I also vote Dali: on the grounds that Escher's work, while interesting to
look at, is generally not much more than a manipulation of space. Once
people were sufficiently disoriented in EscherLand they would undoubtedly
become bored and seek CONTENT.
Enter DaliLand, where we are constantly challenged not only by unique
perspectives, but by symbolic objects, brilliant colors and textures,
surreal environments, and endless possibilities for extrapolation of ideas.
Not optical illusion, but mental illusion, which, in my view, is much more
interesting.
Ethan.
I'd say that at this point, we've established that both Dali and
Escher have sufficient "steam." They each cover different domains,
and I'm more partial to Dali as an artist, but I think a study of the
spatial properties of Escher certainly has a lot to offer.
I think we should do both. The only question is in what order. The
obvious options are:
1) Start with Escher and concentrate on it exclusively.
We already have about 5-6 posts pending about Escher.
2) Do both a Dali and an Escher discussion at the same time.
I do not advocate adding any other artists to focus on at this time.
If we do (2), then we will certainly have our hands full. I think
Lewis Carrol and/or the psychadelic blue cloud that turns red when you
mention Rush Limbaugh will have to wait. At least for in-depth
discussion - I'm not trying to censor anyone, there's just a limit to
how much time everyone has to react to everything.
Personally, I vote for (2), as it will please the most people, and I'm
perfectly happy to talk about both. It's also what's most likely to
happen in practice, as people probably won't like being put in Escher
straight-jackets. :-) In the future we can try (1) if
we find that (2) doesn't work very well.
So I'd say start gathering up your art books. :-)
Cheers,
Brandon