As such, I am somewhat reluctant to critique this book on the grounds that Murphy is not specifically setting out as ‘how to do’ Escher art per se, as the book is concerned with various aspects of mathematics, as only Chapter 10 is concerned with tessellations per se, and this is mostly of the mathematical aspect rather than of the Escher aspect. However, as it does include instances of life-like motifs, it is thus reviewed.
Murphy purports to give a general study of tessellation, of a relatively more in-depth mathematical treatment than with, say, Ranucci and Teeters. Unfortunately, much of the material is overblown, in which the tessellation aspects are unnecessarily made more complex than necessary. To apparently lighten the study, Murphy introduces Escher-like art to some of the tessellations, of which these fail miserably. Indeed, read these as how not to do tessellation…
1. Fish and Frog, page 197
A frog, where? There is nothing frog-like about the outline or the interior detail...The bird is faintly recognisable, but even so, very far from a true outline.
2. Dog, page 197, fig. 10.6
Now, upon examining the example by Murphy, it may at first glance appear to be a perfectly acceptable dog to the novice, as it possesses, or at least has interior markings, of a head, body, legs and tail. However, such apparent 'quality' is misleading, as upon comparing the line drawing with its silhouette, it can be seen that the latter is now barely recognisable as a dog. Indeed, to my eye the silhouette is more reminiscent of another creature altogether, a frog. So, what is it that explains the difference? Essentially, Murphy's dog is lacking in definition, as the elements are very poor in this matter. Essentially, he has added detail to poor raw material. Shortcomings include:
• Poor definition of the underside of body and legs. Here the underside of the body and legs combine as a single mass, thus rendering no distinction between the elements. As such, this is the major shortcoming.
• Poor definition of neck. Essentially, the neck is ignored, with the head joined immediately at the body.
• Poor definition of chest. Essentially, the chest is ignored, as the head immediately joins the legs.
• Poor definition of the head. The head possesses no muzzle or stop or chin (although some breeds do not have a stop, and so it could be argued that this example is thus not a shortcoming. However, as most breeds do, this should ideally be included).
• Poor definition of body. Essentially, elements are drawn onto a body that lacks clarity. Furthermore, towards the rear of the dog is a pronounced 'gouge' in the back before the tail.
Aside from the inherent shortcomings is the lack of anatomical correctness concerning the drawing of the details:
• The hind legs are shown incorrectly, being far too much towards the top of the dogs' back
• The legs are shown as mere appendages
• Conflicting perspectives, with the eye shown as seen from the front, whilst the rest of the detail is as portrayed from the side
In short, this is as poor an example of a dog as could be.
3. Cross-legged Chicken, page 197, fig.
Well, at least the head is reasonable, but the rest…
4. Bird page 203, fig.10.15 (ii)
Well, the head is reasonable, but as for the rest… From the back of the wings to the tail has no definition whatsoever. Admittedly, Murphy states that this bird is ‘merely decoration’ to the tile, but even so, why add such a poor decoration? Incidentally, a better motif for the tile would have been a fish.
5. Demon Bowler, page 204, fig.10.17
Oh dear. This example is of a type that is occasionally seen that is perhaps misunderstood, in that at face value this might be taken as good by the novice, in that a complete ‘demon bowler’ is portrayed, albeit of a disproportionate scale, with the head too large for the body. Also, the legs and feet are somewhat odd. However, examples of this type are amongst the very worse. Upon inspecting the tile more closely, it can be seen that Murphy has taken liberties with the interior design, this not matching the tiles outline, resulting in ‘negative space’ between tile and motif (with the exception of the top of the head). Therefore, no skill whatsoever is shown here. As an analogy, take a square, and draw a lifelike motif in its interior. Easy, beyond drawing ability, no skill whatsoever is required. In principle, that is all Murphy has done here. When the tile itself is examined, this does not resemble a demon bowler in any way, and so is yet another failure.
6. Fish (Plaice)
Summary Well, a very sorry state of affairs indeed. Not a single tessellation can be said to be worthy.
Last updated: 27 September 2009