Talk:Relativity (M. C. Escher)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Number of characters[edit]

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)[reply]

At some intervening point, sixteen was changed back to fifteen. There are indeed 16. (Hint, there are two figures seated at the table in the park at the lower right of the artwork.) I've changed it back to sixteen and noted how many are in each direction of gravity (6, 5, 5). I resisted the urge to suggest/joke that Escher was implying a preferred reference frame. Gfwellman (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Stairs[edit]

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)[reply]

Prey[edit]

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?

If you were to do a section on Relativity in popular culture, it would be huge. It's too big to be feasible, I think. Verin (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medium[edit]

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

Analysis of Physics[edit]

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)[reply]

2021[edit]

The focus on the physics of the picture totally misses the philosophical reasoning behind the engraving. I think this needs an updating at some point. 70.25.64.82 (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed for gravity?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was all Escher articles should be consistent, but there is no consensus yet on whether the articles should be using a space or not. These moves should be carried out (or not) in accordance with the consensus reached at Talk:M.C. Escher#M.C. / M. C., whatever that may be. Aervanath (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relativity (M. C. Escher) → Relativity (M.C. Escher) — The article on the artist is M.C. Escher, and it seems that "M.C." is most commonly written without spaces. I suggest moving any related article titles for consistency. — Dromioofephesus (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Related[edit]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support. Doesn't seem very controversial. :) Binksternet (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Req. and support. I didn't think it would be, but I've never moved a page before, so I figured I'd let this run its course for a few days before I move all all those pages. —Dromioofephesus (talk) 00:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I don't think it matters at all. If they are note moved, the related redlinks should be turned into redirects of they aren't moved there. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 04:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree that consistency is good so all should be at the name with spaces, and of course redirects should be created for all of the proposed move targets. The MoS says it can be either way but the prevailing consensus found by examining the actual naming practice on Wikipedia, is that initialed names take spaces. Think of just about any famous person who has an initialed named and that is what you find. A few examples: W. E. B. Du Bois; J. R. R. Tolkien; D. H. Lawrence; T. S. Eliot; B. F. Skinner and on and on—all at spaced initials. Aha! Check out literary initials. Everyone's name but for Hilda Doolittle's is spaced. The MoS is of course trumped by almost perfect consistency in the actual practice (WP:CON: "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale"; "consensus can change").--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, provisionally. If, as the original proponent claims, M.C. Escher is more commonly written without spaces, then I agree with changing everything accordingly. I note, however, that before this discussion, the articles pertaining to M.C. Escher already were consistent in their use of a space (at least it seemed so to me). If no support is provided for the claim of more common usage without the space, then I would support keeping the space, and reverting my recent move of Snakes (M.C. Escher). ~Amatulić (talk) 18:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now - same reasons as Amatulic's provisional support. See also Talk:M.C. Escher#M.C. / M. C..--Noe (talk) 14:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:
  • Note: WP:NCP says, "There is no consensus for always using spaces between initials, neither for never using them." Also, the artist's page was just moved from the spaced version to the unspaced version a week ago. And the category containing his artwork would also have to be moved. Dekimasuよ! 06:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether or not there is consensus regarding spaces between initials, I support the push to make all of Escher's articles and categories share the same space/no space decision. There should be consistency within one person's named articles and cats. Binksternet (talk) 06:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Centralize discussion?[edit]

There is a related discussion at Talk:M.C. Escher#M.C. / M. C., which seems to be a more central location for Escher-related questions. I suggest centralizing discussion there, as there are multiple page-moves involved, no matter which consistent solution we choose. I'm about to post there now. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"all the figures are dressed in identical attire"[edit]

Not really true -- the women have different clothes from the men... AnonMoos (talk) 09:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Museum[edit]

Could someone add to the article in which museum the painting is housed ? Thanks. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.134.6.222 (talk) 19:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a painting. AnonMoos (talk) 09:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of woodcut version?[edit]

This article seems to only mention the lithograph version of this work and omits the woodcut. Is there another article for that one somewhere, or what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.23.87.126 (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Relativity_(M._C._Escher)&oldid=1204628476"