Depth

‘After almost endless effort I finished my new fish print. Although I am absolutely not satisfied with it (the simplicity of the “depth suggestion” to be expressed is one of the most difficult tasks I have ever set myself), I cannot consider it completely unsuccessful either. The feeling that I have completed it to the best of my ability is no guarantee of quality, but it does give me some peace of mind. I will send you a print of it next Monday, shall we say: as a special birthday gift from me. You will also get some sweets or something, by slow boat, but a light package like this can be send through the air.'*

1. Spatial structure

With subcategories:

1. Landscape prints (e.g. Castrovalva)
2. Penetration into different worlds (e.g. Hand with reflecting sphere)
3. Abstract, mathematical solids (e.g. Tetrahedral planetoid)

2. Flat surface structure

With subcategories:

1. Metamorphoses (e.g. Development II)
2. Cycles (e.g. Reptiles)
3. Approaches to infinity (e.g. Circle Limit IV)

3. Pictorial representation of the relationship between space and flat surface

With subcategories:

1. The essence of representation (e.g. Dragon)
2. Perspective (e.g. Other world)
3. Impossible figures (e.g. Belvedère)**

1922-1937: Landscape Period

1956-1970: Period of Approaches to infinity***

'I fear that you will not be overly impressed with the result. Perhaps to cushion the blow of a scathing opinion, allow me to say the following: as a motif I could only use a very simplified form of a fish, more of a symbol than a real fish, because the “thing” repeats itself about eighty times, each time from a slightly different angle. I tried to suggest the intended depth effect in all sorts of “ways”, each of which had to be studied individually from a technical perspective and be accessible. At the risk of boring you, let me follow with some methods on how to suggest depth.

1. Contours. The thickness of the contours decreases as the distance increases.
2. A network of lines. Each fish is, in principle, formed of the same number of lines (for example, on average 32 curved hatchings fill the spindle-shaped body).
3. Rhythmic positioning of each fish at the intersections of a cubic three-axis system. To draw extra attention to that three-axis system (I first made some desperate attempts to arrive at a less ordinary division of space, for example the tetra-octahedral option and others, all of which prove to be too unusual to evoke a strong suggestion in the untrained observer), I accentuated those three axes in each animal, as a spatial cross shape. This organically gives rise to nice series (a lot of them) of three or four obliquely placed, contiguous objects; you can see the same truncation in the trees of a forest planted according to square, rectangle, or other method.
4. The colour of the “black” plank (actually dark brown) is “full” only in the front fish, i.e. as dark as possible at the given strength of colour mixing. By pressing less hard as the distance increases, the colour becomes less full; the same result is achieved by multiplying fine hatchings to the back, not in print, but in the engraving itself.
5. The two colours. Near a “warm” one, far away a “cold” one. Hence as the depth increases, the warmth decreases and the cold colour increases.

There might be more systematicities or systematisations, but this is quite enough I would say. Can such a methodically designed case still be considered “art”? For that you should first know what art is, and I do not know.'*

A mirrored version of the final study and the resulting print. Compare them by moving the slider.