|
|
|
|
|
by jgtrosh
3110 days ago
|
|
As suggested in the discussion points, thin lines/stripes get muddled up with wider adjacent surfaces. Is this a problem with the goal of the exercise ? Maybe it needs to be more clearly defined. I suppose the idea is that the method and the style fit together nicely, and as a result the paintings are representable quite efficiently with low resolution triangulations. It already mostly fits the bill, except for some exceptions to the main shapes represented. Does the author suggest further work should be devoted to improving the efficiency of the depiction? I guess the thin lines are quite important in keeping the paintings structured but I'm not sure what's to gain from that exercise if straying too far from the original triangulation — I think you'd lose the amusing coincidence of these concepts applying nicely together. |
|
It's not really supposed to be useful, just exploration in reduction of an already reduced art style: what is lost when we enforce that all shapes are triangles that tend to be more large-angle? For one, I think this destroys the perspective since one common trope is to make objects narrower as they are farther away.
Although the entire thing is mostly a joke based on their shared last names.