The Magic of Reflection

I think I finally have a machine for seeing that functions!  I made the viewing portal into a long rectangle, like a telescope, instead of trying to use something wider and closer to the eye because the length automatically gives you more control of the view.  I still wanted to keep the lines as well, using them to create perspective and to organize the view. 
So right now, I have a rectangle about 14inches long and on the inside each side has a layer of plexi.  Because the two sides are about an inch apart, it is close enough to use the reflectiveness of the material.  There are two horizontal lines running down the center of the sides towards the viewport.  I'm not sure if they are really forcing you to follow them though, becuase it is easy to lose the lines in the reflection.  I was also originally planning on create moveable partitions of plexi with vertical lines that would help break up the view.  The viewport is so small however that only one or two lines are visible at a time.  They look cool in reflection but I don't think they are working to create a perspective so I don't know if they are worth using. 
With or without the lines, the plexi creates essentially nine different views of the same thing.  This works well with the painting because Le Corbusier seems to present objects in multiple views at once, and I am doing the same with my landscape.  

A view from the inside

Catching Up

On Tuesday we presented our landscapes based on the painting and one of Le Corbusier's buildings.  I can't say that I am overly thrilled with my landscape, but it was an interesting exercise.  I finally started to get away from the objects of the painting and tried to look at the lines of the painting.  One thing I thought was interesting was that when I went to draw the axon, the lower parts were at the top of the painting so i flipped the model upside down to draw it.  I should have flipped it upside down to study the painting more because then I may have gotten away from the objects.  I think my landscape still had too much of the bottles in the end, but it forced me to take a different approach to the painting, which is one of the lessons of cubism- that you can always find a different approach. 



Model of landscape



Axon of landscape

And now on to the machines for seeing.  At first the assignment seemed scary.  How do you create something to see nothing?  But as I started to look around my room and think about things that would change what you saw, it seems less scary and more fun.  I started to take lines and tried to see if I could force you to recognize what you are looking through.  As for seeing nothing, I think having an excess of things to see and having it all blur together will be overwhelming so that you see nothing in particular.  After Friday's desk crit, I am excited to see what I can make.

When we were first told we would have to use the painting and a Le Corbusier building to create an inhabitable space, it didn't seem that scary.  Complete freedom, yes, but there was a place to work from- the painting.  This has proven more challenging because even though it is the same painting, there are so many options.  As the first reading told us, there are so many ways to look at Cubism, and I think in order to successfully create a landscape, I've had to look at the painting in a different way.  After all of our investigation into the paintings, there is still so much to get from it.  So instead of focusing on how the objects are laid out in space, I'm looking for relationship horizontally.  This means also taking a different look at what the color changes might mean and how they can be translated into space.  I'm working on taking the defining horizontal lines and turning them into a continous defining wall and seeing where that takes me.


Yesterday was our final review of the Cubist paintings, and it was interesting to hear the different approaches for the paintings and to see the way different model making decisions informed us about the paintings.  Here are my models for Le Corbusier's Still Life from the Pavilion from the oldest to newest. 
 

First Attempt at Transparency and Layers

 

Objects in Space on the Table





Attempt at Transparency by Color

Objects in Space

Layering with one Image of the Picture



First Objects Model



Final Objects Model



3D Model of Painting



Final Layering Model





















Object Continuity

My most recent attempt at a model of the objects has actually proven more successful than the last.  I made an earlier model of the objects on a flat board, looking at where they could be if they were on a table.  Then I made an attempt at an object model using only one copy of the painting.  It worked to some extent to show that there is continuity between objects.  I tried a sort of diorama model looking again at where the objects would be located in space.  That model had an inclined plane and I placed the objects so that if you were looking at the model straight on, the objects would be at the right heights.  The failure in that logic is that some of the objects looked like they were on top of each other. 

The funny part is the fact that the objects look like they are on top of each other is why the new model works.  In the new model, I started by cutting out the objects and folding them where the tops or bottoms were shown in plan.  I was placing one glass in front of another when I realized that the parts in plan coincided with each other.  The objects step back into each other so all of the objects are connected.  Thinking about this, it makes sense why I kept getting stuck on where the objects sit and why it doesn’t matter what the objects are. In 2D space, all of the objects overlap- I assumed the overlapping was only about transparency, but any rules I tried to set up for what was transparent failed.  The painting is a piece of art, it isn’t supposed to be completely logical.  But I couldn’t accept that the objects might not all be sitting, separately in 3D space, and I was still caught up on the fact that I didn’t understand what some of the objects are or why they could be on a table.  I think you still need to be able to recognize the shapes, but some of the objects find their place as you travel through the objects.

Top view

Front view

Coming to Terms

As we continue to delve deeper into the cubist paintings, I’m finding that the hardest part is accepting that I will never know what all of the objects are in Charles-Edouard Jeanneret’s Still life from the Pavilion de l’Espirit Nouveau. When I started looking at the painting I thought that I had picked out the major objects and determined which ones were behind others, and which ones were transparent. The more I look at it, the more I start to question myself. In some cases I think I’m starting to recognize some other objects, and in others I’m just thinking in circles. I want the color changes to be based on steadfast rules that I can name, and really for there to be an answer and not moves based on general possible guidelines.


When starting to look at the space versus the objects, it became apparent how dominant the objects are. They all overlap and the negative space is contained to the very edges. It also shows up in model form where there are so many objects so close together. However, even with just the space or just the objects there are so many possibilities. You can look at the space in terms of the 2D canvas, or in terms of how the objects might be sitting on the table. I think the next thing to consider will be the colors themselves, and if there are any consistencies.