Talk:Relativity (M. C. Escher)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Visual arts, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to visual arts on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? Class: This article has not been assigned a class according to the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Number of characters

obviously, im am not an avid user of wikipedia, as im a incapable of setting up a properly formatted discussion page for the Relativity piece.

there are sixteen characters in this piece, whilst the article states there are fifteen. I will highlight the 16th if needed. I thought it be best to not edit the original text, but ask for other peoples' opinions first.

I updated the article with the correct number of characters, thanks for pointing it out. Otherwise, you should not hesitate to make changes to articles - if you make a mistake, it will be corrected. Wikipedia has a policy that people should be bold in editing, so that's fine. The only articles where you should be really careful about making changes and discussing them first are those about controversial and political subjects. -- Ze miguel 09:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crazy Stairs

Is this really sometimes called Crazy Stairs or was that just taken from Family Guy?

I'm pretty sure that this has only come up in Family Guy.

Yes, that definitely needs to be changed.JRNorbergé 03:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prey

The recent PC game "Prey" contains Relativity-like features, such as more than one gravity source in a single environment. Perhaps that should be mentioned, or at least linked?

[edit] Medium

Relativity was done in two versions, a lithograph and a woodcut.

[edit] Analysis of Physics

It seems to me that most of the analysis of the physics of Gravity is wild and ungrounded speculation. While every detail is certainly a possibility, do we have any reason to discard other interpetations? I know we can't exactly ask Escher himself, but saying certain things would be impossible in Gravity without any basis outside speculation seems unwise. I mean, it's a work of art, for goodness' sake! And since when did Escher's other impossible works display such consistency? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.35.3.46 (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation needed for gravity?

I don't understand the need for a citation for the statement that the image contains 3 different sources of gravity, when the image in question is included in the article and you can plainly see it for yourself. Is anyone actually arguing that the image contains fewer or more than 3 sources of gravity? If not, is there any actual need for a citation?

It seems to me that there's something of a trend recently on wikipedia to require citations for everything and anything, and I don't think that's always a good thing.

Sometimes [citation needed] it can be [citation needed] difficult [citation needed] to read [citation needed] articles [citation needed] that have [citation needed] had 'citation needed' [citation needed] tags [citation needed] sprinkled [citation needed] over them [citation needed] like snow [citation needed] on a mountain peak [citation needed]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.29.209.132 (talk) 21:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with you here. I've removed the tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.235.149.106 (talk) 14:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)