This section interviews the leading lights of contemporary tessellation, with a series of questions concerning their own thoughts on the subject. Rather than contacting ‘likely’ people, I offer an open invitation to any person featured on Andrew Crompton’s site, or Patrick Snels database listing, to set out their views on the subject based on that of the questions and answers below, in which I give a typical example of the type of writing I am looking for.
This section is still being developed; if anyone has further suggestions or questions that are of possible interest that are not covered by that below I would be delighted to hear from any reader.
Broadly, as well as the views expressed as being of interest in their own right, a secondary aim is to examine the individual creative processes, and seeing if these have aspects in common, or indeed differ, and so perhaps sow the seeds of new ideas, or new avenues.

2. What do you consider your best work, and what are its particular merits? In addition, what other examples do you consider that stand out for the rest?
It’s hard to select a single example, in that I consider many to be of a very high quality, with the differences, if at all, being nuances. However, if pressed, I consider the girl with flowing hair tessellation to be my favourite. Just about everything is ideal about this, with every element in proportion (although one could question the hair). Also, the motif itself, a human figure, I consider challenging for tessellation purposes, and so more worthwhile than easier examples, of birds and fishes. Furthermore, for obvious reasons, human motifs are worthy of more attention than other creatures vis a vis, in the art world per se, compare the popularity of portraits as against, say, an ant, to give an arbitrary example. Other examples I favour are the Human figure in dungarees. Arguably, this is even better, in that the silhouette is even more compelling than the girl with flowing hair.

3. What do you find “fascinating” about tessellation?
To me, it’s the initial ‘surprise’ of the image. In normal, everyday life, one does not see figurative images (as against non-representational instances, such as tiles) as interlocking, without overlaps or gaps, of which the effect gives one a jolt, a ‘unusual’ picture, in that it would appear to be a hard feat to achieve, with the immediate query of the uninitiated as to how this was done. Aside from that, the challenge of producing a recreational figure that is as closest as possible to the object it is supposedly portraying, something of quality, as against something baring only loose resemblance, of to me which to me the latter misses the point; it should either resemble exactly, or at the very least very closely be. That is the challenge. As can be seen, such a feat is not easy, many instances are essentially worthless.

4. What do you consider the most important aspect of a high-quality tessellation?
Without any doubt whatsoever, the recognition of the motif in silhouette, immediately, without even a second glance being necessary. This is, or should be, just about everything. Only in very few exceptions can this be overridden, such as when the motif is portrayed at an angle, of which the silhouette will naturally be less recognizable. This aspect is scandalously ignored by most artists; any one tessellation is as good as any other seems to be the prevailing view of many people.

5. Which contemporary tessellation artists do think highly of?
In particular, I like Makoto Nakamura. His higher quality examples, of which there are many, of many different motifs (and not just of the easier to accomplish birds and fish), are quite superb. Alain Nicolas is also very good indeed. Again, he has both quality and variety. Another great talent, little known (regrettably so), is Nick Scalfittura. He specialises in human figures, and of this type he is arguably the best in the field. I also like Bruce Bilney and Andrew Crompton, both with quality and variety.

6. Do you still think the subject has areas to explore, or did Escher mine it to exhaustion?
As a simple statement, it still has plenty of areas to explore. One of my regrets is that people seem to think that Escher did ‘everything’, with nothing left for any further generations to do. This could not be further from the truth. Indeed Escher omitted many, many motifs, far too many to list here. Escher himself is open to criticism in a number of ways. Far too much reliance was placed on ‘flatfish’, these being at best (due to the vague silhouette aspect) inconsequential, or more exactly next to worthless. Far too much leaning is given to birds and fish as motifs (the easiest motifs to compose), at the expense of more challenging motifs, such as human figures. (Escher only did four of the latter and only one of which is broadly worthwhile; compare that to Scalfittura’s abundance and of far greater quality.) Certainly, Escher deserves great credit for pioneering the way, but as regards to claims of him having done everything of worth in tessellation, this is quite frankly, and demonstrably, risible.

7. How do you go about designing a tessellation; do you have just one process, or many?
Broadly, I design a tessellation without a preconceived motif in mind (other artists do the opposite, discussed below). I do this by two different, but related processes. Firstly, with a given tiling polygon, by taking random, gently curved lines and distorting the sides (as according to the mathematical arrangement of the tile, to retain the tiling principle), and then looking at the resultant shape, seeing if this has any resemblance to any particular motif. If so, I then further refine this initial drawing to make it as representational as what it bears resemblance to as possible. If not, it can be quickly abandoned without further ado, and so keeping any wasted time down to a minimum. Secondly, still in keeping with the above, again with a tiling polygon, as according to the tiling principle, by taking random simple geometric lines to a tiling polygon, typically of just three elements, as according to the grid lines of typically squared paper. Typically, this procedure is good for composing ‘geometric’ bird and fish motifs, of which again, can be further refined, if so desired, with curves replacing the straight lines (to be more life-like). This is generally the way that most people approach the problem. Certainly, Escher himself did this, and so does Alain Nicolas, high recommendations indeed. One process that I have seen by others, but have not used myself, is that of beginning with a arbitrary given motif first, and then ‘adapting’ it to a tiling pattern. Proponents of this procedure include Nick Scalfittura and Andrew Crompton. Interestingly, their work stands comparison with Escher and Nicolas, any indeed any others of the top tessellators, and so which method is ‘best’ is difficult to say. Perhaps it’s just a matter of personal choice.

Created: 22 March 2012