"JYR" <jyr### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> "Bob Hughes" <bob### [at] charternet> wrote:
> > but it didn't help keep me from seeing this scene as two individual
> > parts glued together.
>
> I, for one, suggest that this is exactly what this picture is about. A
> double planetoid, two constructs of the same overall shape and size sharing
> the same location in space, with implied competition, but not necessarily
> interaction.
>
> But, this is only my interpretation of this work ;)

That's very much what I get from the original work, and what I'm trying to
preserve here. The two tetrahedral worlds are separate and isolated,
despite occupying the same space.

To address your other comments: I agree, I too prefer the single archway for
the bridge. I changed it because I didn't want the boulder to appear
smaller than the buildings - I think the two shapes should be equal in
size. I may well change it back...

A lot of people think vegetation is a bad idea! I'm still keen to add some,
but of the sparse, desert type. The trees will be windblown skeletons (if I
get it right!), the bushes pale and scrubby. The hostility of the boulder
will thus be maintained. People on the buildings and vegetation on the
boulder will also help to establish the vertical (i.e., direction of
gravity) over both surfaces, which I think is quite important as a visual
hook.

The join where the two shapes intersect is indeed a problem. I may do some
creative interlocking, as in the original, or just have more vegetation
close to the wall as Bob suggested. This would make sense, too, I guess, if
the inhabitants of the buildings were in the habit of throwing waste out of
their windows!

Thanks for the suggestions and encouragement :)

Bill

Post a reply to this message