Carving "Relativity"

[pallin]

I'm considering my next relief carving, even though I'm not done with Escher's "Bond of Union." The likely design will be Escher's "Relativity," but the original is square while the wood I plan to use is 12" x 15". What would happen if I stretch it to match the wood? These two photos show how the image would be distorted: What do you think?

Relativity.jpgRelativityS.jpg

[DiLeon]

Phil I have always love this drawing! What a test of skills.....and challenges. Great choice in you next step of new carving. I will super enjoy watching your next steps into the unknown. smile.

[pallin]

Thanks Dileon, but what do you think about the distortion? I like to include changes when I use these ideas from Escher, but this is a practical matter of fitting the wood.

[Arthur C.]

The distortion does no violence to the design, in my opinion. I'd say go for it.

[jderijcke]

I agree with Arthur. And what is the difference when you stretch the other side?

[Merle Rice]

Hi Phil, It looks like the Detailing would be a lot smaller , It doesn't Hurt the Design Just a different view , that's not Bad. Merle

[joepaulbutler]

Go for it, if you didn't have the original to look at you wouldn't know the difference. I can see this as being your next year's project, My eyeballs would be chasing themselves around

[GregGerard]

Before distorting, I would make sure the stairways and some other elements are not 90 degrees to one another.( using square and marking lines)... the depth of the treads and risers could be on the same planes/depths when carving .. Distorting too much may throw it off to much.
But I HAVE NO IDEA.. I would just want to study on it

[pallin]

The image on the right has the aspect ratio that fits the wood. The detailing on a design like this has some surprises. The figures, stair bannisters, etc. can be ignored until much later in the process. Many of them will be carved into the surface behind. The first step is to establish the deepest points of the relief - probably under the upper center arch, or the dark area on the right. Nearly all of the wall planes converge on that point under the upper stairway arch.

[Randy]

Looks big project pallin. But from the other work you have shared I know your skills are up to the challenge.

[pallin]

Thanks Randy. I still have the other relief to finish, but I'm beginning to think about this one.

[Claude]

I don't think the change in aspect to the 12 x 15 would be a problem. Here's a view changing it the other way, as suggested by jderijcke.

[DiLeon]

Thanks Dileon, but what do you think about the distortion? I like to include changes when I use these ideas from Escher, but this is a practical matter of fitting the wood.

Not sure about the distortion.....my mind is not mathematical like yours. I sort of figure a distortion like this would bother you? As for me...there is something about the stretch that I like the original a little better,.... but staring at for a while I can not tell you honestly why that is??? other then the angles of the arches are different. If it was me I cut the three inches off the wood or find a bigger piece that is square. But then again I would not be doing this kind work too hard... 99 percent of the people would have not clue it was stretched....but it is all a matter how do you feel about the stretched one? On note: does not stretching this kind of work mess up the math architecture, perspective and depth relationship? .

[honketyhank]

The whole business of projecting 3 dimensions onto 2 introduces distortion. Those distortions allow Escher to construct his trompe d'oeil 'scene'. An additional minor, uniform, 1-dimensional stretch merely makes a subtle shift in the observer's point of view or one of the vanishing points in construction. It seems to me, then, that the observer will perceive that he or she is seeing exactly the same scene in the original and in the stretched version.

I think Escher would say something like this: "Ahh, yesss. It is obvious that Phil is about 1" shorter than me."

Go for it.

[lionslair]

I'm with honketyhank on this one. It was hard for me to see much difference at all - one part in the left bottom corner seemed to change but the rest was in perspective. Martin