The Principles of Artistic Illusions.

pdf
Saved to Dropbox • Mar 14, 2023 at 5:07 AM

THE PRINCIPLES OF ARTISTIC ILLUSIONS

Copyright © Donald E. Simanek, December 1996

Illusory works of art have a curious fascination. They represent a triumph of art over
reality. They are illogic masquerading as logic.
Why do illusions capture our interest? Why have so many artists gone to the trouble to
produce them? Mountain climbers say they scale mountains "because they are there."
Perhaps we seek illusions because they aren't there.
We have all admired the lithograph Waterfall by Maurits C. Escher (1961). His waterfall
recycles its water after driving the water wheel. If it could work, this would be the
ultimate perpetual motion machine that also delivers power! If we look closely, we see
that Mr. Escher has deceived us, and any attempt to build this structure using solid
masonry bricks would fail.
All M. C. Escher works © - Cordon Art B. V. - P.O. Box 101-3740 Ac - Baarn -
The Netherlands. All rights reserved. M.C. Escher (TM) is a Trademark of
Cordon Art. Used by permission. The examples used here were scanned by Paul
Schofield and may be seen at his site The World of Escher, which also has many
other Escher pictures.

ISOMETRIC DRAWINGS

Two-dimensional drawings (on a flat surface) can be

made to convey an illusion of three dimensional reality.
Usually this deception is employed to depict real, solid
objects in spatial relationships achievable in our world of
sensory experience.
The conventions of classical perspective are very
effective at simulating such reality, permitting
`photographic' representation of nature. This
representation is incomplete in several ways. It does not
allow us to see the scene from different vantage points, to
walk into it, or two view objects from all sides. It does
not even give us the stereoscopic depth sensation that a real object would have due to the
lateral separation of our two eyes. A flat painting or drawing represents a scene from
only one fixed viewpoint, as does an ordinary monocular photograph.
One class of illusions appears at first look to be ordinary `perspective' renderings of
solid, three dimensional objects or scenes. But on closer examination, they reveal
internal contradictions such that the three dimensional scene they depict could not exist
in reality. These pictures have a special fascination for those of us used to the convention
of depicting nature on a flat surface of paper, canvas, or in a photograph.
Isometric illusory art was created as early as 1934 by Swedish Artist Oscar Reutersvärd
with the impossible arrangement of blocks shown here. The colors in this version are not
to be blamed on Oscar. This design has been widely used, and even appears on a
Swedish postage stamp.

THE PENROSE ILLUSION

One particular example of the Reutersvard illusion is sometimes called the `Penrose' or
`tribar' illusion. Its simplest form is illustrated here.
The picture appears to depict three bars of square cross section
joined to form a triangle. If you cover up any one corner of this
figure, the three bars appear to be fastened together properly at right
angles to each other at the other two corners–a perfectly normal
situation. But now if you slowly uncover a corner it becomes
apparent that deception is involved. These two bars that connect at this corner wouldn't
even be near each other if they were joined properly at the other two corners.
The Penrose illusion depends on `false perspective,' the same kind used in engineering
`isometric' drawings. This sort of illusion picture displays an inherent ambiguity of
depth, which we will call `isometric depth ambiguity.'
Isometric drawings represent all parallel lines as parallel on the flat page,
even if they are tilted with respect to the observer in the actual scene. An
object tilted away from the observer by some angle looks the same as if
were tilted toward the observer by the same angle. A tilted rectangle has a
two-fold ambiguity, as demonstrated by Mach's figure (right), which may be seen as an
open book with pages facing you, or as the covers of a book, with the spine facing you.
It may also be seen as two symmetric parallelograms side by side and lying in a plane,
but few people describe it that way.

The Thiery figure (above) illustrates the same artistic deception.

Schroeder's reversible staircase illusion is a very

`pure' example of isometric depth ambiguity. It may
be perceived as a stairway that one could ascend
from right to left, or as the underside of a stairway,
seen from below. Any attempt to draw this with
vanishing points would destroy the illusion.
The illusion can be enhanced by adding recognizable figures, as in the version at the
right is © 2001 by John C. Holden. It should carry an OSHA warning: Caution: Illusory
stairways can be hazardous.
The simple design below looks like three faces of a string of cubes, seen either from the
outside, or the inside. If you put your mind to it, you can see them as alternating: inside,
outside, inside. But it's very hard, even if you try, to see at as simply a pattern of
parallelograms in a plane. This is the same as the `tumbling blocks' design sometimes
used in quilts.

Blackening some facets enhances the illusion, as is shown below. The black
parallelograms at the top are seen either as from below, or from above. Try as hard as
you can to see them as alternating, one from below, one from above, and so on, left to
right. Most people can't. Why should we be unable to do this?

The design at the right uses the tribar illusion relentlessly in strict
isometric drawing style. This is one of the `hatching' patterns of the
AutoCAD (TM) computer graphics program. It is called the `Escher'
hatching pattern.
The isometric wire-frame drawing of a cube (below left) shows isometric ambiguity.
This is sometimes called the Necker cube. If the black dot is on the center of a face of
the cube, is that face the front, or the rear face? You can also imagine the dot is near the
lower right corner of a face, but still you can't be sure if it is the front or rear face. You
have no reason to assume that the dot is in or even on the cube, but might be behind or in
front of the cube, since you have no clue to determine the relative size of the dot.
If the edges of the cube are given a suggestion of
solidity, as if the cube were made of wooden
2x4s nailed together, a contradictory figure
results. But here we have used ambiguous
connectivity of the horizontal members, which
will be discussed in the next section. This
version is called the `crazy crate'. Perhaps it would serve as as the frame to build a
shipping crate for illusions. Nailing the plywood faces onto the frame to complete the
crate would be a real challenge, but necessary to keep the illusions from falling out!

PHOTOGRAPHING ILLUSIONS

The crazy crate cannot be made of lumber. Yet the

photograph shown here is of something made of lumber,
something that certainly looks like the crazy crate. It is a
cheat. One piece, which seems to pass behind another, is
actually two pieces with a break, one nearer, one farther than
the crossing piece. This only seems to be a crate from one
particular viewing point. If you looked at the real thing from
near this point, your stereoscopic vision would give the trick
away. If you moved your head from the viewing point for
which it was designed, you'd see the trick. In museum
displays of this you are forced to look through a small hole in a wall, using only one eye.
To make such a photograph, one has to engage in deception. If an ordinary camera is
used, the more distant lumber pieces subtend a smaller angle than the nearer ones. So the
more distant ones must be made physically larger, and those that have one end nearer
than the other end must be tapered in size from one end to the other.
There's another way to accomplish this for smaller objects. The small model below left is
made of plastic Quobo ® bricks, 1 cm high. The entire model is over 7 cm high. Notice
that there's a size disparity where the nearer yellow horizontal tier touches the more
distant red brick. But in the picture to the right, there is no size difference there. Note
also in the picture to the right, that all bricks subtend the same angle, opposite edges of
the green base are parallel and all other parallel lines of the model are parallel on the
picture. This is an isometric photograph.

The normal photo on the left shows the chair and lamp behind, as well as other clutter of
a small workroom. It was taken with a digital camera with the subject only about 30 cm
from the lens.
The photo on the right was taken with the same camera, and approximately the same
subject distance. But a telecentric optical system was used, consisting of a large 13 cm
diameter lens placed with its focal point very near the camera's own lens. This particular
large lens didn't have high quality (it was molded, not polished), so the resolution of the
picture is poorer. Such systems suffer from the problem that any dust or scratches or
other defects on the lens can show in the final picture. Use of a single lens also produces
"pincushion" distortion that renders straight lines as slightly curved.
Telecentric lens systems of high quality are used in industry for product inspection, and
in microscopy, for increased depth of focus (DOF). They are limited to photographing
small objects smaller than the diameter of the front surface of the lens. See: Telecentric
systems.
For some subjects one can "get away" with this kind of deception by using a telephoto
lens of high magnification and placing the subject very far away from the camera.

AMBIGUOUS CONNECTIVITY

Some illusions depend on the ambiguous connectivity possible in line

drawings. This three (?) tined fork above is sometimes called
Schuster's conundrum. It can be drawn in perspective, but natural shading or shadowing
would destroy the illusion.
What's the basis of this illusion? Is this a variation on Mach's `open book' illusion?
Certainly the drawing is isometric.
Actually this is a combination of Mach's illusion and ambiguous
connectivity. The two books share a common front cover. This makes
the tilt of the book cover even more ambiguous.
Some use the general term undecidable figure to describe these
pictures. That term is so broad that it could be applied to nearly all
illusions.
Here's an illusory musical tuning-fork, with only two tines. The figure on the right shows
its perspective, with vanishing points.
ILLUSIONS OF SHAPE

Closely related to alignment illusions are those where a dominating pattern alters our
judgment of a geometric shape. The example below is similar to the Zoelner, Wundt, and
Herring illusions in which the pattern of short diagonal lines distorts the long parallel
lines. [Yes, the horizontal lines are perfectly straight and parallel. Check them on the
printed copy with a ruler.]

These illusions take advantage of the way our brains process information containing
repeating patterns. One regular pattern can dominate so strongly that other patterns
appear distorted.
A classic example is the pattern of concentric circles with a superimposed square.
Though the sides of the square are absolutely straight, they appear curved. The
straightness of the square's sides may be checked by laying a ruler along them. This
effect is found in many illusions of shape.
The same principle is at work in this example. Though the two circles are exactly the
same size, one looks smaller. This is one of many illusions of size. It is a close relative of
the "Ponzo Illusion".

Some have `explained' this illusion as a result of our experience with perspective in
photographs and works of art. We interpret the two lines as `parallel' lines receding to a
vanishing point, and therefore the circle not touching the lines must be nearer, and hence
larger.
The same picture is shown (above right) with darker circles, and the
parallel lines have become part of dark triangles. If the `receding
parallel line' theory were correct, this illusion should be weaker. You be
the judge.
The width of the brim of this hat is the same as its height, though it doesn't seem so at
first look. Try turning the picture on its side. Is the illusion the same? This is an illusion
of relative dimensions within a picture, which is a distortion of shape.

ILLUSIONS OF ALIGNMENT

The Poggendorf illusion, or `crossed bar' illusion invites us to

judge which line, A or B, is aligned exactly with C. A good
ruler can be used on the printed copy to check your answer.

AMBIGUOUS ELLIPSES

Tilted circles appear as ellipses. Circles drawn in perspective

appear on the page as ellipses, and ellipses have an inherent
ambiguity of depth. If this figure represents a circle seen tilted,
there's no way to tell whether the top arc is nearer or farther than the bottom arc.
Improper connectivity is also an essential element of this ambiguous ring illusion:

And here's a more elaborate version of it.

 Ambiguous Ring, © Donald E. Simanek, 1996.
Cover about one third of the picture at either end, and the rest of the picture looks like
part of a very normal ring or washer. Only two colors have been used, for this figure,
like a Möbius strip, has only two faces. Or you may wish to think of this as a Möbius
strip made from very thick, flexible material, with the face one color and its edge another
color.
One reader says this isn't an illusion, for you can make one of flexible
material, and he mailed me a model made from foam strip. However,
while you can do this with a strip of square cross section, my illusion
above has a rectangular cross section. He makes a valid point, however,
he'll have to go to a lot more trouble to make each face change width as
you go around 180°.
When I devised this picture I thought that it might
be an entirely original illusion. But then I noticed
an advertisement with the corporate logo of the
Canstar corporation [left], a manufacturer of fiber
optics. This is another case of two great minds
independently inventing the non-existent wheel! If
we dig deeply enough, we'd probably find even
earlier examples.
Now [October 2003] I find this ring illusion on the web, without any credit to me, even
though the proportions and layout match mine perfectly. At the site where I found this
version, there was no clue who drew it. Such is the Internet. If the person who borrowed
this idea will come forward, I'll acknowledge that person here. At least it indicates that
someone was taken by the idea. I have changed the color of the version I found, because
I considered it ugly.
 Impossibly linked ambiguous rings. © 2004 by Donald Simanek.

Finally [Dec, 2004], this illusion evolves into something more interesting. Here two
ambiguous rings are ambiguously linked. All of these illustrations are available in
higher-resolution versions on request. Readers have suggested several names or captions
for it: "the interconnectedness of everything," "a new atomic theory," "tying mental
knots," "super-colliding synchronous orbitals," "illusory quantum entanglement," (I like
that one.) and "virtual unreality."

THE ENDLESS STAIRCASE

The other classic Penrose illusion is the impossible staircase. This illusion is often
rendered as an isometric drawing, even in the Penrose paper. Our version is identical to
that of the Penrose paper, except for its lack of shading. The color version to the right
allows you to follow a particular color on a step through the layers below. You discover
that there aren't enough layers for all the steps.
This could be drawn with vanishing points in full perspective. M. C. Escher, in his 1960
lithograph Ascending and Descending, (above) chose to construct the deception in a
different manner. He placed the staircase on the roof of a building and structured the
building below to convey an impression of conformity to strong (but inconsistent!)
vanishing points. He has the right vanishing point higher than the left one.
One task artists have not yet successfully addressed is to draw an illusion picture with its
shadow. Just as shading could kill an illusion, its shadow could also give away the
illusion. Possibly an artist could be clever enough to place the light source in such a
location that the shadow would be consistent with the rest of the picture. Maybe the
shadow could become an illusion itself! The possibilities boggle the mind.

SEEING ILLUSIONS

Some persons look at these illusion pictures and are not at all intrigued. "Just a mis-made
picture," some will say. Some, perhaps less than 1 percent of the population, do not `get'
the point because their brains do not process flat pictures into three dimensional images.
These same persons have trouble with ordinary engineering line drawings and textbook
illustrations of three dimensional structures.
Others can see that `something is wrong' with the picture, but are not fascinated enough
to inquire how the deception was accomplished. These are people who go through life
never quite understanding, or caring, how the world works, because they can't be
bothered with the details, and lack the appropriate intellectual curiosity.
It may be that the appreciation of such visual paradoxes is one sign of that kind of
creativity possessed by the best mathematicians, scientists and artists. M. C. Escher's
artistic output included many illusion pictures and highly geometric pictures, which
some might dismiss as `intellectual mathematical games' rather than art. But they hold a
special fascination for mathematicians and scientists.
It is said that people in isolated parts of the world, who have never seen photographs,
cannot at first understand what a photograph depicts when it is shown to them. The
interpretation of this particular kind of visual representation is a learned skill. Some
learn it more fully than others.
Historically, artists learned geometric perspective and used it long before the
photographic process was invented. But they did not learn it without help from science.
Lenses became generally available in the 16th century, and one early use of lenses was in
the camera obscura. A large lens was put in a hole in the wall of a darkened room so that
an upside down image was cast on the opposite wall. The addition of a mirror allowed
the image to be cast onto a flat floor or table top, and the image could even be traced.
This was used by artists who experimented with the new `European' perspective style in
art. It was aided by the fact that mathematics had developed enough sophistication to put
the principles of perspective on a sound theoretical basis, and these principles found
their way into books for artists.
It is only by actually trying to make illusion pictures that one begins to appreciate the
subtlety required for such deceptions. Very often the nature of the illusion seems to
constrain the whole picture, forcing its `logic' on the artist. It becomes a battle of wits,
the wit of the artist against the strange illogic of the illusion.

Display Case For Illusions,

Belvedere by M. C. Escher.
© Donald E. Simanek, 1996.

Now that we've discussed some of the deceptions that may be used in artistic illusions,
you may use them to create your own illusions, and to classify any illusions you run
across. Soon you'll have quite a collection, and will need some way to display them. I've
designed an appropriate glass display case, shown on the left.
The reader may wish to check the consistency of the vanishing points, and other aspects
of the geometry of this drawing. By analyzing such pictures, and trying to draw them,
one can gain a real understanding of the deceptions used in the picture. M. C. Escher
used similar tricks in his architecturally impossible Belvedere (above right).

For further reading

Several websites feature the work of Oscar Reutersvärd:

Oscar Reutersvärd, founding father of impossible objects.
Oscar Reutersvärd, The father of impossible objects.
Oscar Reutersvärd.
A web browser search will turn up many more.
-- Donald E. Simanek

References:
Penrose, L. S. and Penrose, R. "Impossible Objects: A Special Type of Visual Illusion."
Brit. J. Psychology 49, 31-33, 1958.

This document is an ongoing project, for which feedback is

welcomed by the author. E-mail to the address shown to the
right.
Return to top of this page.
Return to illusions page
Return to front page and main menu.
Since 8/30/01 people who had no illusions came here
to get some.