Talk:Waterfall (M. C. Escher)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Visual artsWikipedia:WikiProject Visual artsTemplate:WikiProject Visual artsvisual arts articles

Netherlands

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles

Visual perspective[edit]

Maybe some mention should be made that some play occurs in the image with respect to contrasts in visual perspective. I.e., the foreground is drawn in axonometric projection, while the background is drawn in perspective projection. This provides some marked contrast to further confuse the viewer. SharkD (talk) 08:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or am I wrong? SharkD Talk 17:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cool animation[edit]

Here is a cool animation showing what the structure might look like in real life (here is the text description for the movie). Should it be linked to from the article? SharkD (talk) 07:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what is known as a line of sight illusion. In the animation, the split has been made at the top of the waterfall, but it could have been made anywhere along the water course, or there could be more than one split, provided all the bits fit together nicely when viewed from the intended angle. Dendropithecus (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Water running upward?[edit]

I thought the reason it was an illusion was because the water was meant to be going downhill all the way. The first paragraph says differently though.Jezzamon (talk) 00:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's unclear - so initially made it downhill, then re-edited to clarify. It's going uphill, but if you look at just the path of the water moving up, it appears to go downhill. Nineran (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What seems to violate conservation?[edit]

The article claims the drawing seems to but surely it is what is depicted and not the depiction which does the apparent violating? -- 15:33, 23 July 2011‎ 131.251.142.154