I think you're right in some respects (e.g. most artists have a much more sophisticated understanding of color than red, yellow, blue -- that's the version you get taught in elementary school).
But you're missing the point in others: half the article is devoted to explaining the inadequacies of the RGB model for handling actual real world color. (This is why photos of sunsets -- digital or film -- never look right.)
A simple example -- color looks weird under "white" LEDs (at least the current ones) because they're actually RGB LEDs balanced to create the illusion of "white" light. Some orange things will look all but black under a white LED while others will look orange. Why? Because orange light can be actually orange, or a mixture of wavelengths that gets a similar response from your eye.
And so on and on. The article is a bit annoying (and it would help if it assumed most readers will know about CMYK and RGB color models already) but the fundamental lesson -- that color is more complex than you think and you need to understand the underlying physics and physiology to really understand color is worth making.
> This is why photos of sunsets -- digital or film -- never look right
The main reason sunsets don’t look right is that sunsets have a huge dynamic range, beyond the ability of our printed photographs or computer displays to reproduce (no one has the sun in their living room).
No, the main reason is that RGB is an approximation of color not true color. Light in the real world isn't RGB. Human beings do not see in RGB. Read the damn article. (There's also a lengthy post above which tries to make the points over again.)
Do you think CMYK will reproduce sunsets if you shine a bright enough light on a piece of paper and use black enough ink? Same argument.
I understand the concept of metamerism. You are quite right about objects changing appearance from one light source to the next, etc. It’s also true that sunsets often have colors which are more colorful than can be produced by computer displays or 4-color-process prints. However, I stand by my assertion that the main reason that sunsets don’t look right on screen or in print has to do with the lack of dynamic range.
But you're missing the point in others: half the article is devoted to explaining the inadequacies of the RGB model for handling actual real world color. (This is why photos of sunsets -- digital or film -- never look right.)
A simple example -- color looks weird under "white" LEDs (at least the current ones) because they're actually RGB LEDs balanced to create the illusion of "white" light. Some orange things will look all but black under a white LED while others will look orange. Why? Because orange light can be actually orange, or a mixture of wavelengths that gets a similar response from your eye.
And so on and on. The article is a bit annoying (and it would help if it assumed most readers will know about CMYK and RGB color models already) but the fundamental lesson -- that color is more complex than you think and you need to understand the underlying physics and physiology to really understand color is worth making.