EPTM.C. Escher and the GSL Finals - Page 4
| Blogs > ironchef |
|
Zyte
Netherlands564 Posts
| ||
|
MangoTango
United States3670 Posts
| ||
|
XenoX101
Australia729 Posts
| ||
|
FlorisXIV
Netherlands15 Posts
![[image loading]](http://people.via.ecp.fr/~jm/musee/escher/MoebiusBandII.jpg) isn't that picture beautifull? | ||
|
Fateless
United States99 Posts
On March 23 2011 17:43 XenoX101 wrote: Escher is fantastic no doubt, but there are other artists out there too on the topic of 'favourite artists. I'm a bit of an art buff so this probably bothers me more than it should, and I don't mean to be a buzzkill or derail the thread or anything, but just simply I feel the gaming/geek/online community is too quick to jump on the escher boat when it comes to famous artists, perhaps because of his novelty. And in doing so a lot of great artists have been forgotten, like picasso, van gogh, salvador dali (though he has recently had a strong resurgence of followers) or even andy warhol. I guess to relate it to SC, it's like the fanatacism that was behind Boxer when other players were doing equally well and even better, despite having a less risky/flashy/exciting playstyle. Just my $0.02 I think that has to do with the graphic nature of Escher's prints. His quiet, mechanical rendering is very similar to what you would expect from computer graphics. I think Escher's tact for rendering the physically impossible in a space that is fully believable is very appealing to the digital generation. | ||
|
Dystisis
Norway713 Posts
On March 24 2011 04:11 Fateless wrote: I think that has to do with the graphic nature of Escher's prints. His quiet, mechanical rendering is very similar to what you would expect from computer graphics. I think Escher's tact for rendering the physically impossible in a space that is fully believable is very appealing to the digital generation. I agree with you. However, I think it is a misconception that Escher's works are 'physically impossible'. If they were, they could not possibly be rendered in an image, either. I think a part of the attraction is that several of Escher's works presents the viewer with something which looks unlikely or impossible, but which is an elaborate illusion caused by a distorted sense of space or form. Several sculptures and other pieces of physical art have been made which, from certain perspectives, establishes the same or corresponding views as that of Escher's paintings. I think the allure lies with the works apparently delimiting or highlighting the boundaries of geometry and physical possibility. But, as noted, to 'show the boundary' of something requires being able to know the other side of it as well, and something geometrically or physically impossible could not be displayed. So, it's an illusion. | ||
|
Fateless
United States99 Posts
On March 24 2011 06:50 Dystisis wrote: I agree with you. However, I think it is a misconception that Escher's works are 'physically impossible'. If they were, they could not possibly be rendered in an image, either. I think a part of the attraction is that several of Escher's works presents the viewer with something which looks unlikely or impossible, but which is an elaborate illusion caused by a distorted sense of space or form. Several sculptures and other pieces of physical art have been made which, from certain perspectives, establishes the same or corresponding views as that of Escher's paintings. I think the allure lies with the works apparently delimiting or highlighting the boundaries of geometry and physical possibility. But, as noted, to 'show the boundary' of something requires being able to know the other side of it as well, and something geometrically or physically impossible could not be displayed. So, it's an illusion. Again, to clarify, Escher was a printmaker, which means he created prints and I am personally unaware of any paintings created by Escher that are especially prolific.(Can you guys tell I'm a printmaker yet  )I am aware of such sculptures, specifically the ones created by Shigeo Fukuda are amazing. http://www.illusionworks.com/mod/fukuda.htm (Whom I would highly reccomend to TLers and anyone interested in art.) And I would argue that by this logic, anything that can be rendered into an image is physically possible. Truly, any image that resides on a 2-dimensional surface that you are able to perceive as existing in three dimensions is an illusion just like Escher's. The difference, is that Escher's illusion causes you to believe in the existence of structures that are impossible in physical space. The infinite waterfall effect is physically impossible, but with imagery you can create the illusion that a waterfall was feeding into itself. A physical situation in which this illusion could be created, is possible, but I don't feel like communicating a coincidence of perspective was the point Escher wanted to make to us. Take Relativity for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Escher's_Relativity.jpg Physically constructing a room with these attributes is entirely possible, but you wouldn't be able to walk upside down on the stair cases like you can in Escher's print. I feel this print is more about communicating the idea of a Gestalt system where you have multiple independent elements (In the case of relativity these elements would be the walls and staircases.) which, based on perspective form the building blocks of several different larger systems, independently, simultaneously, and within the same space. I feel this hypothesis is well supported both by the title, and by Escher's body of work in general. | ||
|
CookieMaker
Canada880 Posts
| ||
|
x_Faust
United States8 Posts
http://i.imgur.com/kIXSy.png | ||
Lip the Pencilboy
Italy420 Posts
| ||
|
Pinkeltje
Netherlands6 Posts
| ||
|
Valckrie
United Kingdom533 Posts
| ||
| ||
