Anyway, my recent art-obsession are impossible objects and as such I've had troubles shading them correctly (really, how the fudge are you supposed to shade an impossible cube?), so I'd like to hear (more like read) what you guys think of the last work in progress.
It's basically a mixture between an impossible triangle and Escher's Relativity
[IMG]http://i402.photobucket.com/albums/pp108/webbugt/Slika.jpg[/IMG]
Thanks =)
I really like it, looking at these let alone trying to draw them makes my head hurt
Nice job!
The only problem is the shading but don't ask me how to fix that :v:
I would just shade as if it's a regular 3D object. Pop a light source in one of those corners, and then shade accordingly.
I think the shading is pretty good considering it's an impossible shape... but like salmonmarine said, if you want to add more or feel its not right then just imagine it as a normal shape and shape everything according to a light source in one of the corners... I would choose the top right corner for you, as that's similar to the way your shading is heading at the moment anyway :smile:
Maybe something like this?
[img]http://dl.dropbox.com/u/1275475/Posts/yo.png[/img]
But the illusion is that each component overlaps the one in front of it, so correct shading is rendered impossible without damaging the illusion. Unless you were to define a light source in the centre of the object
[QUOTE=MakoSkyDub;30369322]But the illusion is that each component overlaps the one in front of it, so correct shading is rendered impossible without damaging the illusion. Unless you were to define a light source in the centre of the object[/QUOTE]
I suppose.
But I think it's also neat if you do an impossible object and shade it as it would be a possible one, if I'm making any sense.
I think it adds to the illusion of something being possible on paper but impossible in reality.
Well perhaps it would if it worked out, but you can't add a correct shadow onto something like that. Your example above has a shadow as if that column was in a fixed position in line with the other one, but that couldn't be true if it's also in the middle of the third column that's perpendicular to the first
So putting a shadow like that ironically highlights [i]why[/i] the object couldn't work in reality, and it breaks the path your eye takes following the shape in a triangle
I guess what I'm trying to say is that it gives you a foothold from which you can figure out why it's wrong. I vote no shadows, keep it as confusing as possible
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
