Maurits Cornelius (M.C.

) Escher, one of the greatest mathematical and artistic geniuses

of modern times, was born on June 17, 1898 in Leeuwarden, Netherlands (Wilde,

DeRosa and Pickett). Evident in his work is the eternal struggle he continuously

underwent in order to reconcile his scientist persona with his artistic side. He exerted

substantial influence over the mathematical world as well as the artistic world: according

to Michael Passarelli, “Escher influenced the study of mathematics and science as much

as he was influenced by it.” He explored the concepts of making transitions between

shapes, particularly two-dimensional and three-dimensional shapes, as well as the use of

pronounced contrast between light and dark. He also incorporated relativity of space and

time into his art, using apparently impossible distortions of perspective that confuse the

mind. He accomplished these and other remarkable effects by making use of optical

illusions; we see what we expect to see, based on our subconscious preconceptions of the

universe. He challenges our understanding of the world around us by forcing us to see

things from a different viewpoint. That quality, in the opinion of many, is what makes

M.C. Escher a great artist. “Incorporating numerous mathematical concepts into his

works, he elegantly demonstrated the distinct art and math relationship” (Passarelli).

I have chosen to examine the Escher work entitled Encounter. I chose this

particular piece because it contains a good combination of themes which frequently

appear in Escher’s work. In particular, he makes creative use of tessellation, contrast,

dimensional shift, geometrically organized composition, and gradual, evolution-like

transitions of shape.

The use of tessellation in this work of art is quite remarkable. The interlocking

figures are not examples of traditional, simplistic tessellation of plain geometric figures;
they are complex forms which blend beautifully with the “environment” of the image.

We see a picture of a two-dimensional, tessellated backdrop consisting of white and black

figures which interconnect like pieces of a puzzle. The way the figures are tiled is not

symmetrical; however, there is an illusion of symmetry that results from the

complementary nature of the humanoid shapes, particularly their stature and gestures.

The rows of figures alternate with respect to the direction each one is facing, and each

black/white pair serves as its own counterbalance, further augmenting the illusion of

symmetry. This is done beautifully with excellent use of light-dark contrast, and

successfully fills the tiled background viewing plane with no extraneous space in between

shapes. At the same time, both sets of shapes are distinct figures in and of themselves;

neither set is simply a formless complementary counterpart of the other.

The sharp, drastic contrast of light and dark in this image is immediately apparent.

The standing figures in the foreground, as well as the tiled figures in the background, are

sharply and deliberately contrasted against each other throughout; however, the contrast

is not perfectly consistent. The contrast between the figures in the background is sharpest

and most pronounced at the center of the image. The men slowly blend together as the

contrast fades out from the center in a diamond-shaped pattern. It appears that this effect

was utilized to initially draw the viewer’s eye to the center and gently allow it to wander

and explore the different aspects of the picture. The viewer is presented with a

dichotomous choice; one’s eye can follow the path of the black men on the left, or the

white men on the right. This can be taken to be symbolic of the choice between optimism

and pessimism; according to Escher himself, "Here a white optimist and a black pessimist
meet and shake each other by the hand” (qtd. in Verdonck). This symbolism may have

deeper psychological implications as well.

One cannot help but to notice the intriguing transition between the background

and foreground, particularly the gradual transition from the flat, wallpaper-like

interlocking pattern in the background to the free-standing images in the foreground. The

white figure to the right of the center and the black figure to the left of the center are

halfway between depths: they appear to be breaking out of the background picture and

emerging into the three-dimensional world. They retain the basic forms that they were

locked into during their flat existence, as if they did not know any other form. Yet it

slowly changes as they “move” toward the front; they take on more depth and character

as they grow nearer to our eyes. At the same time, the two-dimensional background has

faded out of existence by the time we reach the bottom, where the men shake hands.

Paradoxically, the flat image is composed on a solid, elliptical surface, while the solid

figures are arranged about a flat, oval shape. The overall effect is ambiguity between

solidity and flatness; one cannot specifically define where the shift happens.

There is not only a transition between depths of dimension here, but also a

transition between stasis and movement. The background figures are frozen in time; they

are eternally locked together in a static embrace. The foreground figures are lively and

clearly seem to be moving. Yet, somehow, the image is believable to our senses. How

does Escher accomplish this remarkable effect? For one, the implied movement of the

solid figures has a static quality to its nature: the stance of the men does not change

significantly between stages. They are eternally locked into an awkward dance; they

remember their previous two-dimensional existence and happily celebrate it. Conversely,
the static backdrop has subtly dynamic qualities to its nature. The appearance of lens-like

curvature adds an organic, flowing feel to the background, almost as if the figures were

eager to leave the canvas and join their solid counterparts. “They seem to be looking for

solid ground, albeit only drawn” (Verdonck). In this way, the foreground and

background images are closer to one another in nature; we simply move from figures

standing still in a dynamic way to figures moving in a static way.

The geometric composition is brilliantly done; the broken oval at the center of the

painting gives our eyes a path to follow (though it does not incline us in a particular

direction). The rectangle in the background does not contain all of the two-dimensional

imagery; however it serves as a “wall” to establish perspective by composing the painting

with a box-like effect. The oval appears at first to be a reflective surface, but upon closer

inspection we see that it is simply a continuation of the pattern above it. The “wallpaper”

image is strictly confined to the bounds of the oval. The reflective quality is further

evidence of the illusion of symmetry mentioned earlier. The oval is paired with the

elliptical spheroid formed by the fading of the flat image. The pairing of center of the flat

image and the handshake of the solid figures gives us two focal points; this augments the

elliptical theme here, since the shape of an ellipse is defined by its two foci.

The final aspect of this piece which I will examine here is the theme of gradual

transition that dominates the entire work. Each progressive image is subtly different from

the last in a progression: no two are identical. This is apparent not only in the transitions

between the flat and solid men, but in the transitions between successive images within

the confines of each universe. With the flat figures, the most pronounced transition is

that between strong contrast at the center, and faded contrast as one’s eyes move outward.
With the solid figures, the most distinct transition is that of their faces and apparent

mood. The white figures transition slowly from a neutral expression to a smile, and a

more lively demeanor. The black figures take on a more upright stance. Also, the heads,

which are initially pointed in opposite directions, come to face one another at the center.

It appears that the figures are meeting in the middle, and mutually respectful of their

drastically different natures.

Encounter is a brilliant piece of art, which can be appreciated and enjoyed by art

connoisseurs and mathematicians alike. No expertise or specialized knowledge is

required to see the genius inherent in this work. It, like other Escher works, presents us

with a world too fantastic to be our own, yet conforming to our laws of physics just

enough to confuse and fool our senses into recognition and familiarity. The originality

and creativity employed in the creation of this piece have truly made it a great work of

art.