age old debate: disegno or colore (e.g. Michelangelo vs. Titian).

another debate: which is the essential element defining a form - its drawn shape or its color. It depends on the object. Our brains provide a structure and a simplicity in our understanding of the world around us which as a result leads to making all things recognisable by the simplest representational symbols. E.g. if a child draws the simplest form of a tree, despite coloring it read, I would say the shape rather than the color will define what it, or more correctly what we would understand it to represent. That is what I do in my paintings, a play on how the mind recognises and categorises everthing; the read tree is seen as a painting of nature, of a tree, the pink sky and etc. On the other hand if i paint a blue surface (see Blue Circle painting) and by chance use horizontal brush strokes, the mind will quickly pick it up as the sea, the horizon. I would say in this case, the element defining the object - or again more correctly what we would understand the painting to represent - is the color blue.

about the use color vs. representation of nature: 'a painter had better start from the colors on his palette than from the colors in nature', Van Gogh in freely admitting the artificiality in his art.  one color I miss is the brightest of all whites, the deadly lead white now replaced with zinc and titian white...

an early utterance about complementary colors: 'there is a certain friendship about colors so that one joined with another gives dignity and grace' Leon Battista Alberti, Della Pintura (On Painting).