|
|
An Essay on M.C. Escher's Tessellating-Based Prints 1-30 |
[1] PLANE-FILLING MOTIF WITH HUMAN FIGURES Bool 65 [1920 or 1921], no numbered drawing Discussed in: Visions of Symmetry, page 7 Although not strictly a tessellation-based print, this is included nonetheless as it is of motifs which are designed to fill the plane, of which this is the first of an unstated ‘series of two’, with the same motifs utilised but in different formats. Essentially, two broadly human-like motifs are ‘adapted’ to the confines of a rhombus, which was then repeated as a tiling pattern. However, the motifs are somewhat inelegant, and so presumably on account of their relative poor quality Escher did not proceed any further with examples of this type, although in the same year he briefly returned to a polygon of a non-repeating nature (essentially triangular) filling with a human figure as a woodcut (cat. 85). Interestingly, the same type of hand can be seen on both examples. [2] PLANE-FILLING MOTIF WITH HUMAN FIGURES
[3] EIGHT HEADS Whilst still a student at Harlem, he composed, completely of his own volition, what is indisputably his first ‘proper’ tessellation-based print, of Eight Heads, essentially repeating a tessellation in graphic form. All but one of the heads is shown in profile, four female, four male, albeit the black male figures are somewhat contrived. As is self evident, these are of a most poor standard in terms of their inherent quality, with contour lines not being readily discernable, and furthermore half of the motifs are upside down in relation to each other, which Escher did not like (and of which with such examples he spoke out about later). Interestingly, this is not of the style with which he later proceeded, as they represent only a partial element of the whole figure. However, although possessing notable shortcomings, the principle of a tessellation is indeed firmly established. Again, presumably due to the inherent poor quality, Escher did not continue any further with such examples of this type, this essentially being put aside, of which he then returned to his more orthodox studies of a figurative nature.
[4] METAMORPHOSIS I This woodcut, obviously marks a watershed in his works, as essentially he begins to move away from preceding Italian landscapes to ‘mental imagery’ of a mathematical nature, although upon the initial effort the change was gradual, as he still continued with the former, essentially simultaneously with his tessellation-based prints for a considerable period. As evidenced by the title, this print involves a metamorphosis, of essentially three elements, of an typical Italian coastal scene (of Atrani on the coast of Amalfi, having been previously drawn in 1931) to rhombuses (these being the underlying tessellating unit of the following motif), which acts as a prelude to a Chinese boy. Escher was dissatisfied with this in an aesthetic sense, as there is no connection or link per se between an Italian coastal town and a Chinese boy. Although a better solution to this would have been to have made the coastal scene more typically of a Chinese nature, albeit even here, despite a better connection, this still lacks a unifying theme – why should a series of buildings metamorphosise into a boy? As such, there is no good reason for such a composition, and so despite an excellent execution the concept thus remains disjointed, lacking in aesthetic quality as when compared to subsequent prints, where this matter is addressed, such as Sky and Water I. However, as this was the first such effort of its type, to ask for aesthetic perfection in such matters, upon having established a new style, is obviously unrealistic, and so I consider that Escher was unduly harsh on himself upon casting aspersions on this initial effort. Another shortcoming to this print is that despite the underlying tessellation unit of rhombuses along with the figure itself possessing mirror symmetry, the elements of the metamorphosis do not reflect this aspect. Grey and black proto boys are asymmetric, in contrast to the white proto boy being symmetric, resulting in a somewhat jarring or disjointed metamorphosis in a symmetrical sense. Without doubt, preserving symmetry throughout the metamorphosis would be desirable in an aesthetic sense. However, Escher did not manage or perhaps even attempted to do so here, again presumably because of this being the first such example of its kind such matters would not have necessarily have occurred to him. Upon examining this in detail as part of the process of figuring out how he did these types of works, I found that such an ‘all-pervading’ symmetrical metamorphosis from rhombus to figure is indeed possible, and so obviously such a feature would thus be an improvement on the original composition. Indeed, I am somewhat surprised that Escher did not subsequently notice this, and follow with a correction/improved version, or at least with an acknowledgement that a symmetrical metamorphosis was indeed possible.
[5] DEVELOPMENT I As such, this woodcut dispenses with the previous landscape theme and concentrates purely on the geometrical transformation, as Escher terms it, of a development. As such, this is self-explanatory, as an outline border of squares develops in a steady progression towards the centre; the online increasing in angularity from ‘outer to inner’ until at the centre is a fully-formed lizard motif. To emphasise this aspect, the initial grey ‘beginning’ gains increasingly in contrast, in effect echoing the development of the lizards outlines, until at the final stage a stark black and white is apparent. Again, as with Metamorphosis I, Escher was somewhat displeased with this (of which he comments upon in Graphic Work), as in effect the fully developed lizards in the centre are essentially ‘confined,’ having no room for further manoeuvre. However, if so desired, it is a simple matter to simply reverse the process, with the development from ‘inner to outer,’ from which the lizards could then be ‘released’ from their underlying tessellating structure, and then this would then open up the possibility of a broader scope, for example, of a similar nature to his 1944 print Reptiles. Again, despite Escher having ‘reservations’ about this, I consider that he is being too harsh on himself. As such, this is noticeably ‘better’ in its aesthetics, as it is more consistent, with no ‘extraneous’, non-connected aspects as exemplified with the preceding example.
[6] DAY AND NIGHT As such, this is by common consent both the most well known and arguably one of the best in an aesthetic sense of all his prints, of which it has far outsold his other works. Therefore, I now propose to examine the reasons as to its widespread appeal. Perhaps of note is that it is of a concept that everyone can appreciate, with day and night being so obvious as to need no further explanation, this being in contrast to his latter prints of a more mathematical nature that may not necessarily appeal to those not so inclined. Furthermore, there is the above detailed economy of effort personified here, with no extraneous motifs to distract or detract from the composition. As such, this is due to the care Escher took in selecting the appropriate tessellation for the concept – contrast this with another, for example with Sky and Water II (although an exact analogy is not directly comparable), whereby there is an ‘overabundance’ of motifs. As such, Escher apparently had a concept of ‘day and night’ in mind, albeit as previously mentioned, this is subordinate to the tessellation source. As such, the background to this print has as its ultimate source an observation made by Escher, as his son George recalled in Visions of Symmetry, page 238. This thus arose as a visit by Escher senior in Switzerland just after the war, where he happened to notice a flag bearing a ‘non-tessellating counterchange’ (of five pointed stars), of which a ‘suggestion’ of counterchange (and by analogy day and night) is thus evident in idea if not in intent. From this, the background material of the above to Day and Night thus becomes ‘obvious’ in retrospect, of which this is exemplary in how from such a simple observation such originality of thought can ensue. The landscape scenery is borrowed from an earlier print, of October 1934, whereby he did a front cover for Timotheus, this consisting of a landscape scene (as seen from an aeroplane), which thus acts as an normal, every day, true-to-life backdrop to the more involved matters of a tessellating nature. Presumably, Escher had this print in mind when searching or selecting an appropriate tessellation to illustrate this concept, of which he subsequently frequently utilised elements from preceding prints. Incidentally, this is, I believe, the first example of his work I saw, from the Readers Digest article of which I detail more exactly the background to this in Essay 1.
[7] CYCLE This lithographs concept of a cycle is somewhat obscure, as it possesses none of the more ‘aesthetic charms’ of, say, Day and Night or Sky and Water I, both of which are more readily interpretable. Presumably, Escher, as according to the title, has in mind the concept of a cycle here, albeit only with a requisite amount of goodwill is this evident, even to the trained eye in tessellation matters. This apparently takes the form of a male figure emerging from a Italian building typical of Escher’s ‘architecture’ period, running down a flight of stairs, of which at the bottom he is ‘consumed’ by the outline of the tessellation, of which this is then ‘undeveloped’ back to the underlying polygon, namely a rhombus, thereby forming a ‘cycle.’ However, in an aesthetic sense there is no clear reason or purpose to such an act and therefore, as with Metamorphosis I the obvious question to pose is to whether there is some unifying theme behind such a composition. Certainly, as with Metamorphosis I, this is ‘clever’, but this misses the point - as such, I can see no such theme per se, and therefore this print, although executed in his usual exemplary fashion, lacks the above-mentioned merits of the given prints. A subsequent print, Reptiles of 1943, personifies a better presentation of the same idea.
[8] SKY AND WATER I Sky and Water I is one of the most popular prints of Escher's, and indeed in my opinion fully justifies such praise and prominence. Now, various factors combine to place this amongst his finest works, of which I now discuss. As the title suggests, the composition is built upon a abstract idea of sky and water, of which an obvious suggestion is of birds and fish to represent this connected concept is self-evident. As such, this print consists of a similar idea of sky and water shown previously, in a ‘side by side’ manner that can be seen in two of his earlier non-tessellation examples, namely The Fifth Day of the Creation, of 1926, and Bouy, of between March – June 1931. Therefore, presumably with this concept in the back of his mind, Escher then went about illustrating this with an appropriate tessellation. As such, there is a delightful economy of effort about this print, with none of the unnecessary ‘excesses’ of the later Sky and Water II, as detailed below, in which there is an ‘overabundance’ of orientations the motifs that essentially detract from the composition. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, given its superb aesthetic properties, the print occurred very early of his tessellation studies, occurring after only two years experience, and is therefore not, as may reasonably have been thought, the product of vast years of experience.
[9] SKY AND WATER II Presumably pleased with his first effort, Escher then attempted this subsequent follow up, albeit this was undertaken not immediately afterwards but six months later, and although such a print of the same theme is perfectly valid, the two Sky and Water prints differ noticeably in their aesthetics. As such, the earlier print was based upon bird and fish motifs all of the same orientation, facing to the right. Arguably, this can be said to be of a weakness, as the chosen orientation is arbitrarily incomplete, as a left orientation is perfectly valid as well, and so the idea of combining these probably occurred to Escher, from which he then possibly set about finding a tessellation to utilise this. As evidenced by the title, this is of an identical concept to Sky and Water I in every way, with the same degree of development of motifs from a centralised tessellating strip, albeit here, this is noticeably inferior in its aesthetics. Quite simply, there is an ‘overabundance’ of motifs, with birds and fish shown in two distinct orientations, of ‘left and right.’ Therefore, as is self evident, there is no ‘economy of effort’ here as with Sky and Water I, with the ‘extraneous’ birds and fish essentially being distracting. Further shortcomings can be seen, as the birds and fish are somewhat disjointed, as in their most highly developed state they are at their own respective different levels, and also the composition is contained in an non-regular twelve sided ‘polygon’, somewhat unappealingly.
[10] DEVELOPMENT II As such, this echoes Development I in its general premise, albeit having two major differences. Firstly, the development occurs from ‘inner to outer’ this being in contrast to the earlier ‘outer to inner.’ Secondly, and more of significance, and noticeably different, this is based upon a self similar tiling of hexagons, these increasing in their representative outline of lizards towards the ‘outer.’ Therefore, as they consist of inherently different backgrounds despite a shared name, it would be invidious to say, in this particular example, which, if any, of these is better in an aesthetic sense than the other, this being in contrast to the Sky and Water I and II, whereby such matters are more directly comparable. Such comparisons with Development I aside, this is a very pleasing print, as the principle of a development is obvious even with a cursory glance. Somewhat curiously, despite being based upon a self-similar hexagonal grid, the composition is shown as a square format, and so one could argue that such an unrelated polygon would not be the best way of showing the inherently hexagonal development. However, despite such disparate symmetries, Escher has achieved a logical, balanced composition, with the most highly developed lizards at the extremities of this square and furthermore the entire same colour. Incidentally, this was Escher's second version of this idea, as an earlier example, this time possessing 5-fold symmetry, of which he evidently was not satisfied with exists in block form, albeit this was never printed. Quite why he never utilised the more obvious and indeed easier to compose with 6-fold symmetry seems somewhat strange.
[11] METAMORPHOSIS II Escher here reverts to the metamorphosis theme of his very first print, in which he essentially builds upon that idea with a considerably longer and indeed more complex example in terms of its metamorphosis. This involved the utilisation of the above five drawings, this in contrast to the essentially solitary example utilised for Metamorphosis I. With the passing of the intervening years, Escher had thus built up a ‘storehouse’ of periodic drawings, of twenty-nine in total, and so consequently had more potential variety for this subsequent ‘follow-up’. However, not all of these are strictly ‘fully useable’, as this itinerary includes some ten examples (notably those possessing 180° rotational symmetry, No.1-2, 5-11 and 16) that are essentially ‘unsuitable’ for such compositional purposes (of which I have discussed the reasons why elsewhere, in Essay 1). Presumably, with relatively many more tessellations now at his disposal (albeit in truth, still a relatively small sample), he set himself the challenge of linking some of these as a metamorphosis style print, thereby surpassing the embryonic Metamorphosis I in scope. Of interest is to how many of the tessellations he thus ordinarily utilised for this or whether any were especially designed for this specific purpose. Schattschneider in Visions of Symmetry, pages 291-292, states that drawing 28, of June 1938 was created specially for this purpose. However, as the Metamorphosis II print is dated November 1939-March 1940, such a provenance seems unlikely. Of course, a period of research and development must be allowed for, but even so, the time span between the two obviously conflicts. Indeed, of the other four tessellating elements, three were thus created subsequently to this one without being attributed to the Metamorphosis II. More likely, but not necessarily, drawing 29 was especially designed, as its date, December 1939, is contemporary with the print. However, as Schattschneider has seen Escher's drawings at first hand (whilst I have not), the above must remain supposition. Such matters aside, the resulting metamorphosis is pleasing considering the limited means (of available tessellations) to hand. Indeed, Escher shows his mastery and command of various tessellation techniques, as he in effect composes a ‘masterpiece’ by building upon experience gained. From the beginning, this involves developing the ground from a ‘neutral grey’ to sharply defined black and white squares at the start of the print; with the word metamorphose heralding what is to occur. This is then followed by linking together essentially disparate tessellations together, all along with an association of related ideas, such as with hexagons being naturally suggestive of bees, with these emerging from their cells. From this a succession of metamorphoses occur of birds and fishes until such matters are brought to an end with the deform of birds back to their underlying source, of rhombuses. These rhombuses are strongly suggestive of Italian towns, of which Escher then shows this by the coastal town of Amalfi being incorporated. This is then linked by association of ideas with a chessboard and pieces, possibly included due to his chess playing period in Château-d’Oex. Interestingly, Escher is making a point here, albeit quite what he is implying is not certain. As such, a game is in process, of which the ending is only moments away. Indeed, White is in check by the Black Queen, of which the taking of the piece, by the White Rook, is forced. Black’s next move is then to reply with Knight to King’s Bishop 7, resulting in a checkmate. Such a precise, pivotal moment in the game can hardly have been depicted without some deeper meaning behind it. Possibly, and most likely, as the position echoes the print in terms of near completion, Escher included this as a clear signal of the impending conclusion. However, another interpretation is possible. As Escher himself was a keen player (being a member of the local club), it is quite possible that this is an actual end position of one of his games. Chess enthusiasts will recognise that it involves some pleasing subtleties, namely involving a sacrifice (although to be pedantic as this is the correct play, leading to a forced mate, and so cannot thus be considered as a sacrifice in the true meaning of the sense). Such matters can be said to be aesthetic in chess circles, and so he therefore decided to portray his abilities (or appreciation) of the game per se. As such, a tour de force of his skills, of which for such an early stage of his tessellation-based work is deserving of much praise. Furthermore, a true appreciation of this print is really only attainable by seeing it full size and not reproduced small scale in arbitrary blocks in the books of his work, albeit here of course the book format dictates a more condensed viewing. However, although of possessing much merit, this print is not without criticism in an aesthetic sense, as the bird and fish motifs metamorphosise in different directions. Such an effect is somewhat jarring to the eye, and better would have been for the motifs to all face the same direction, thereby aiding the scanning process of the eye, albeit to expect perfection in this matter is practically unattainable, as such numbers of the required drawings was not a practical proposition at this early date. Indeed, even with a lifetime of tessellation behind him, the number of such examples is a mere handful. Furthermore, the joining of the chessboard with the pieces on to the chessboard of metamophose is somewhat abrupt – a more gradual effect would have been better.
[12] FISH This woodcut is of a somewhat obscure nature, as quite what idea or concept Escher is portraying here is not at all clear. Although various ‘weaves’ of the different fishes occurs in circuits, this seems to be of an arbitrary detail – clever, certainly, but somewhat purposeless. Furthermore, the fish cannot be said to be of the highest quality per se, and as such, all this contributes to the lack of ‘economy of effort’ as displayed by his better-known prints. Such lack of clarity in these aspects is disappointing, as this was a major work of Escher's, due to the sheer number of motifs involved, all of which must have entailed much time and effort involved for such a relatively disappointing print in terms of an unambiguous entity.
[13] VERBUM Verbum must be considered as amongst the finest of his prints, and indeed, a case can be made for assessing it of the best of all, certainly at least in terms of its virtuosity, of which it has no rival. Quite simply, the concept and composition is of the highest degree, with symmetry of ideas abounding. Escher here takes the theme of three elements, namely air, earth and water, and then by utilising appropriate representing motifs duly illustrates these in a unifying composition, of which an appropriate symmetry was chosen, dictated by the choice of three quantities, of a hexagon. In this particular case, the idea for such a concept came not from his usual process of composing a arbitrary tessellation and then seeing if a concept was possible, but instead he proactively created tessellations for the express purpose of the print. As mentioned previously, this ‘forced’ style of creation is not necessarily conducive to tessellations of inherent quality, but here Escher's examples are well up to his normal high standards. Indeed, they are further meritoriously as they not only were they composed for a specific purpose in a abstract sense, as further restrictions were imposed by the constraints of the composition i.e. specific groupings of the motifs were in order. Therefore, the sheer quality of the motifs is a cause for praise, albeit inevitably compromises do indeed occur, as the frogs are somewhat ill proportioned. As regards the print itself, it would be most illuminating to have read Escher's impressions of this, as the complexities are quite considerable. Regrettably, for such a major work, Escher did not comment upon this in any detail, sufficing himself with general comments. Now, the composition is self evidently based upon a hexagonal framework, from which emanating radially from the centre a series of equilateral triangles gain in contour and simultaneously contrast to represent the above three elements at their extremities. The diagram below shows schematically the arrangement of these motifs, of which the symmetry is consistent. When the motifs become fully developed as in the middle of the main block of motifs, the background can be seen to reflect their natural environment, all of which, by a series of slight increments of nuances, adds up to a composition of superb quality. As such, the time involved in the planning of all this must have been considerable, of necessity involving numerous studies that belie the difficulties of the concept.
[14] REPTILES Reptiles is a print that is generally placed amongst his finest works, and despite a non-descriptive title for the happenings of the composition, the concept behind this of a unambiguous cycle of the reptiles is self evident. As such, the reptiles emerge from their original plane tiling, and in this particular example, perhaps better than any other, more clearly demonstrates Escher’s urging in a literal sense, in Regular Division, to ‘come out of there and do something…’ as the transition from a ‘tessellation-confined’ reptile to its leaving of the drawing to ‘achieve’ is clearly seen. As such, different people have various interpretations of this, with some seeing values of reincarnation. My own interpretation is that of an analogy of a mountain climber, as upon leaving, or alternatively escaping from the confines of the drawing, the reptile than ascends a series of arbitrary objects, these increasing in their height, until at the pinnacle of this assembly the creature then gives a snort of triumph (a ‘planting of the flag’). From this elevated position, there is thus no higher place to go, and, from which upon the descent it then returns back to ‘base camp’, to the drawing. Interestingly, Escher has rounded of the corners of the print, of which for his square and rectangular shaped examples occurs only in three other instances, and so this thus suggests that by so doing he is trying to emphasise the inherently circularity of the composition. As such, a clear, logical concept of an (unstated) cycle is admirably shown, of which even by a cursory inspection is the above clear without having to delve too deeply into the intricacies of the print.
[15] ENCOUNTER Preparatory drawings in: World, pages 157-160 Escher here utilises a drawing that has as its components two distinct human-like figures, coloured black and white, albeit the black figure is grossly distorted, and is essentially a ‘fantasy figure’, somewhat devil-like. Indeed, the possibility of such a motif thus provides the potential for a perfect composition, as the motifs have a natural affinity or association, of which such possibilities arise most infrequently, due to the inherent difficulties of composing tessellations that have essentially as a by-product an obvious connection. Therefore, it is perhaps surprising that Escher did not utilise such ‘good/evil’ idea, at least directly, as instead he chose for his a ‘pessimist and optimist’ of which he contrives an encounter (and actual physical meeting) for the two figures at the denouement, essentially in a spirit of mutual cordiality. As such, this arguably somewhat goes against the figures ‘character types’, as it could be said that the figures essentially ‘concur’ despite their initial disparate natures. In contrast to this ‘happy’ story, in a compositional sense it would have been much better to have set the scene as in Hell, with the figures as ‘man and the devil’, from which an obvious moral tale could be made of the failings of man. Therefore, rather than the ‘friendly greeting’ of Escher's composition, a somewhat less than savoury embrace by the devil could have been so arranged. Indeed, the compositions background, of a sort of bottomless pit, gives additional ideas, such as the sinner shortly to be cast aside to his inevitable fate. Such matters of my own possibilities aside here, aesthetically it remains a very satisfactory composition. In contrast to most of his prints, preliminary drawings of this of which a considerable amount of planning went into arranging the motifs into a satisfying whole, studies of which can be seen in. However, although as an idea and in its execution it is certainly pleasing, nonetheless it lacks the inherent simplicity of other related two motif compositions, such as with Sky and Water I.
[16] MAGIC MIRROR The main idea of this lithograph is that of a ‘magic mirror’ of Escher's devising, with a secondary aspect of a cycle being evident. This is yet another of his ‘clever’ compositions, of necessity requiring an intense study to surmise exactly what is occurring here. Indeed, even with the above intense look, much of this still remains obscure. However, the primary premise is that of a ‘magic mirror’, whereby ‘winged dog-like’ creatures gradually emerge and develop from the mirror, whereupon being fully formed they turn the corner and eventually return to their tessellating drawing. A pleasing, subtle feature to this is that this scenario is literally reflected in the opposite half, whereby the procession of the creatures is repeated despite the mirror forming an apparent obstruction. However, although this is presumably the raison d’être of the print, this is not to say it does not have any shortfalls. Most notably, despite the creatures possessing wings, this feature is redundant in the print – ideally, flight would have played some part here. In addition, the creatures do not really do anything per se, although it could indeed be argued here that this would be unnecessary in the context of the print, this aspect being subordinate. However, as they are of a somewhat fierce appearance, along with a natural confrontational manner due to their symmetry involving a ‘meeting’, some sort of a conflict could have been so composed, thereby unifying the composition as a whole.
[17] HORSEMAN Apparently, this woodcut is based upon a Mobius band, although as such Escher portrays this in a somewhat unclear manner, as the band is not shown as it normally appears. Indeed, the complexities of the portrayal in this instance are somewhat obscure, and therefore I thus refer the reader to Magic Mirror, whereby along with a discussion of the Mobius band per se Ernst also undertakes an analysis of the intricacies involved of this print.
[18] SUN AND MOON Bool 357 This woodcut is primarily concerned with the aspect of figure and ground per se, of which I have discussed in more detail in processes. Escher here thus utilises a theme of light and darkness (sun and moon), of which by concentrating on one of the two themes as foreground, the other instantly becomes background. In contrast to most of his tessellating prints, this is based upon a considerably larger number of inherently distinct motifs, namely twelve birds, and so probably this is a rare instance where the idea came first with the tessellation being especially designed for this specific purpose.
[19] BOAT AND FISH Before I begin the analysis proper, there is a slight discrepancy in the chronology for these motifs. Although it is based on drawing 72 of December 1948, the print is dated earlier than the drawing, namely November 1948 i.e. the print precedes the source. Such matters aside, this woodcut is interesting in two distinct ways, as it provides a series of firsts in Escher's works. Firstly, it is the first commissioned work (for a new year’s greeting card of L. and K. Asselbergs) that has as its source elements from his tessellations. Secondly, this is the first of a series of what I term as ‘quick’ counterchanges (of which I have discussed the intricacies of this type in Processes), in contrast to relatively ‘slower’ examples that precede this work. Presumably, he chose this particular type for reasons of expedience due to the commission nature of the work.
[20] PLANE FILLING MOTIF WITH BIRDS This vignette was created for the express purpose of an exhibition card for Escher's work for the Van Lier Art gallery of Blaricum, 14 May-11 June 1949. As such, there is nothing of any significance or indeed innovative to this, as he merely repeats the same motifs from a contemporary drawing.
[21] BIRD AND HORSE This is the second of the series of smaller scale works that Escher did for the purposes of illustrating exhibition cards of forthcoming displays of his works, here for the Boymens museum of Rotterdam, along with reusing this for subsequent galleries. As such, the choice of format is dictated by the above purpose, being of a small scale suitable for a card. In addition, Escher was by now completely familiar with the counterchange process and presumably thus sought a appropriate motif to utilise for a relatively unimportant matter per se. As such, this shows a counterchange of a very quick cycle, of only four stages. Indeed, this is of the quickest type that is practical, as any faster the counterchange would occur so quickly that such a feature would not be recognisable as such. A theme of air and land is evident, with a bird and horse representing the two ideals respectively, and although successful lacks the more obvious opposites of sky and water. Furthermore, the motifs can be seen to be out of scale to each other – is this a normal sized bird with a miniature horse or is the other way around? As previously mentioned, such matters of aesthetics raise the composition from acceptability (as here) to exultation (as with Sky and Water I).
[22] FISH AND FROGS Again, another wood engraving for the purpose of a subsequent exhibition card, for the Goois museum in Hilversum of 12 June-12 July 1954. Presumably, Escher did a series of these type of prints for cards, and rather than doing so contemporaneously did a batch of them. As such, this has much in common with the preceding one (Bool 363), at least in style, format and scale. Escher can be seen to have reversed the normal, logical placing the motifs, as here the sea creatures are above the land ones. Presumably, this was by intent, as the correct placements would have been just as easily accomplished as the other.
[23] BUTTERFLIES Although appearing as an ordinary wood engraving at first sight, consisting of butterflies that are released or are alternatively escaping from their tessellation framework, from which they also grow in size and development, this belies some quite involved mathematics behind the scenes. Indeed, such matters were beyond the scope of Escher, of which here he essentially utilises a mathematical diagram without needing or requiring to understand the mathematics behind this. An excellent explanation of this is shown by John F. Rigby, who discusses the intricacies behind this print in Art and Science, pages 211-220, from which it will be seen that it is based upon a grid of diminishing circles, the mathematics of which is involved is of a decidedly advanced nature. Quite simply, the intricacy involved renders this print only suitable in matters of appreciation for those who can understand the mathematics behind it. Leaving such background matters aside, this print; therefore, due to its apparent simplicity of ‘merely’ a developmental nature cannot thus be assessed aesthetically as of the top ranking of Escher's work.
[24] DEVILS This vignette was composed for an invitation card for an joint exhibition of Escher's and a colleague for a gallery in Amsterdam of 14 November-14 December 1950, and this was also later subsequently reused for another exhibit solely of Escher’s, of 3-29 October 1953. The choice of motifs here seems somewhat surprising to include for this purpose, as these motifs are hardly the most welcoming. Such matters aside, the print can be seen to be based upon a considerably earlier drawing that precedes the print by six years. From this, Escher then utilises a ‘two-unit column’ of the motifs, from which consequently as the outside edges of these are thus no longer are of a tessellation nature, are thus effectively ‘freed-up’ for a more realistic outline. This is notably shown by the tails, which are considerably more sinuous here. Likewise with the devils at the top and bottom, where the lower one assumes a sitting position so fitting in the framework of the cards rectangular format. However, in these particular examples, consisting of ‘imaginary’ motifs such as devils, this is not readily a feature of undue requirement.
[25] NEW YEAR’S GREETING CARD L. AND K. ASSELBERGS
[26] PREDESTINATION This lithograph is interesting in that Escher uses a device for the first time whereby a single outline can represent two distinct motifs (of which I have written about in Processes), namely of a bird and fish. Such instances of this feature are most rare, for the obvious reason of the outline having to represent an additional motif (presumably on account of such rarity, these motifs can also be seen again in a later print, of June 1957, Bool 416). Furthermore, purely by chance, the motifs portrayed here, of birds and fishes, form a natural opposite in terms of their respective abodes, from which for compositional purposes such combinations are ideal. As to the print itself, this is one of the better ones in terms of clarity of idea, as there is no obscurity in what is occurring here. Essentially, birds and fish develop from their respective frameworks, forming a series of loops, which by their very nature lead to an inevitable outcome whereby the motifs collide, with the ferocious fish grabbing the bird, a set of circumstances dictated by the composition, hence the title of Predestination. In contrast to the usual scenario in real life of birds eating fish, the roles are reversed here – this thus neatly illustrates the ‘lack of morality’ (again, see Processes) concerning tessellation motifs, as the motifs dictate the outline, despite a somewhat less than savoury outcome at times, as with the above. Escher wrote in relative detail of the intricacies of this print, of which an article by J. C. Ebbinge Wubben in Openbaar kunstbezit (Public Art Collection) discussed this, of which a translation of Escher's aims in this matter can be found in Visions of Symmetry, page 238.
[27] PLANE FILLING I This mezzotint is noticeably different in nature than with Escher's examples containing tessellation elements, as it does not have any story or compositional aspects to it, as he essentially repeats the periodic drawing that it is based upon. Consequently, the comments that apply to the periodic drawing thus remain relevant here, of which I thus defer to.
[28] PLANE FILLING MOTIF WITH FISH AND BIRD Quite what the purpose is of this small-scale linoleum cut remains to be seen. As such, it shows a asymmetric distribution of the motifs (four fish, one bird) and is also somewhat crudely rendered, as the scales of the fish possess no perspective (in contrast to his other fish examples, such as with Sky and Water I) that thereby would suggest some degree of three-dimensionality. Of this small scale type, Escher generally releases the motifs or at least ‘frees up’ the outer lines, but this print does none of this, with the motifs remaining as shown in their source drawing, No.84. Speculating, this very much appears to be a study of sorts, and nothing more. Whatever, it contains nothing of innovation or substance, and so is thus it is not of any consequence.
[29] TWO INTERSECTING PLANES This woodcut is innovative as it contains an idea that is essentially new, in that Escher takes two ‘strips’ of an apparently arbitrary tessellation (he could have utilised others), and thereby tilts these at right angles to each other at a shallow incline so that at a single point these intersect, hence the title. As such, this is very much of the type whereby Escher sets out to challenge himself, in effect a private exercise, as despite such a possibility being successfully achieved here the print lacks the aesthetic purity of his more popular works. Of interest is the fact that his utilised a drawing that was just over ten years old. This thereby suggests that the idea of such a thing arose in his imagination, and so did not occur due to the ‘suggestion’ of a contemporary drawing.
[30] EARTH This woodcut forms the first of a series of four prints of new year’s greetings cards commissioned by Eugène and Willy Strens (for the years 1953-1956) on the theme of the four elements, namely earth, air, fire and water, and so are all of a similar nature as to style and format. (Furthermore, the prints are all based upon his tessellations whereby composition does not play a feature, and effectively merely reproduce a square format of the respective motifs, with only minor changes, if at all. Interestingly, although not of any real importance, this is the first one of his prints whereby the motifs are delineated by a white line/space, in contrast to the more common black outlines of the periodic drawings. However, in his prints he generally does not need to use such features, as they are, due to compositional reasons whereby the motifs are more clearly delineated, unnecessary.) The motifs here represent Earth, and are taken directly from the periodic drawing with no inherent changes, although the motifs are turned 45° in relation to the drawing for the card. |
|