Does any-one know what one calls a drawing that can be interpreted in (usually) two different ways? I'm editing some seventeenth century material and the device of drawing a picture that has two forms depending on how one looks at it was a common trick illusion. A typical example is a drawing when viewed one way seems to depict a man; when viewed another it depicts a devil - very seventeenth century.
calls a drawing that can be interpreted in (usually) two different ways? Lucy,
I don't know how far back the practice originated but certainly in Victorian times, gentlemen (well supposedly) would often show "Butterflies" to their male friends. These were painted on transparent butterfly shaped paper to make pretty patterns, but when the wings were folded over each other they made another picture, usually pornographic. I have seen more modern examples of triptych or polyptych (to use a word I learnt here recently) art, sometimes used in advertising flyers, which make one picture folded and a completely different one unfolded. I'm not sure if the phrase "ambiguous" would apply to this type of art as each picture is specific (and in some cases, explicit
).
Rod
How about trompe d'oeil? It originally meant "photographic reality" but seems to have transmuted to mean any picture which is an illusion.
How about trompe d'oeil? It originally meant "photographic reality" but seems to have transmuted to mean any picture which is an illusion.
CK. I thought it was the other way round. "Trompe d'oeil" means "to deceive the eye", hence an illusion. It is most often used now (in my experience anyway) to mean photographic reality. For example the painting of an elaborate cornice on a flat surface.
For one of my favourite examples of trompe d'oeil, if only for the size, look at
http://www.boucherbrothers.com/Fontainebleau_Hilton_hotel_resort.htm which is the whole wing of a hotel.
Rod
I've seen both trompe d'oeil and trompe l'oeil . Can any connaisseurs explain why there are two forms and - are both correct?
both trompe d'oeil and trompe l'oeil
I have also seen both used interchangeably. However I believe that only "trompe l'oeil" is correct (but am quite willing to be corrected). The verb "tromper" = to deceive and is transitive. You deceive someone, or in this case "the eye"="l'oeil", not "deceive of the eye"="d'oeil". Tromper is often used in the reflexive form "se tromper" = "to deceive oneself" or to be wrong about and then the thing one is wrong about takes "de". "se tromper de route"="to take the wrong road". "tromperie d'oeil"="deception of the eye" might be ok.
Also Larousse online only has the "trompe l'oeil" form.
Rod (who is quite capable of deceiving himself)
PS. Just remembered that "trompe" is also an elephant's trunk, and from the endless song "Un elephant ca trompe, ca trompe" it must also mean trumpet. There must be a pun in there somewhere with "ca trompe"="se trompe".
Anamorfosi = ???
is a way of drawing something -according to the laws of perspective - from a very strange angle of view, so that it usually difficult to guess what the subject is, unless by looking at the picture from a similar angle
Holbein was famous for this kind of picture. Anyway, I imagine that my explanations are very poor, since a picture is worth a thousand words...Maybe you can try to find some example of that by a search in the web.
LUCY--what a delight to see you back! Wish I had your answer, but I've only seen them as "illusions". My dear, I hope you can be with us more often in the future--you're neat.
B96--excellent link. I saw a Dali painting that I found rather disturbing--but then most of his are.
Rod--(good heavens, just now you came out, inadvertently, to be Roc!) Fascinating, about the butterflies! (Got any you can send me?) And, the hotel--did you mean the last picture? I couldn't detect anything strange about the others.
AnnaS., I learned it as trompe l'oeil: fool THE eye, and when I put trompe d'oeil (that would be fool OF eye, not very sensical.) into tsuwm's x-refer, it gave me trompe l'oeil. So I guess trompe d'oeil is an English
(American?) bastardization of trompe l'oeil.
the hotel--did you mean the last picture? Jackie,
Yes. I did have some other links a month ago back. A colleague's daughter was asking about trompe l'oeil and I looked it out then, but I can't find the better one now. I will google for some butterflies and post if I find, so you can explain them to me
.
Rod
trompe l'oeil is not only hard to spell correctly it's nearly impossible to pronounce ... I'm never sure what is right.
Sorta' tromp loray?
???
trompe l'oeil is not only hard to spell correctly it's nearly impossible to pronounce ... I'm never sure what is right.
Sorta' tromp loray?wow - what a great pun
!!!!! but there are bound to be a few who need it explaining, so I will do so. "tromp loray" would be "trompe l'oreille" or "to deceive the ear" which in context I think is
very funny. "trompe l'oeil" is more like "tromp loy/loey". Sort of a texan "o". Notice how Garth Brooks uses every vowel sound there is so noone feels left out!
Rod
I have the scene in the movie "Armegeddon" with Bruce Willis running thru my head where all the crew are taking this test with ink spot cards, to find out if they are mentally space worthy. All the answers were ridiculous and I am chuckling now just remembering them.
wow - what a great pun!!!!! ..... "tromp loray" would be "trompe l'oreille" or "to deceive the ear"
Oh, Rod thank you for that! Being 50 percent deaf I learned that phrase early in my High School French.... been waiting to use it, in context, since I signed on here! Don't expect more, as I love puns but am, in general, wretched at them.
Is "trompe l'oreille" in the French dictionaire as an explanation for Mondegreen?
Rod says: However I believe that only "trompe l'oeil" is correct
Then how come you were using "trompe d'oeil" in your previous post? [confused]
Yep, good pun, wow.
tromp loy/loey
I allus pronounced it "trump louie".
And what, Faldage, did Louie do to you to earn your ire?
Wittgenstein made something of this in the Investigations--unfortunately, I don't remember what it was and my books are still packed--any takers?
Rod says: However I believe that only "trompe l'oeil" is correct.
Then how come you were using "trompe d'oeil" in your previous post? asks confused of Atlanta.
AS. I was responding to CK's post in which he used "trompe d'oeil", but (mea culpa) didn't notice the mistake until you asked your question about "trompe l'oeil". I hide behind the fact that the frequent use of "trompe d'oeil" has inured me to its (probable) incorrectness. Any native/bi-lingual French speakers care to make a definitive statement?
Rod
What a laugh - you've all been arguing over a bloody
spelling mistake! I
intended trompe l'oeil..
And I stand by my statement. Trompe l'oeil may not have been invented during the Rennaissance, but it came into its own then as part of art and architecture. The deception originally was the extension of an object by painting "more" of it - hence the architectural focus. The best translation of it that I've seen is "optical deception" or "trick of the eye". It was used to "visually extend" a room or a building, or even the view from a window. This was why it was photographically realistic in nature. The term has simply transmuted over time into anything which is an device for optical illusion, again either in art or in architecture.
(Damn, I KNEW those art history classes would come in handy one day!)
you've all been arguing over a bloody spelling mistake! I intended trompe l'oeil.. says CK.
CK, no matter it was a slip by your good self, a quick google will show thet the two terms are used interchangeably. It is perfectly valid to question which term is (or whether both are) correct.
And it's a shame that the Renaissance photographer's film got spoilt at the developers.
I suppose that any "deceit of the eye" must be to a large degree "photographically realistic". I agree that the vast body of trompe l'oeil work is of the nature you describe, I just don't think that the term has ever been limited to it. But I wasn't around at the time, and it is a very small point to be arguing about. We could start the "War of Tromp's eye" if you like?
Rod
He din't do nothin to earn my ire. We wuz playin bridge an he led a heart. I wuz outta hearts but I had me a spade (the trey) an spades wuz trump. I took that trick an the nex five an beat his tiny clunem. But I don' hate him er nuthin.
Wittgenstein made something of this in the Investigations--unfortunately, I don't remember what it was and my books are still packed--any takers?
Duck-wabbit.
I'm sorry, I'll read that again. Duck-rabbit.
He was making the point that we don't just see things (ducks, rabbits, drawings), we see things as things (the drawing as a duck or a wabbit).
we don't just see things (ducks, rabbits, drawings), we see things as things (the drawing as a duck or a wabbit).
Yes! Minds are amazing, are they not? Like in some of those illusion pictures: for ex., inside a grid of dots there is a blank, three-sided space, and we "see" a triangle, even though there are no lines defining the boundaries. We're seeing what isn't there. Gee--is that
mental ullage?
Cap'nK guffaws:
What a laugh - you've all been arguing over a bloody spelling mistake!Yeah, and
here, of all places!
Rod, thanks for your indulgence. I am always confused when it comes to French.hi, F!
CapK states: ]I KNEW those art history classes would come in handy one day!
So does this date back to Rome? We see all those fancy painted walls in Pompeii.
Thank you all for your contributions - this really is an excellent forum for this sort of query.
We'd thought of 'trompe l'oeil' but in our experience the term seems to be restricted to architectural type uses (ceilings, wall paintings etc) not small book illustrations. If we're wrong, (distinctly possible!) then perhaps that's the problem solved. An example of it being used in this way would be manna.
Emanuela, I knew the Holbein (etc) trick of distortion but didn't know the word 'anamorfosi' - thank you. I'll chase that up, but it still may not be the correct word for our purpose, as in 'The Ambassadors' (for example) the skull is merely distorted - it doesn't really have two meaningful views.
We wondered about 'pictogram' - but don't seem to be getting very far with this line of thought. Oh the delights of one small gloss.
Lucy, here's another word that won't help you.
some of Escher's illusions are 'tessel[l]ations'.
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Museum/3828/tdevils.html
I agree with Faldage. When I was little I would get "optical illusion" books from the library, to amuse myself. And they would have drawings in them as described, where you see two images at once. There are famous ones: the vase/faces one, and the young lady/old lady one. The Canadian flag is such an illusion too. If you look for an image in the white space you see two angry faces looking kind of downward - they say it's symbolic of the everlasting conflict between the French and the English - the two solitudes!
The Canadian flag is such an illusion too. If you look for an image in the white space you see two angry faces looking kind of downward that's boss, bean =)
i HTLIU, so if anyone else is interested, here's a link:
http://www.pch.gc.ca/ceremonial-symb/english/emb_flag_intro.html
Since we're so shy around here about coining words, how about "illumages?"
some of Escher's illusions are 'tessel[l]ations'.
Sorry, but the word tessellations does not refer to the optical illusion, but to the geometric fact of covering a surface - usually the plane - by that thing we call tassello. My dictionary gives dowell, plug, inlay - I have no idea which one is the correct translation .
The Canadian flag is such an illusion too. If you look for an image in the white space you see two angry faces looking kind of downwardMust one smoke some maple leaf before one can see this?
This sounds like those verdammte "Magic Eye" things that I could
never see the hidden picture in!
So does this date back to Rome? We see all those fancy painted walls in Pompeii.
No, I don't think that the Roman painters intended to deceive anyone. The paintings weren't "realistic" or "photographic" enough. I think that they're just another example of the famous Roman lack of originality in anything except military and governmental innovations (and even those were more evolution than revolution). The artists painted what they "saw". They borrowed most of their artistic devices from the Greeks (along with literary styles and a fair chunk of the language).
Even then, it could be argued that Greek sculpture showed more flair than the Roman. Roman sculpture tended to be painfully life-like and stiff; I don't know about you, but Greek sculpture to me always seems to flow by comparison! And I also remember reading, yonks ago, that most of the "Roman" sculptors were actually Greek artisans and/or slaves. How true this is I couldn't say.
Although the Romans whupped the Greeks and took over their country, you can't help feeling that the Greeks were laughing at the Romans behind their backs ...
"Tessellation" is mosaic work. The Romans were famous for it - look at all those villa floors. And the only use I can remember of the word in the context of "modern" art does refer to "mosaic" work, eg pointillism. I remember reading that "Seurat 'tessellated' the canvas". I also seem to recall reading that some forms of fabric art carried out by sewing small pieces of material onto a base piece to form a picture - a fabric mosaic, if you will - was referred to as tessellation. But YCLIU.
>>some of Escher's illusions are 'tessel[l]ations'.
>Sorry, but the word tessellations does not refer to the optical illusion, but to the geometric fact of covering a surface...
and I was referring to the fact that these works of Escher are commonly referred to as tessellations -- he used this technique to create these particular illusions. [see the link] - as I said, this is of no help in the word search, merely a punctilio of interest.
- as I said, this is of no help in the word search, merely a punctilio of interestAnd I am certainly interested in your punctiliousness!
tsuwm, thanks for the link! It sure *seems as if you have found the correct word for the original question, but I'm apt to see both sides of a dichotomy
.
Must one smoke some maple leaf before one can see this?Thank you, Max! I was sure I was the only one who couldn't see those damn angry faces
! As for the Magic Eye thingies, with enough determined effort at changing my mental perspective, I can usually see the image, but the illusion in the Canadian flag remains elusive. I'm glad to have company!
musick:
I'm apt to see both sides of a dichotomy.Or all four....
http://math.cornell.edu/~ferenc/java/
Must one smoke some maple leaf before one can see this?max and nancyk, i suspect the problem may be that you're both looking too hard for the illusion. all the "faces" consist of are crude geometric profiles; they are perfectly symmetrical and are formed by the lines that separate the white from the red on either of the top two quadrants of the leaf. their foreheads are conjoined, they have neanderthal brows, long pointy noses and open mouths which are similar to less than/greater than signs, respectively. their shoulders, also mirror images of each other, are pointed slightly downward.
does this make it even more confusing??
does this make it even more confusing??
Incroyable! I got it!
I had to save the image, and blow it up to full-screen, then chant the secret Pooh-Bah mantra three times backward in Farsi, while wearing my special Canadian bacon toga and hitting myself on the head with a Celine Dion CD, but I got it! Thanks, bridget, even if the only thing it proves is that some of us have waaaay too much time on our hands.
the only thing it proves is that some of us have waaaay too much time on our handsAnd some of us (moi, par example) have waaaay too little imagination: I'm not much good at seeing dragons, ducks, daisies, dogs, whatever, in clouds either. Hmmmm, did you mention smokable maple leaves, Max?
.
BTW, thanks, B96, your description did help!
In reply to:
the only thing it proves is that some of us have waaaay too much time on our hands
and....
In reply to:
did you mention smokable maple leaves, Max?
bridget96 wishes to have the record reflect that no maple leaves were destroyed or otherwise harmed in the production of her elucidation.
In the interests of averting a charge of slandering a deity, I must clarify the identify of those acuused by me of having too much time. The word "us" was used to refer to the individuals who initially discovered this illusion, and the verbally inept Kiwi who wasted time intended for secular employment finding it. Thanks to the goddess for her assistance, without which the Canadian flag would
still look like nothing more than a red maple leaf on a white background.
math.cornell.edu/~ferenc/java/
Pretty cool link, but I think I'll stick to words. I didn't quite "get" the cube.
I didn't quite "get" the cube.
Ditto. All I got was a big white space and that detestable little symbol with the red square, green dot and blue triangle. Hmph.
Well, I pulled the link up from my bookmarks but didn't test it before posting it. It's s'posed to be a three-dimensional representation of a four-dimensional cube on a two-dimensional screen. You can move it around by pressing the appropriate keys. Maybe someone else can come up with a workable link. I can draw a tesseract on a piece of paper, but I don't suppose that would help much.
I get a cube† and then, if I play around with it enough, some corners seem to get truncated, but nothing that looks like any kind of hypercube *I've ever seen.
We made one out of soldered together pieces of coat hanger once. Or at least a three space projection of one.
†Well, it starts out as a square that I stared at stupidly (Hi E, 9) for some time before I thought to follow the directions.
I have no idea who first discovered it - I didn't make it up myself, if that's what you were wondering!
I have no idea who first discovered it - I didn't make it up myself, if that's what you were wondering!Heaven forfend!
My mouthy maladroitness has managed to impugn Americans on
both sides of the 48th parallel!
Dear Max,
It's the 49th parallel. And actually in Canada the word American strictly means USns, so I'm
not an American, if that's what you're implying! (Or, I am as much an American as you are an Australian!)
Bean proclaims that she's not an American
And, if we are to believe the song, not Canadian, not by a damn' sight, yet!
I have posted a desecration of the Canadian flag on Max's idrive site (
http://www.idrive.com/) outlining the mouth, nose and eyes and adding a pair of ears to help the optically delusionarily challenged amongst us.
userid: maxquordlepleen
password: Crescent
Very nice, Faldage! However, he didn't look as angry (or hungry*) as I'd always imagined him to be.
Back to the original question, if I may. There's a word for such pictorial illusions in German which is actually quite common, even a child would know it: Vexierbild. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any satisfactory English equivalent for it, only "picture puzzle" (too general). Maybe the German word should simply be borrowed...
And actually in Canada the word American strictly means USns, so I'm not an American, if that's what you're implying! (Or, I am as much an American as you are an Australian!)
Inudat, I was just playin' wit' ya. After all, being a resident of the Americas, you are an American by the same definition that makes a Guatamelan or an Uruguayan an American.
I, on the other hand, am separated from the continent of Australia by 2000 kilometres of water, and the fact that we speak English here.
MaxQ is separated from the continent of Australia by 2000 kilometres of water
But, but, if the North Island and the South Island are the same country, why is not the West Island??
And we don't stop Bostonians from being Americans just cause *they don't speak American.
But, but, if the North Island and the South Island are the same country, why is not the West Island??How far apart do you think the North and South Islands are?
As a child I was fascinated to discover that a sizeable chunk of Te Ika a Maui lies South of the northernmost tip of Te Wai Pounamu. People swim between the North and South Islands aon a reasonably regular basis, the last being a 14 year old. I am not sure how many have swum from here to the West Island.
MaxQ asks: How far apart do you think the North and South Islands are?
Ah, but the South Island and the West Island are closer together than are Long Island (the one in New York {or Nueva York, as the natives call it}) and Catalina Island.
And we don't stop Bostonians from being Americans just cause *they don't speak American.
Hey! If that's your attitude, don't try pahking your cah by the Havahd apahtments ...
wow warns me: don't try pahking your cah by the Havahd apahtments
Hey, last time I pahkt my cah in Bahstn it gawt towed. I couldn't even convince them to make it my fvee AAA tow.
wow warns me: don't try pahking your cah by the Havahd apahtments Hey, last time I pahkt my cah in Bahstn it gawt towed. I couldn't even convince them to make it my fvee AAA towThat's because you talk funny. They couldn't understand you!