempt. It has has become a veritable industry over which it is difficult to maintain even bibliographical control. The amount of sheer information increases incessantly. I confess that I have reached an age when I am haunted by the question of when information becomes knowledge. What I have presented here is only a special instance of that larger Angst. I am perhaps not yet old enough to seek the further line where knowledge becomes wisdom.”


TEXT ONLY|
ARCHIVES|
BIBLIO|
BODLEIAN|
CITATIONS|
CHRONO|

HOME|
FREUD|
MEMORY|
PLATO|
YERUSHALMI|
FREUD’S MOSES|
PHAEDRUS|
AUTHOR|

Contact � Maureen Flynn-Burhoe 2000 for comments, corrections and copyright concerns.


“I ask your indulgence if I close on a personal, existential note. We live in a time when we are flooded with information in every field of endeavor, a deluge from which Freud scholarship is not exempt. It has has become a veritable industry over which it is difficult to maintain even bibliographical control. The amount of sheer information increases incessantly. I confess that I have reached an age when I am haunted by the question of when information becomes knowledge. What I have presented here is only a special instance of that larger Angst. I am perhaps not yet old enough to seek the further line where knowledge becomes wisdom (Yerushalmi Series Z 1997).”

“Collecting data is only the first step toward wisdom but sharing data is the first step toward community (Linux 2006 33-40)

Work-in-process: “Collecting data is only the first step toward knowledge but sharing data is the first step toward civilization.”

Shortlinkhttp://wp.me/p1TTs-6s


Mewburn, Inger. 2011-03-17. “Zotero vs Endnote 4: the battle is on!” In this post PhD student, Gabriel Oguda, who is studying for an MPhil in Health Promotion at the University of Bergen in Norway, argued in favour of Zotero.

There was a conflict between firefox and therefore zotero on the PC (Vista?) setup I began using in 2007 and continue to use. With the crashes, clean-up and switch I was forced back to Internet Explorer and “lost” the zotero library I had been slowing building. Since then I haven’t taken the risk of switching back to Firefox and I miss many of its features.

My Endnote librairies remained intact as I had backed them up in multiple spaces both virtual and really real.

Since the crashes, clean-up and switch, I have been drawn back to Endnote as the safety deposit box of my webliographies and bibliographies.

I am not comfortable being so dependent on a product I cannot update (since I am no longer affiliated with the academic institutions that provided me with access and or licensed software)
But EndNote is reliable, robust and ready-to-use. It is really like FoxPro’s dynamic query searching (relational query by example?) capacity.

End Note Search It lets me break the rules a little so I can use it to keep track of glossaries, timelines, biographies using their titles fields, etc in unconventional ways. It generates useful data such as my timelines in .html format. It lets me share my bibliographies seamlessly on my blogs.

It’s a bit like owning a very old Volvo (my licensed EndNote software dates from c. 2002-3? and will not support the http://www.myendnoteweb.com Alex so kindly recommended) that is ultra solid and dependable when I know I really cannot afford the repairs. Except that so much of my data is softwere dependent and there is always that concern that I might lose access to my own research as I did with FoxPro, ToolBook and Olympus. (Files no longer open because I am missing licensed upgrades). This was my motivation for experimenting with open source.

My original speechless page (2006-12-13) speechless >> web 2.0 >> Zotero vs EndNote has been attracting the most visits of all my posts lately so I have decided to update it as this post entitled “Zotero vs EndNote: 2006 – 2008″.

I would be really interested in Alex Liberzon’s experiences with http://www.myendnoteweb.com, http://www.CiteULike.org and LaTeX. See Zotero vs EndNote post (2007-01-23) has been finding out about . Says: January 23, 2007 at 7:52 pm e

Like Farrel Buchinsky (2007-02-17) I am looking forward to a seamless interface between Google docs, open source word processors and Zotero, Connotea or even Endnote (?) where citations and bibliographies will be automatically generated. My wish list/to-do-list continues to include a library database using Zotero that has compatibilities with free source like Google docs that worked like EndNote and the big name proprietorial software (BNPS) I became dependent on.

Since working with Google docs I have enjoyed the fact the my PC does not crash as it used to with the BNPS. But I still haven’t taken the time to learn how to integrate zotero with Google docs (or grant applications and manuscripts). Once I do I will post it. I use my own blog more as a How-did-I-do-that? not as a How-you-should-do-it?. There are better sites for the latter. I am a bricoleuse.

I would like to really use My EndNote Web as Alex Leberzon suggested but this service is only available for EndNote 10 licensed users. I’m EndNote 8. I have also started to investigate Cite-U-Like but I am discouraged by its academic criteria-based exclusivity. (I’m not even sure it accepts New York Times and Wall Street Journal articles? Concepts of authority (who can be a knower?) need to be re-examined in the era of Web 2.0+.) I still prefer deli.ci.ous. I have not been able to update my MySwickis and my Customized Google Search as much as I would like as these are invaluable resources for focused research.

Testing COinS Generator:

(Žižek, Slavoj. 2004. Organs without Bodies: on Deleuze and Consequences. New York/London. Routledge)

COins Generator


Digitage on Barbara Kruger's Nature/Culture Barbara Krueger’s (1983) “We Won’t Play Nature to your Culture” somehow comes to mind when reading Žižek on nature/culture.

During breaks I would walk through empty rooms to discover changes curators had made in their spaces. I was a teenager when I began to feel at home in the silent, often light-filled buildings that held public art collections. I was annoyed by, resented, then was intrigued by, read about, studied, spent time with pieces that came to be my favourites. Visual artists were deeply informed about and experimenting with emerging, complex theories, cultural studies, political philosophy . . . academics did their best to avoid them until it became impossible to do so.

Reading Slavoj Žižek’s Organs without Bodies is a lot like my non-linear NGC meanderings in the 1990s. His writing provokes me but there is enough brilliance there that makes me keep his book in the reading stand beside my monitor, opened at different pages on different days. He is not a lazy thinker. Each page is like a hypertext reader indexing a myriad of artists, philosophers, scientists and entrepreneurs. He discusses Hawkins, Hegel, Heidegger and Hitchcock with equal comfort because he has actually ‘read’ and analysed’ their work.

I was drawn to his chapter section on hyphen-ethics more because of the probing, unsettling questions it raises than because of his conclusions. It will be one of those recurring themes that will be part of my own lifelong teaching, learning and research.

“What is false with todays discussion concerning the ethical consequences of biogenetics is that it is rapidly turning into what Germans call Bindenstrich-Ethik, the ethics of the hyphen – technology-ethics, environment-ethics, and so on. This ethics does have a role to play, a role homologous to that of the provisional ethic Descartes mentions at the beginning of his Discourse on Method: when we engage on a new path, full of dangers and shattering new insights, we need to stick to old established rules as a practical guide for our daily lives, although we are well aware that the new insights will compel us to provide a fresh foundation for our entire ethical edifice (in Descartes case, this new foundation was provided by Kant, in his ethics of subjective autonomy). Today, we are in the same predicament: the provisional ethics cannot replace the need for a thorough reflection of the emerging New (Žižek 2004:123).”

“In short, what gets lost here, in this hyphen-ethics, is simply ethics as such. The problem is not that universal ethics gets dissolved in particular topics but, on the contrary, that particular scientific breakthroughs are directly confronted with the old humanist “values” (say, how biogenetics affects our sense of dignity and autonomy). This, then, is the choice we are confronting today: either we choose the typically postmodern stance of reticence (let’s not go to the end, let’s keep a proper distance toward the scientific Thing so that this Thing will not draw us into a black hole, destroying all our moral and human notions), or we dare to “tarry with the negative (das Verweilen beim Negativen),” that is, we dare to fully examine the consequences of scientific modernity with the wager that “our Mind is a genome” will also function as an infinite judgment (Žižek 2004:123-4).”

“The main consequence of the scientific breakthrough in biogenetics is the end of nature. Once we know the rules of its construction, natural organisms are transformed into objects amenable to manipulation. Nature, human and inhuman, is thus “desubstantialized,” deprived of its impenetrable density, of what Heidegger called “earth.” Biogenetics, with its reduction of the human psyche itself to an object of technological manipulation, is therefore effectively a kind of empirical instantiation of what Heidegger perceived as the “danger” inherent to modern technology. Crucial here is the interdepedence of man and nature: by reducing man to just another object whose properties can be manipulated, what we lose is not (only) humanity but nature itself. In this sense, Francis Fukuyama is right. Humanity itself relies on some notion of “human nature” as what we inherited and was simply given to us, the impenetrable dimension in/of ourselves into which we are born/thrown. The paradox is thus that there is man only insofar as there is inhuman nature (Heidegger’s “earth”). (Žižek 2004:124).”

Notes
Slavoj Žižek is a dialectical-materialist philosopher and psychoanalyst. He also co-directs the International Centre for Humanities at Birkbeck College. The Parallax View appeared last year.

Webliography and Bibliography

Žižek, Slavoj. 2004. “Against hyphen-ethics.” Organs without Bodies: on Deleuze and Consequences. New York/London: Routledge. pp. 123-132.

Titles >> Subtitles: Organs without Bodies >> on Deleuze and Consequences >> Consequences >> Science >> Cognitivism with Freud, Autopoiesis, Memes, Memes Everywhere, Against Hyphen-Ethics, Cognitive Closure?, “Little Jolts of Enjoyment”,

folksonomy: cultural studies, theory, philosophy, Deleuze, globalization, democracy, democratization, war on terror, Joan Copjec, biogenetics, hyphen-ethics, capitalism, Richard Dawkins, Jacques Derrida, Daniel Dennett, ethics, Ethical turn, Habermas, Kant, Laclau, Levinas, Lacan, Varela, religion, Pascal, Spinoza, The Quite American, Hegel, Heidegger, Massumi, Fukuyama, liberal democracy, Self, personhood, ethics, mind/brain, mind body, psychoanalysis, nature/culture, technology, mind and consciousness,

More by Slavoj Žižek:

Žižek, Slavoj. 2003. “Bring me my Philips Mental Jacket: Slavoj Žižek welcomes the prospect of biogenetic intervention.” London Review of Books. 25:10. May.

Žižek, Slavoj. 1999. “Attempts to Escape the Logic of Capitalism.” Review of Vaclav Havel: A Political Tragedy in Six Acts by John Keane.” London Review of Books. 21:21. October 28.

Žižek, Slavoj. 1999. ‘You May!’ London Review of Books. 21:6. 18 March.


Measuring and mapping the mind, soul and spirit by using mathematics with music, numerical codes on virtual palettes for colours . . .

TwitThis 

twittering

Iqaluit sunset “#F2D895″ | Iqaluit sunset “#B58D67″| Iqaluit sunset “#FFF6BF” | Iqaluit sunset “#DDA887″ | Iqaluit sunset “#BAA295″ | Iqaluit sunset “#FBE8C0″ | Iqaluit sky at dusk “#4B4D65″ | Iqaluit sky at dusk”#525B7B” | Iqaluit sky at dusk”#545B75″ | “#B7A47C” | Iqaluit sky at dusk “#2B3454″ | “#336699″ |
Bell Lake reflections” #626C61″ | “#666666″ | “#666699″ | Iqaluit Rockface “#B1A08F” | Iqaluit Rockface “#AE8C8C” |
Iqaluit Rockface “#67606F” | Iqaluit Rockface “#DCB9B5″ | Iqaluit Rockface “#D5B4B1″ | Iqaluit Rockface “#EFD3D6″ | Iqaluit Rockface lichen “#9FAD97″ | Iqaluit Rockface lichen”#577155″ | Iqaluit Rockface lichen “#97A493″ | Baffin aerial tundra “#49465B” | Baffin aerial tundra “#C7BDCF” | Baffin aerial tundra “#616079″ | Baffin blue sky “#A8B8DA” | Baffin blue sky “#246AD5″ | Baffin blue sky “#5D7DB3″ | Baffin blue sky “#82ABD5″ | Baffin blue sky “#558AE8″ | Baffin blue sky “#5392E5″ |

Iqaluit sunset “#F2D895″ Iqaluit sunset “#B58D67″ Iqaluit sunset “#FFF6BF”
Iqaluit sunset “#DDA887″ Iqaluit sunset “#BAA295″ Iqaluit sunset “#FBE8C0″
Iqaluit sky at dusk “#4B4D65″ Iqaluit sky at dusk”#525B7B” Iqaluit sky at dusk”#545B75″
“#B7A47C” Iqaluit sky at dusk “#2B3454″ “#336699″
Bell Lake reflections” #626C61″ “#666666″ “#666699″
Iqaluit Rockface “#B1A08F” Iqaluit Rockface “#AE8C8C” Iqaluit Rockface “#67606F”
Iqaluit Rockface “#DCB9B5″ Iqaluit Rockface “#D5B4B1″ Iqaluit Rockface “#EFD3D6″
Iqaluit Rockface lichen “#9FAD97″ Iqaluit Rockface lichen”#577155″ Iqaluit Rockface lichen “#97A493″
Baffin aerial tundra “#49465B” Baffin aerial tundra “#C7BDCF” Baffin aerial tundra “#616079″
Baffin blue sky “#A8B8DA” Baffin blue sky “#246AD5″ Baffin blue sky “#5D7DB3″
Baffin blue sky “#82ABD5″ Baffin blue sky “#558AE8″ Baffin blue sky “#5392E5″
“#99CCFF” “#66CCFF” “#33CCFF”
Azure “F0FFFF” Bisque “FFE4C4″ “FFCC99″
Blanched almond “FFEBCD” Cornsilk “FFF8DC” Eggshell “FCE6C9″
Floral white “FFFAF0″ Gainsboro “DCDCDC” Ghost white “F8F8FF”
Honeydew “F0FFF0″ Ivory “FFFFF0″ Lavender “E6E6FA”
Lavender blush “FFF0F5″ Lemon chiffon “FFFACD” Linen “FAF0E6″
Mint cream “F5FFFA” Misty rose “FFE4E1″ Moccasin “FFE4B5″
Navajo white “FFDEAD” Old lace “FDF5E6″ Papaya whip “FFEFD5″
Peach puff “FFDAB9″ Seashell “FFF5EE” Snow “FFFAFA”
Thistle “D8BFD8″ Titanium white “FCFFF0″ Wheat “F5DEB3″
White “FFFFFF” White smoke “F5F5F5″ Zinc white “FDF8FF”
Cold grey “808A87″ Dim grey “696969″ Grey “C0C0C0″
Light grey “D3D3D3″ Slate grey “708090″ Slate grey dark “2F4F4F”
Slate grey light “778899″ Warm grey “808069″ Black “000000″
Ivory black “292421″ Lamp black “2E473B” Brick “9C661F”
Coral “FF7F50″ Coral light “F08080″ English red “D43D1A”
Firebrick “B22222″ Geranium lake “E31230″ Hot pink “FF69B4″
Indian red “B0171F” Light salmon “FFA07A” Madder lake deep “E32E30″
Maroon “B03060″ Pink “FFC0CB” Pink light “FFB6C1″
Raspberry “872657″ Red “FF0000″ Rose madder “E33638″
Salmon “FA8072″ Tomato “FF6347″ Venetian red “D41A1F”
Beige “A39480″ Brown “802A2A” Brown madder “DB2929″
Brown ochre “87421F” Burlywood “DEB887″ Burnt sienna “8A360F”
Burnt umber “8A3324″ Chocolate “D2691E” Deep ochre “733D1A”
Flesh “FF7D40″ Flesh ochre “FF5721″ Gold ochre “C77826″
Greenish umber “FF3D0D” Khaki “F0E68C” Khaki dark “BDB76B”
Light beige “F5F5DC” Peru “CD853F” Rosy brown “BC8F8F”
Raw sienna “C76114″ Raw umber “734A12″ Sepia “5E2612″
Sienna “A0522D” Saddle brown “8B4513″ Sandy brown “F4A460″
Tan “D2B48C” Van dyke brown “5E2605″ Cadmium orange “FF6103″
Cadmium red light “FF030D” Carrot “ED9121″ Dark orange “FF8C00″
Mars orange “964514″ Mars yellow “E3701A” Orange “FF8000″
Orange red “FF4500″ Yellow ochre “E38217″ Aureoline yellow “FFA824″
Banana “E3CF57″ Cadmium lemon “FFE303″ Cadmium yellow “FF9912″
Cadmium yellow light “FFB00F” Gold “FFD700″ Goldenrod “DAA520″
Goldenrod dark “B8860B” Goldenrod light “FAFAD2″ Goldenrod pale “EEE8AA”
Light goldenrod “EEDD82″ Melon “E3A869″ Naples yellow deep “FFA812″
Yellow “FFFF00″ Yellow light “FFFFE0″ Chartreuse “7FFF00″
Chrome oxide green “668014″ Cinnabar green “61B329″ Cobalt green “3D9140″
Emerald green “00C957″ Forest green “228B22″ Green “00FF00″
Green dark “006400″ Green pale “98FB98″ Green yellow “ADFF2F”
Lawn green “7CFC00″ Lime green “32CD32″ Mint “BDFCC9″
Olive “3B5E2B” Olive drab “6B8E23″ Olive green dark “556B2F”
Permanent green “0AC92B” Sap green “308014″ Sea green “2E8B57″
Sea green dark “8FBC8F” Sea green medium “3CB371″ Sea green light “20B2AA”
Spring green “00FF7F” Spring green medium “00FA9A” Terre verte “385E0F”
Viridian light “6EFF70″ Yellow green “9ACD32″ Aquamarine “7FFFD4″
Aquamarine medium “66CDAA” Cyan “00FFFF” Cyan white “E0FFFF”
Turquoise “40E0D0″ Turquoise dark “00CED1″ Turquoise medium “48D1CC”
Turquoise pale “AFEEEE” Alice blue “F0F8FF” Blue “0000FF”
Blue light “ADD8E6″ Blue medium “0000CD” Cadet “5F9EA0″
Cobalt “3D59AB” Cornflower “6495ED” Cerulean “05B8CC”
Dodger blue “1E90FF” Indigo “082E54″ Manganese blue “03A89E”
Midnight blue “191970″ Navy “000080″ Peacock “33A1C9″
Powder blue “B0E0E6″ Royal blue “4169E1″ Slate blue “6A5ACD”
Slate blue dark “483D8B” Slate blue light “8470FF” Slate blue medium “7B68EE”
Sky blue “87CEEB” Sky blue deep “00BFFF” Sky blue light “87CEFA”
Steel blue “4682B4″ Steel blue light “B0C4DE” Turquoise blue “00C78C”
Ultramarine “120A8F” Blue violet “8A2BE2″ Cobalt violet deep “91219E”
Magenta “FF00FF” Orchid “DA70D6″ Orchid dark “9932CC”
Orchid medium “BA55D3″ Permanent red violet “DB2645″ Plum “DDA0DD”
Purple “A020F0″ Purple medium “9370DB” Ultramarine violet “5C246E”
Violet “8F5E99″ Violet dark “9400D3″ Violet red “D02090″
Violet red medium “C71585″ Violet red pale “DB7093″ Violet red medium “C71585″
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers