Talk:M. C. Escher/Archive 1

Heads

Someone has replaced the heads/titles in this article with total nonsense. Can someone set this article back and replace the original ones?

Older comments

How about putting the references in other works (Simpsons, Labyrinth) under a heading "Trivia"? It looks a little out of place... --Vintermann

---

The math behind much of Escher's work has been explored in various documentaries and in at least one article in Scientific American, published sometime before '97. In this article it was mentioned that one of the constructions on a building in an Escher print exemplified some principle of quantum physics, years before that principle was discovered. Does anyone know anything further about this (when the article might have been published or, better yet, the story behind that construction and/or the principle of quantum physics and/or their significance?) Also this article could stand some discussion of perspective and math, but I am not knowledgeable enough to do it right and so will leave it alone. I hope someone else will be interested enough to add it.  :-) --Koyaanis Qatsi

---

Most of the prints associated with him were only sketched out by him. The full prints only occurred after he died.

This seems rather contradictory to what I know of him, which left me with the impression that woodcuts, lithographs, etc. were what he did, so it wouldn't seem he'd make lots of sketches and then not doing anything with them, aside from the inferior ones. Does anyone know about this one way or the other? The anon contributor doesn't seem to have ever come back after that day, which casts some doubt on it as well. -- John Owens 22:40 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

I think the anonymous assertion is not true. Escher sold his prints, with occasional lulls in sales, throughout his life as mentioned in this biography, and H.S.M. Coxeter published at least one paper about an Escher print. What MIGHT have been meant is that he's better known after his death than during his life, but one might say the same about many artists.... -- Someone else 22:48 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

I'm the third person, apparently, who is highly suspicious of this claim. I have the book M.C. Escher: His Life and Complete Graphic Work which talks throughout about how he made and sold prints throughout his life. I'm removing the anonymous misinformation. -- Wapcaplet 21:43 24 May 2003 (UTC)

---

"...the cloudy, cold, wet weather of the Netherlands allowed him to focus entirely on his works..."

This is highly suspect. It's not ALWAYS cloudy, cold and wet in the Netherlands, any more than it is just across the North Sea in England... Lee M 03:45, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I suspect that the Worldofescher site may be infectious with the password stealing virus Pwsteal.Tarno.H (this is definitely not certain, as the virus might have come from elsewhere). As I browsed to the site I suddenly got a warning about a process trying to set itself to startup (thank StartupMonitor!), googled for the "slchost" and it resulted in Tarno.H. IMO this should be investigated more closely.

High and Low VS Up and Down

afaik Up and Down is actually High and Low. (clem 17:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC))

I have to agree on this. (Cosmotron 04:43, 16 Mar 2006 (UTC))

Pronunciation?

Is it [esh-er] or [ess-her]? Please add it in the article. Similarly, "Bosch" is said to be correctly pronounced [boss-h], not [bosh].

[esh-er]. bartleby.com has lots of recorded pronounciations, including this one. http://www.bartleby.com/61/99/E0209900.html --sparkit (talk) 19:51, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

The primary pronunciation on the American Heritage Dictionary entry at Bartleby above is the common esh-er pronunciation. But the IPA pronunciation given in the article is the secondary pronunciation in the American Heritage Dictionary entry. Is Es-kher the proper Dutch pronunciation, and Esh-er the Anglicization? Should both pronunciations be included in the entry? Gavroche42 (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, or so I understand. —Tamfang (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears Esh-er is Dutch pronunciation and in English it is possible to mispronounce Es-kher. Anyway pronunciation in article is wrong. --Tigga en (talk) 07:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Changed to Dutch pronunciation (which uses /sj/ instead of /S/) Jalwikip (talk) 09:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

English-speakers are familiar with the German pronunciation of <sch> as /ʃ/ and generally assume that the Dutch is the same, hence /ɛʃər/ is natural (and /sx/ is very unnatural) to us. Some of us are aware that /ʃ/ is not correct, though we may be misinformed about what is correct. —Tamfang (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem changing [sj] to [ʃ], as I doubt the difference is recognizable to most people. It just that /ʃ/ is not a Dutch phoneme, so the underlying representation is always /sj/, but realization varies from person to person. Jalwikip (talk) 09:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

As this is Dutch, it should be /sx/ not /ʃ/. The given /ɛʃə/ seems an awful lot like a germanism or even an englishism. If for some odd irregular reason, maybe it is /ʃ/, and I've always heard in English, /ʃ/ but it makes sense that it should be /sx/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.106.138 (talk) 20:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The name means "from Esch". It could be from a Dutch place called Esch (in this case it would have [s]) or from a German one (and so it would have [ʃ]). Dutch people generally use the German-like pronunciation (look here)--Carnby (talk) 23:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Images

Its a biography of an artist and there's only one picture. Please one of his amazing sketches, perferably a stairway one. Redwolf24

This would be great, except his works are still all under copyright as far as I know. You will just have to visit the library or buy a book. One of the drawbacks of Wikipedia... Note that the one picture here is copyrighted and used with permission. Unfortunately this type of permission does not include third party use, and Wiki contents are meant to be freely shared and used anywhere. Thus even this image will be removed when the Wiki police get around to it. --Blainster 04:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Escher's allusion to John Martin's "The Bard"

Could http://www.ipernity.com/doc/goetzkluge/33364777 be useful for the article? Also, I am not sure, whether Escher alluded to "The Bard" or whether he just used John Martin's concept/composition as an inspiration for his own work --DL5MDA (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Donating my Flickr photos

All the photos in my Flickr account are Creative Commons-licensed so feel free to use them on Wikipedia. I'm too lazy to add the photos myself, so I'm leaving it up to you guys. http://flickr.com/photos/kentwang/tags/mceschermuseum/

Kent Wang 12:48, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

MC Escher In Popular Culture.

Suspiria And Escher. I've moved this reference to Escher from the list of Popular Culture at M. C. Escher Page. Here is the text of unconfirmed link :The Dario Argento film "Suspiria" takes place on Escherstrasse, and garish Escher wallpaper fills the school. I still could not find any reliable link or source who can verify this statement.Anyone else has seen Suspiria?--asydwaters 07:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

---

I was thinking that perhaps the Pop Cult section ought to be divided into Relativity and Other! —Tamfang 02:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

---

How about mentioning uses (acknowledged or not) of his jobs in advertisements in magazines. Being an Escher fan, I collected those for years, and could cite some of them? --Olivier Debre 12:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Image thumbnails

Since many of the 'Selected list of works' have images, shoudl they be made into a gallery with tiny thumbnails? -Ravedave 19:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

image

found this image on the portugese article on escher - is this something designed by him? Image:Le Havre St Jospeh int1 fractal.jpg -- Astrokey44|talk 03:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a photograph manipulated with GIMP. —Tamfang 04:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Photograph of Escher?

His drawings are great but I think there should be a photograph portrait of him instead of Hand with Reflecting Sphere.

Either way, the "picture of Escher drawn in his style, created by an admirer" doesn't contribute to the article - If someone with editing privileges were to edit, the article would be improved.Strawmd (talk) 15:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Removed as suggested. –xeno (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

ISBN

Michele Emmer's video had an invalid ISBN. IF anyone can add the correct one 'twould be good. Rich Farmbrough 13:27 23 August 2006 (GMT).

Popular Culture reference removed

The following was removed from the article [1], I nearly reverted it before realising the editor who removed them wasn't a vandal. Moved here so that discussion can follow on which of these, if any, can be retained.

---

• The Doctor Who episode Castrovalva takes its name from Escher's early lithograph of the same name, though Escher's view of Castrovalva has none of the paradoxical elements of his later works to which the setting of the episode could more readily be compared.
• Eric Shanower's illustrations of the Absurd City in Paradox in Oz are clearly based on Escher's illustrations.
• Similarly, on Comedy Central animated series Drawn Together, the episode "Clara's Dirty Little Secret" featured a supposedly pregnant Princess Clara being pushed down by Toot Braunstein (and up, around, and back down) a flight of stairs modeled on Relativity in the aptly named M. C. Escher Room.
• In the Jim Henson movie Labyrinth, Relativity is referenced again. The audience is again treated to an answer to the great question: what if somebody walks off the edge? The Escher estate was given acknowledgement in the credits for the film.
• In Larry Niven's novel Protector, the protagonist builds a working model of Relativity using gravitational engineering.
• The bonus stages of the first Sonic the Hedgehog game, for the Sega Genesis/Mega Drive, feature an animated background of birds turning into fish, a reference to Sky and Water.
• The early nineties rock music group Chagall Guevara wrote a song called "Escher's World" which made many references to the impossible structures that can be found in Escher's work.
• Escher is also the subject of a song by the rock group The Breakfast. The song is called "Escher's Etchings" and is included on their 2003 live album Bona Fide. The lyrics can be read here
• The interior of the Temple of The Ancients in Final Fantasy VII is modeled after M.C. Escher's Relativity.
• The music video for "Around the World" by Daft Punk, directed by Michel Gondry, is based on Escher's Encounter.
• The music video for "Drive" by Incubus is based on Drawing Hands, beginning with an animated hand drawing a piece of paper and second hand to form the actual Escher drawing. It also shows the hand drawing lead singer Brandon Boyd to attach itself to. All drawings in the video were done by the band members themselves.
• The cover art of Dio's 1985 album Sacred Heart is similar to Escher's "Hand with Reflecting Sphere."
• A comic crossover between Mike Allred's Madman and Bernie Mireault's The Jam, features Escher as a central character when the two characters enter into an alternate universe created by a somewhat godlike Escher, based on many of his works.
• "Escher" is the title of a song by the British band Teenage Fanclub. The song is about a man who doesn't know if he is up or down.
• "Weird Al" Yankovic's 2006 song, White & Nerdy contains the lyrics "M.C. Escher—that's my favorite MC."
• One of Jeremy Shafer's origami models, 'Folding The Blintz Base', is based on M.C. Escher's 'Drawing Hands', which inspired him as it was on the cover of Peter Engels origami book "Origami: From Angelfish to Zen".
• In the 1989 motion picture "A Nightmare On Elm Street 5: The Dream Child" Freddy Krueger creates an enormous M.C. Escher-like maze (which is designed from the Church, the Junkyard, the Asylum, the Boiler Room, and 1428 Elm Street, all parts of the dreamworld Krueger uses on his victims) which the final showdown between Krueger and Alice takes place.

---

(Reformatted to restore bulleted items)

I say keep it out; there's far too much of this kind of crap in this so-called encyclopedia. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Restored

I've restored the section. There's no valid reason for a removal of a section like that which has persisted for a while. It's common in all sorts of articles, including artists and works of art. Removal of individual entries might be valid if discussed, but not the whole section. *Sparkhead 15:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a valid reason: the whole section is unreferenced, contains much original research, and is irrelevant to the subject of the article. But, heigh ho. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Check Mona Lisa or Sistine Chapel for other examples. Pop culture references only need to be relevant in as much as they reference the subject. Note some of the items you've linked as "citation needed" already have internal citation on the wikipages mentioned in the items. *Sparkhead 16:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with RobertG: The list of pop culture references doesn't give any information about Escher. The fact that other articles contain similar lists doesn't make them acceptable: Those articles are not necessarily good. Can you name a Feature Article that has a similar list? What about official Wikipedia policies on them? Some pop culture trivia may be admissible, if they have real reference to the subject; but ones that cite only the name "M.C.Escher" should be deleted without esitation. Eubulide 16:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The current feature article has a pop culture section. There are others (check the literature section in particular). Some, like The Lord of the Rings became so substantial they spawned a fork: The Lord of the Rings in pop culture, a bulleted list. Others, like Infinite monkey theorem retain the section internally. Official policy? I don't know. The section is common enough in major articles, including ones that have been featured. Let the tags sit as they are, and give them some time for references to be provided. Removal of items which go beyond the name (like the Niven one) is not appropriate at this time. *Sparkhead 17:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand the problem: it's not merely that all these items are unsourced. Even if they were fully sourced, most of them still don't belong here because, as has been explained numerous times here, they don't have anything to do with M.C. Escher. A few of them (more "notable" ones) can remain, but most of these should simply be swept away as the flotsam and jetsam that they are. +ILike2BeAnonymous 17:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Your argument is baseless. For example, Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc which contains items ranging from operas to video games, was a featured list [2] and is still listed as such. Note some of the items. A similar list here of sourced items is perfectly acceptable. If it grows large enough I don't see an issue with forking it into another article. *Sparkhead 19:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The example that Sparkhead cites are very different from the present: in the case of 0.999... there is one reference to pop culture, that was perfectly on topic and was given with an extended explanation, not just with a list item. Also in Infinite monkey theorem the quotations have an explanation that links them to the topic; besides, that article is itself a curiosity that has obvious pop culture potential. The Lord of the Rings in pop culture is a separate article from The Lord of the Rings exactly because excessive irrelevant trivia would have flooded the original. Similarly, Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc is separate from Joan of Arc. I have no objection if you want to create M. C. Escher in pop culture as a list. I just think that these snippets of entertainment news don't belong here. Eubulide 20:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. None of that crap is notable, and much of it is tenuous. I have removed it again. I was about to create M. C. Escher in pop culture, but the lack of notability is even more glaring when you see that stuff on its own. The article is immensely improved without it!--Slashme 21:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

It's been in the article for over a year. That implies a consensus to retain it. Do not delete large portions of an article. Bring up an RfC if you must. *Sparkhead 21:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact that flotsam and jetsam has been drifting around on a page for a year doesn't imply any kind of consensus, just that no-one has taken the trouble to clean house.

How about a middle way. Take a look at the list, and find the three most notable, relevant items and put them back. I personally think every single item in that list fails notability miserably, but I'm willing to compromise if you feel strongly. --Slashme 07:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I feel such a list is useful since it can bring people who know the work but not the artist into the article simply thru wiki links. In other words, it helps the article and other content within it, as well as help awareness of the subject. However I've since discovered a "popular culture" category which I think would help even further, so I'm forking it into a new article and placing it in that category. *Sparkhead 11:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, that seems sensible. When you've done that, you should probably link to it in this article. --Slashme 07:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Already did in the "See Also" section. If you feel it merits a sentence mention elsewhere in the article, feel free to insert it , thanks. *Sparkhead 11:58, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I may be a year or two late for this discussion, but I figured I'd add my two cents to the mix. I don't really see how an editor who claims to be intending to edit from a neutral point of view can honestly call accurate, verifiable information "flotsam and jetsam". If the information doesn't interest you, then don't read it. That doesn't give you the right to remove relevant information. It is not an encyclopedia editor's job to decide what is important, and what is unimportant to you may not necessarily be unimportant to everyone else. All an editor should do is provide the article with neutral, true information, and let the reader decide what to make of it. This subjective removal of relevant information is, in my opinion, unacceptable. When something gets removed like this, the contributor of the information is not the primary victim. It is the reader that is hurt the most. The contributor obviously has already read information, but those who read the article at a later time are denied access to information they may be seeking simply because someone decided it's not worth the hundred bytes or so, or because simply the presence of the information "takes away" from the quality of the article.

"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing."

—Dromioofephesus (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't give you the right to remove relevant information. That is not an argument, when the question is what is relevant. Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet who's interested in Escher's works gets to wade through an accurate verifiable account of what he ate for breakfast while working on each print. —Tamfang (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Who says that the editor who removed the info wasn't a vandal? Deleting relevant information on the grounds that the editor doesn't find it interesting is not something that should be done lightly. If I went to the local library and tore out all the pages on subjects that I thought were pointless, and a thousand other people did the same, there wouldn't be much left. I might delete all the sports almanacs as pointless and useless statistics, a sports fan might delete everything on chemistry, a rap fan might delete Beethoven as irrelevant, and a classical music fan might delete everything on West Coast Rap or computer games as being insufficiently "cultured". Information on the wider cultural impact that someone's work has had is legitimate. academics track ths stuff, it provides context to notability, and allows us to see that certain people who've extended society's conceptual vocabuluary aren't just wikipedia-notable, but uber-notable. ErkDemon (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Held for the release version

I have never heard of him. This isn't exactly A-Class, and it doesn't get many Google hits either. Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 17:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Huh? World-famous artist. I can't imagine leaving him out. I get over a million google hits. -- Fan-1967 17:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I've re-added it. Its quality appears similar to many other articles already slated for the release version, and to question the relevance of Escher because you "have never heard of him" is shaky reasoning at best. I've asked for a different person to review the entry and provide useful commentary on improving the article if it is warranted for inclusion purposes. *Spark* 18:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Sex Life?

Maybe it's just me, but this feels a little out of place and inappropriate in the sub-section heading. How about if we call ti "Marriage and Personal Life," or something along those lines instead? Mathfreq 23:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Images and copyright

I am very much concerned that many of the images used here are a blatant copyright violation. The only even remote justification for fair use that I can possible see is a sort of convoluted "educational fair use", unless the MC Escher estate/company has explicitely released these images under some sort of FOSS license. this page on the official site seems to indicate that copyright licensing is more intended with a commercial propritary license rather than something more typical for compatability with the GFDL.

I'm not suggesting here that the MC Escher Company is trying to assert copyright authority here, but at the same time we have to be careful when using images like these that permission is obtained. Even though the images are "contributing significantly to the article", I think at this point the line has been crossed past which you can no longer claim fair-use.

I don't know a reasonable replacement for these images, and they do make the article very attractive. They just don't belong on Wikipedia unless some suitable licensing arrangements can be made to gain copyright permission for articles like this. --Robert Horning 10:20, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Other than the number of self portraits, I disagree. I just reread Wikipedia:Fair use: These images are small and low enough resolution to fully qualify as fair use. I would also like to see an example of his tiling as it is discussed in the article. I have noticed a few in use in the project that we could use. But I want to pick one good example and don't have time at present. Dimitrii 17:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Dutch money

Didn't he design banknotes for the Netherlands? --84.20.17.84 17:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes but the designs were never used, if memory serves. —Tamfang 06:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Income

I heard in a documentary that he congratulated that after the war, he was able to sustain himself from his work for several months. What did he live on earlier? --84.20.17.84 17:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Date of birth

I see the birth date has recently been changed from 17 to 18. Could someone with access to reliable reference materials please check this out? --Slashme 13:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

deleted trivia

This is the text I have deleted from the article:

==Trivia== *M.C Escher is featured by the American musician and parodist "Weird Al" Yankovic in his single "White & Nerdy" as being "his favorite MC", a slang term for a rapper.''

If any editor considers it to be of interest and essential to the article, please accept my apologies and re-paste it (but please also include citation, as the item does seem doubtful).

--Technopat 08:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Age of the Alhambra

The palace was built chiefly between 1238 and 1358, ... and ... the splendid decorations of the interior are ascribed to Yusuf I (died 1354), i.e. the second half of the interval. These data are available anywhere, v.gr. Encyclopædia Britannica, 1, p. 267, and were quoted as such here in the article Alhambra. For the purpose of the arabesques, to keep "the Alhambra is a fourteenth-century palace" is just best. I revert consequently.

Kind regards, Zack Holly Venturi 16:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

(N.B. I'd better clarify what I reverted was only one word in the third line of Early life's section:

I just substituted the word fourteenth for fifteenth, so restoring the previous writing, which had been vandalized a week earlier.

I apologize for the imprecision.

Zack) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zack Holly Venturi (talk • contribs) 17:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Missing content

someone appears to have deleted all the content this seems like the last valid revision

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=M._C._Escher&oldid=115205420

im unsure on how to revert it

--DarkAxi0m 03:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Math and Art of Escher

Anneke Bart and I are working on a textbook for a math course we teach called "Math and the art of M.C. Escher". It's a wikibook, and someday may make the transition to WikiBooks except there's issues with copyright and with trying to use an editable book in a live class. Anyway, I've added a link in the External Links section. As part of it, we're building a comprehensive list of his artwork, with images (legal) and other information.. I didn't add a link to that subpage, but feel free. Bryanclair 05:46, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Escher userbox

Feel free to use this userbox.

• User:Xenocidic/Escher

This user enjoys optical illusions, especially the impossible constructions of M.C. Escher.

use {{User:Xenocidic/Escher}} to add this to your userpage (who's using it?)

Cheers. xenocidic (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

funny

The asteroid 4444 Escher, discovered in 1985, was named forforforfor him.

) maybe this needs to be cleaned out?

--213.98.129.17 (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Age

How is it he was 73 when he died in 1972 but was born in 1898? That doesn't make sense. He was over a hundred when he died which would've made him over a 120 years of age. Someone please correct this error.74.196.134.249 (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm good at math but I don't see the problem. —Tamfang (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

1972 - 1898 = 74 so he would have turned 74 in 1972. But since he died before his birthday, he was only 73. Make sense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.88.98 (talk) 15:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Imagination

His artistic expression was created from images in his mind, rather than directly from observations and travels to other countries.

This is a simple, but fascinating statement, and I would like to know more about his thought processes and artistic approach. Viriditas (talk) 09:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The bio I was looking at last night stated that he regularly went on cruises and would come back with books full of ideas and sketches which he would work with in the following months. It's noticeable how the buildings in works like Metamorphosis and Up and Down resemble his more literal stuff like Castrovalva or Street in Scanno(?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.28.88.98 (talk) 15:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

We-ell ... He traveled a lot in his youth, and throughout his life he reused elements of his sketches from those years. In 1936 he got a shipping company to give him a cruise in exchange for prints of each port. —Tamfang (talk) 20:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

M.C.Escher "Tetrahedral Planetoid" Experiment

Can you add this external link http://www.dragonguys.ch/visite/escher.htm pano 360 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodrigue Pellaud (talk • contribs) 11:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

We could, but I don't see that it contributes anything to the article. —Tamfang (talk) 04:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Another suggestion: Link to http://escher.epfl.ch/escher/ Escher Web Sketch. This program allows you to create your own repeating patterns. It is a nice hands-on tool when teaching Escher. Janbottcher (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

M.C. / M. C.

Throughout the article, 'M.C.' is used for initials, as is Dutch custom, but the article title and the introduction use 'M. C.' (with space), which I guess is American custom? Personally I'd change it to 'M.C.' (without the space), as the guy is Dutch. Your thoughts? Jalwikip (talk) 10:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought there was something in WP:MOS that requires spacing, but now can't find it. —Tamfang (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think M.C. is the more commonly used format, so I would agree with the move. –xeno (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the decision that has been made that M.C. Escher's name be written the space. Should we move other articles to reflect this? For example, should we move this page from Relativity (M. C. Escher) to Relativity (M.C. Escher)? To me, it just seems to give more consistency. If so, I'll go ahead and take care of it.
—Dromioofephesus (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a general issue, not specific to Escher. Is it really true there is nothing in the manual of style? Unless perfectly sure about that, I think we should wait a bit before making changes.--Noe (talk) 09:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I did a quick look, but I can't find any Wikipedia:Manual of Style (initials of Dutch people). I'll do some more research on this subject before I do anything. —Dromioofephesus (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Since the MOS isn't telling (in fact, it says There is no consensus for always using spaces between initials, neither for never using them.), we should go by what the majority of the sources and external links use, which is M.C. (no space). –xeno (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

So the MOS has nothing to say about this, but Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people)#Middle names and abbreviated names tells us to use the most common form for the particular name. I disagree with this policy, but it's been discussed a lot (see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (people)#Initials etc.), and this is not the place to re-open that debate.--Noe (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

So unless someone can prove that M.(space)C. is the more common form perhaps the other articles should be moved in line with my bold move of the other day. –xeno (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I already moved Snakes (M.C. Escher) based on this discussion. Someone should move Category: M. C. Escher too. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately categories can't be moved in the traditional sense, but I can get my AWB bot going on that. I just want to make sure there's no slam dunk objections to all of this. –xeno (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. See discussion at Talk:Relativity (M. C. Escher)#Requested move. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I've been working in Requested moves, and I was just checking the discussion linked immediately above by the anon (thanks). There's a comment over there by User:Fuhghettaboutit that I think is important, and I think we should update the MOS. It has emerged, for whatever reason, that we almost always put the space between those initials. Check out Literary initials, where there's apparently one (1) exception.

  I think what we're seeing is a de facto consensus that's not yet reflected in the written guidelines. I think we should update the guidelines. This is how they grow.

  As for Escher, there are 37 articles in Category:M. C. Escher and Category:Works by M. C. Escher, sixteen of which have his name in the title. I'd rather move 2 articles and 0 categories than 14 articles and 2 categories. However, if in the light of all this information, there is a consensus to move all the Escher pages to the space-less versions, I could help out with that too. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

  • I would suggest that being correct is more important than choosing what is easy. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree. However, in this case, I don't see that either choice is more or less "correct" than the other. It's a truly trivial question. At least that's how it seems to me. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
      • It seems to me also a trivial question, in that the guy is Dutch and the Dutch custom is to not write the space AND the official Escher website also does not use the space, (http://www.mcescher.com/). So please move all to the space-less version. Jalwikip (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
        • Yeah, I meant "trivial" in the sense of utterly unimportant. Can you explain why you think it's important? I'd like to know that, before I move a dozen articles and two categories against our usual practice, a move which I will certainly have to explain to questioners who ask why every other article at Literary initials is at a spaced version. Are any of those people Dutch? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
• FYI I do see in overall consistency across WP and moving back those two that were moved does seem to present a net benefit of being a lot less work than unspacing the other 37. I have no problem if someone reverses my page move to respace the initials on this article. –xeno (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the two articles from which the spaces had been removed back to titles that use the spaces. If there are any questions about this, please do let me know. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I can understand your rationale for doing it, but I don't agree with it. If someone is known, throughout the world, as "M.C." Escher, and during his life time, in his country of birth and residence, he was known as "M.C." Escher, and his official legacy home page, hosted by the M.C. [sic] Escher foundation spells his name "M.C." Escher, even in its English language pages, I find it a little presumptious if not planely wrong of Wikipedia to refer to the person as "M. C." Escher, no matter how trivial anyone thinks this issue is. Jalwikip (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a tonne of work to effectively remove the space from all the titles, however, as you can see in the actual prose of the article we aren't spacing the initials. Seems like a good compromise. –xeno ^talk 21:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think that he was "known" as having any particular amount of space between the dot and the 'C'. I mean, if you want to take that road, Plato wasn't known as "Plato", he was known as "Πλατο". There's a difference between someone's name and how it's typeset.

The difference between "M.C. Escher" and "M. C. Escher" is certainly not a "spelling" difference. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

As an English translator working in the Netherlands, I'd like to cut through all this stuff. In Dutch, spaces between initials are considered a misprint and look sloppy to the reader, but in English the opposite's true. Since this is an article in English, it makes sense keep the space. The argument that 'the guy's Dutch' is surely neither here nor there - we can't start adopting typographical conventions from whatever language the subject of the article happened to speak. The fact that the Escher foundation omits the space even on its English pages is simply the umpteenth instance of Dutch native speakers transferring their own typographical and other linguistic habits to English without stopping to consider that they might be different. By the same token, I omit the space between my own initials when writing in Dutch, but keep it when writing in English.92.111.250.34 (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Linguist from the Netherlands here. Fully subscribe to this comment. Drabkikker (talk) 17:41, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit request from 70.62.98.194, 15 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Maurits Cornelis, nicknamed "Mauk",[2] was born in Leeuwarden, The Netherlands. He was the youngest son of civil engineer George Arnold Escher and his second wife, Sara Gleichman. He was a sickly child, and was placed in a special school at the age of seven and failed the second grade.[3] In 1903, the family moved to Arnhem where he took carpentry and piano lessons until he was thirteen years old.

From 1903 until 1918 he attended primary school and secondary school. Though he excelled at drawing, his grades were generally poor. In 1919, Escher attended the Haarlem School of Architecture and Decorative Arts. He briefly studied architecture, but he failed a number of subjects (partly due to a persistent skin infection) and switched to decorative arts.[3] Here he studied under Samuel Jessurun de Mesquita, with whom he would remain friends for years. In 1922 Escher left the school, having gained experience in drawing and making woodcuts. > > > The section above is confusing and anachronistic: It states "placed in a special school at the age of seven" which had to be 1905 (Born 1898), then in the next sentence "In 1903, the family moved to Arnhem where he took carpentry and piano lessons until he was thirteen years old." jumping back 2 years and then ahead 8 years again

The next paragraph is even worse. "From 1903 until 1918 he attended primary school and secondary school" which conflicts with the above.

I would recommend the following:

Early life
Maurits Cornelis, nicknamed "Mauk", was born in Leeuwarden, The Netherlands. He was the youngest son of civil engineer George Arnold Escher and his second wife, Sara Gleichman. In 1903, the family moved to Arnhem where he attended primary school and secondary school until 1918.

He was a sickly child, and was placed in a special school at the age of seven and failed the second grade. Though he excelled at drawing, his grades were generally poor. He also took carpentry and piano lessons until he was thirteen years old. In 1919, Escher attended the Haarlem School of Architecture and Decorative Arts. He briefly studied architecture, but he failed a number of subjects (partly due to a persistent skin infection) and switched to decorative arts. Here he studied under Samuel Jessurun de Mesquita, with whom he would remain friends for years. In 1922 Escher left the school, having gained experience in drawing and making woodcuts.

70.62.98.194 (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Done: good suggestions, thanks. Tim Pierce (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 60.242.66.48, 25 August 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

They would have three children, George (born 23 June 1926 in Frascati), then Arthur (born 8 December 1928) and Jan (born 6 March 1938). 60.242.66.48 (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.

Penrose

Escher saw the article and was inspired by it?
"He used two things from the article. One was the tri-bar, used in his lithograph called Waterfall. Another was the impossible staircase, which my father had worked on and designed. Escher used it in Ascending and Descending, with monks going round and round the stairs. I met Escher once, and I gave him some tiles that will make a repeating pattern, but not until you’ve got 12 of them fitted together. He did this, and then he wrote to me and asked me how it was done—what was it based on? So I showed him a kind of bird shape that did this, and he incorporated it into what I believe is the last picture he ever produced, called Ghosts."

http://discovermagazine.com/2009/sep/06-discover-interview-roger-penrose-says-physics-is-wrong-string-theory-quantum-mechanics --Gwern (contribs) 15:06 4 January 2011 (GMT)

Where did he die?

Didn't Escher die in a town called Hilversum?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.80.217.243 (talk) 20:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 3 November 2011

In External Links: please change link for "US copy right proctection for UK artists". UK. Copyright issue regarding Escher from the Artquest Artlaw archive. to http://www.artquest.org.uk/articles/view/us-copyright-protection-for-uk-artists1 - site has recently been updated and this link is now broken.

Russellmartin (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Done Thanks. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 18:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Dream [1935]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.194.72.202 (talk) 13:32, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. The information that Dream includes a depiction of a mantis is included on the mantis article. Do you have a specific suggestion for this article? --RobertG ♬ talk 15:14, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Attempts at building Escher houses have failed

I've run across attempts at approximating his works in small-scale models. Can we get anything on that and on the exact technical reasons why Escher's architecture is non-Euclidean and hard to reproduce ?

Dwarfkingdom (talk) 05:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Wrongly spelled name

There should not be spaces between the initials of a name. M. C. Escher should be M.C. Escher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.82.59.131 (talk) 14:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

This is not outright wrong but rather a matter of taste. Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people), "there is no consensus for always using spaces between initials, neither for never using them. However, in most Wikipedia articles where the subject uses two consecutive initials, the space between initials is used; see Literary initials." It is common practice, so why should we change it? De728631 (talk) 14:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Escherian Stairwell

No mention in the article of the Escherian Stairwell at Rochester Institute of Technology at Rochester, NY, USA. Interesting as an actual implementation of an Escher drawing. You climb a flight of stairs, turn a corner, and reappear at the bottom of an adjacent ascending flight of stairs. I have no idea how the illusion works in three dimensions. Virgil H. Soule (talk) 03:41, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

This might be helpful http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5vlsE5mG5k

Virgil H. Soule (talk) 03:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It's a hoax; see [3] and [4]. TJRC (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Necker cube

A Necker cube is not an impossible object; it is an ambiguous 2D line drawing which may be perceived as such (but generally isn't; cf. Necker_cube#Ambiguity). What the person in Belvedere is holding is an impossible cube, a (seemingly) 3D version of the Necker cube, invented by Escher himself. The sketch lying on the ground in front of the person does show the Necker cube, with its ambiguous crossings circled. But suggesting that the Necker cube itself is an impossible object is wrong. Drabkikker (talk) 12:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Balilla/Ballila

The link to the fascist organisation Balilla is misspelled 'Ballila' - I'd change it myself, but I'm afraid I don't know how to without wrecking the link.92.111.250.34 (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk page layout

A minor thing. Wikipedia:Talk page layout describes the consensus for layout of talk pages including the banners. I don't see why this page should be any different. – Editør (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The archive box is not a WikiProject. The banner shell has a heading "This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:" so that's not the place for the archive drawer. De728631 (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

College

Escher went to a precessor organisation of the Delft University of Technology. Between 1905 and 1986, the institute was called "Technical College of Delft" or "Technical Institute of Delft" (Dutch: Technische Hogeschool Delft), according to the WP article. So the capitalization of "Technical College", that was reverted, seems to be in order here. – Editør (talk) 21:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Could you please stop splashing diffs all over. Either we write "Delft University of Technology" with capitals, or we write "technical college" without them as it is a generic term in English. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

You are reverting my edits, so I see the need to discuss them. The Delft University of Technology did not yet exist in 1918, so I don't see how he could have studied there. – Editør (talk) 22:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

By all means discuss them productively then. If we are naming a specific college, we name it XYZ Technical College, in Title Case. If it is some technical college or other whose name we don't mention, it's in lower case. I don't mind which it is, but a hybrid won't do, that's all. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I agree, I think the current naming (Technical College of Delft) is alright, thanks. – Editør (talk) 22:29, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank goodness for that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Escher's growing interest in tessellation

I have immediately replaced the scan of Escher's own drawing of one of the Alhambra tilings. Contrary to the edit comment, it shows something unique: that Escher himself was prepared to take the trouble, in 1936, to sit down in that precise building and studiedly draw that exact pattern. A modern photograph can confirm that his drawing is accurate (an interesting fact in itself) but is in no way a replacement: the point of having an image of the drawing is that Escher's interest in the Alhambra tilings was such that he considered it worth travelling back there to look again and spend time drawing those features - after all, he could have paid attention to the mathematical structure of the architectural layout of the courtyards, or the setting in the Spanish hills, etc etc, but it was the minute detail of the repeating ceramic patterns that interested him. The literal drawing in the Alhambra was soon replaced with - here on a talk page we may venture the word transformed into - the dazzling array of tessellations found in his later artworks. As such, the little sketch is both relevant and necessary for the article, as substantiated by the references provided. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not disputing the importance of the tessellation for Escher's work. I merely believe all relevant information from the sketch can be conveyed with the Alhambra photo and in words. – Editør (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Glad we agree on the context. On what words can't convey, it is the nature of the sketch itself. At this point in Escher's development, he was drawing - like that, just so - and the drawing itself shows what was going on, as far as it can be expressed, in Escher's head; words (like mine above) can talk around it, but the drawing is the irreplaceable thing itself, no matter how we try to describe it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion the image fails non-free content criterion #8 because omission is not detrimental to understanding the article topic, only what this particular sketch looked like. And that an image shows what it looks like goes for any image so it is not a valid argument. – Editør (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

By the way, isn't the sketch upside down? – Editør (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It's the same way up as on Escher's sheet, which contained four images; it is possible he turned the sheet so each image was at the top of the page while he was drawing it, so it's imaginable it's upside-down wrt the wall tiling. There is a circled X at the top of this quadrant; there is a similar mark at the bottom of its neighbour, which might indicate inversion. This engineering-like precision is part of what the image shows and the photo doesn't, by the way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. But his method and the circled X are not visible in the image, so I don't see how this cannot be described in words and definitely not how it is an argument to include the image. – Editør (talk) 10:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I've rescanned to include the mark; this has forced the use of a detail of the image, but this has the advantage that the painstaking effort (ref cited in caption) to make the drawing becomes more visible through the detail, and indeed through the visible struggle with some of the curved shapes. Method, of course, is always visible only tacitly in any artwork. We are of course interested here in Escher's life and work, not in the Alhambra as such. I'm grateful for the stimulus to improve the image as it now gets to the heart of the work done in those days of sketching in Spain, to the evident amusement of the tourists who passed by. They had no idea how important those little drawings would be in his artistic development. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:20, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Exhibitions section

The introduction of the section Exhibitions ("Despite wide international … and spherical geometry.") focusses on a single exhibition. Its global significance remains unclear. Why was this recent exhibition highlighted? Was it only highlighted to justify the inclusion of the non-free image? – Editør (talk) 10:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

No. Firstly, the fact that Escher has been popular with the public but overlooked by the British art world is striking and notable. Secondly, there is obviously scope for further major exhibitions to be noted as they occur. There may be past exhibitions worthy of note also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the intro has somewhat improved by moving towards a more global perspective. Although I can't help but notice that the discussion of the poster seems more out of place now. – Editør (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2015

• Suggested Addition "In popular culture" Not done
• Main article: M. C. Escher in popular culture Done

Actor Kevin Spacey's U.S. President Francis J. "Frank" Underwood made a referrence to Escher in a scene in the Oval Office in season 3, eipisode 5 (Chapter 31) of Netflix's "House of Cards".

Dabbler67 (talk) 04:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. In any case you may be looking for M. C. Escher in popular culture instead of the main article. --Stabila711 (talk) 06:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the popular culture article would be the more suitable target. I've moved it there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:M. C. Escher/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Page looks good, don't know how it didn't have a rating yet. Burzmali 16:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 20:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 15:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

HE WAS NOT 73 HE WAS 74 BTW

86.169.106.159 (talk) 14:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 14:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Unless you have sources that contradict the birth/death dates as detailed in this article, you are incorrect, he was 73 at time of death. Cannolis (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Exhibition in Madrid

There is an exhibition of Escher at the Palacio de Gaviria at Calle Arenal, Madrid from 2 February 2017 to 24 September 2017. The website is here: [5]. Can this please be added to list of exhibitions? Thank you. 91.126.136.150 (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done for now: Wait until this exhibition is finished first. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

What's the principle behind waiting until the exhibition is concluded to list it? That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me. TJRC (talk) 21:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I think we're falling foul of NOTCATALOG here. I shall remove the list as inappropriate to the article: for one thing, it will grow forever, adding nothing to the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:13, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Escher"

Although his name is commonly pronounced /ˈɛʃər/ in English (as if the name were German), I'm pretty sure the correct Dutch pronunciation is /ˈɛsxər/. See the article on Dutch orthography, as well as the Dutch place name Scheveningen. The lead section of the article should be reworked to explain both the Dutch pronunciation and the common English pronunciation. The source currently cited in the article (Duden Aussprachewörterbuch), by the way, is a German dictionary and should not be considered reliable for Dutch pronunciations. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Maybe a Dutch linguist could check this. I think the /s/ should be a long s, like our English 'sh'. It may or may not be followed by the velar fricative /x/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhislop (talk • contribs) 11:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• "Pretty sure" is not a reliable source. His name is pronounced with /ʃ/ in Dutch, you can check numerous videos in Dutch on YouTube: [6][7][8]. --Yms (talk) 13:04, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2018

Location First paragraf, second sentence: "Despite wide popular interest, Escher was for long somewhat neglected in the art world; even in his native Netherlands; he was 70 before a retrospective exhibition was held. In the twenty-first century, he became more widely appreciated, with exhibitions across the world."

Suggestions: - Add "a" and "time" to sentence in marked (_) places "...Despite wide popular interest, Escher was for _a_ long _time_ somewhat neglected in the art world..." - Restructure the subsentence "; even in his native Netherlands;" into "; even in his native country, the Netherlands;" Isiki2018 (talk) 12:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for this. It actually reads somewhat better as it is than with those changes, and they do not essentially change the sense, so unless there are very strong reasons to the contrary I suggest we leave it as it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2021

ThomasWichelo (talk) 09:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

De teltubies zijn poppetjes in een serie ganaamd HUTS A NIFFO

Not done:

That's not an actionable request, which must consist of a definite change to the English text, supported by a reliable source. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:20, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2021

Grammar fix, second sentence of first paragraph.

Change from "Despite wide popular interest, Escher was for long somewhat neglected in the art world, even in his native Netherlands." to "Despite wide popular interest, FOR A LONG TIME ESCHER WAS somewhat neglected in the art world, even in his native Netherlands. 2001:8003:7C03:5E00:798C:AB6D:BFE2:8863 (talk) 09:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

(not done) This isn't an improvement; it's currently concisely and correctly expressed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:53, 26 January 2021 (UTC)