History
Swedish artist Oscar Reutersvärd was the first to deliberately design many impossible objects. He has been called "the father of impossible figures". In 1934 he drew the Penrose triangle, some years before the Penroses. In Reutersvärd's version the sides of the triangle are broken up into cubes.
In 1956, British psychiatrist Lionel Penrose and his son, mathematician Roger Penrose, submitted a short article to the British Journal of Psychology titled "Impossible Objects: A Special Type of Visual Illusion". This was illustrated with the Penrose triangle and Penrose stairs. The article referred to Escher, whose work had sparked their interest in the subject, but not Reutersvärd, of whom they were unaware. The article was only published in 1958.
From the 1930s onwards Dutch artist M.C. Escher produced many drawings featuring paradoxes of perspective gradually working towards impossible objects. In 1957 he produced his first drawing containing a true impossible object: Cube with Magic Ribbons. He produced many further drawings featuring impossible objects, sometimes with the entire drawing being an undecidable figure. His work did much to draw the attention of the public to impossible objects. Some contemporary artists are also experimenting with impossible figures, for example, Jos de Mey, Shigeo Fukuda, Sandro del Prete, István Orosz (Utisz), Guido Moretti, Tamás F. Farkas and Mathieu Hamaekers.
Read more about this topic: Impossible Objects
Famous quotes containing the word history:
“When the history of this period is written, [William Jennings] Bryan will stand out as one of the most remarkable men of his generation and one of the biggest political men of our country.”
—William Howard Taft (1857–1930)
“False history gets made all day, any day,
the truth of the new is never on the news
False history gets written every day
...
the lesbian archaeologist watches herself
sifting her own life out from the shards she’s piecing,
asking the clay all questions but her own.”
—Adrienne Rich (b. 1929)
“To summarize the contentions of this paper then. Firstly, the phrase ‘the meaning of a word’ is a spurious phrase. Secondly and consequently, a re-examination is needed of phrases like the two which I discuss, ‘being a part of the meaning of’ and ‘having the same meaning.’ On these matters, dogmatists require prodding: although history indeed suggests that it may sometimes be better to let sleeping dogmatists lie.”
—J.L. (John Langshaw)