Take a look at this guy’s sculpture. Seem familiar? Good. In fact, you can probably name the artist of the original without even looking at the URL ( you get extra points for knowing what the initials stand for). With that in mind, here are some Bergerian questions to consider when analyzing it.

First, what does the piece say, and how is that meaning affected when it is taken out of the context of the original? For that matter, does the sculpture have any meaning disjoint from the original? Is the artist using the context of this image to support an argument or connect with his audience in a particular way? Is this image ritually obscured by critics and historians, or does it remain in the popular domain of art? How has reproduction shaped popular conception of the piece? Also, how does the change to a 3-dimensional medium comment on the original piece?

For kicks, here’s the URL for the main Escher legos gallery. Lego ought to put out sets like these instead of those nancy, custom-molded starship pieces of merde. The whole point of legos is that you have to build the parabolic curve yourself. Heck! you could teach an elementary mathematics course based entirely off of those little blocks.

For those curious among you, the M.C. stands for Maurits Cornelis.

Advertisements