Another reason that Troels prefers the Enamel Cup may be that he is somewhat of a ‘minimalist’.

When I did my wall hanging, he stopped me from putting in the children. He thought that it would start looking too busy.

As an aside, your question ‘why does the sun have two colors’, reminded me of an Isaac Asimov short story about the stars that begin to change color as they dim. Perhaps, the two color scheme signifies that I do not have my entire life ahead of me?

I think the picture looks great, and I don’t believe I would have thought about perspective if you hadn’t asked me. But since you did, and I checked it, I do find perhaps a slight deviation from a single viewpoint image, depending on how far away you sense that the viewer is from the cup. The ellipses of the cup and saucer rims have almost exactly the same shape (major:minor axis ratio), although in principle the saucer rim should be a bit closer to a circle, since we are viewing it from an angle closer to (but still far from) head-on. The effect for me is that the cup looks slightly more open than I would expect. I emphasize that this detail doesn’t bother me at all, especially as the saucer in particular is somewhat distorted, presumably due to some interesting history.

When drawing near objects, any slightest shift in eye position will give a different perspective. Many artists use little tricks to prevent this, like making sure one particular object is lined up vertically and horizontally with an object behind it, making marks on the floor for one’s chair, holding out one’s arm and touching the fingers in a certain place. Any photographer will be familiar with parallax error — the difference between eye position and lens position — always a problem with close ups and rangefinder cameras.

I think that if Hanneke wants to go that way, then she needs to exaggerate the effect, but cubism is a dead horse. The novelty of such effects wear off quickly while the constancy of Hanneke’s tradition forms a strong base for the uniqueness of her individual expression, and so her work has lasting power. So in my opinion, she should just pay a little more attention to her eye position, using the aids and devices she discovers. In particular, it is the ellipses at the tops and bottoms of the cups and vases that really show up as different when there is only the tiniest difference.

Birgit,

I saw this piece on Hanneke’s site yesterday. It is just right. There is a certain quality of “hand madeness” which contrasts perfectly with what was a manufactured item. So the object is humanized. I just love the whole silvery look too.

Troels, a geometer, likes it the best of Hanneke’s picture. He just bought it.

Do you think that the perspective is correct? If not, does the subtle wrong in perspective give the picture an intriguing aspect?

Multiple viewpoints may or may not be desirable. Personally, I think that a single, consistent viewpoint fits better with the otherwise realistic style. But as Birgit once said, it all depends on the artist. So I’m interested in Hanneke’s thoughts. Did the drawings seem at all inconsistent when she drew them; did she even think consciously about the viewpoint question? And looking back now, does she feel there is anything wrong or that should be changed?