Another important question is shade contrast. For the Moors it was natural to compose their tiled surfaces with mutually contrasting, different-coloured pieces of majolica. Likewise, I myself have always used contrasting shades as a simple necessity, as a logical means of visualising the adjacent components of my patterns.
However, although Escher does indeed (generally) use contrasting colours, the choice appears to have been essentially at whim, using arbitrary combinations of colour. Certainly, there is no investigation into a separate study per se.
Colour can now be applied in more than the 'traditional' way employed in Escher's time, namely with the electronic medium of computers. However, for truly understanding aspects of colour theory, the traditional media is, in my opinion, far superior. Therefore, being more familiar with artistic aspects than with computer coloration, the essay mainly discusses the implications involved concerning colour as with paint and brush rather than electronically, albeit the latter is indeed discussed briefly.
mixing complementary, whereby when two given colours are thus duly physically mixed, thus resulting in a grey
visual complementary, whereby the colours give the most contrast as seen by the eye
All too often, the above distinctions are not stated, thereby leading to confusion as to which type is referred to. Neglecting this, when complementaries are indeed stated, with presumably of the visual type in mind, combinations such as blue/orange, red/green and yellow/violet are given. However, such simple colour descriptions are woefully inadequate, at best, an approximation. Quite simply, more precision is in order, as such a simple description as to colours is too vague, essentially being of an abstract concept. For example, ‘blue' can conceivably be one of a multitude of pigments, such as a violetish blue as ultramarine (pigment blue 27), or as a greenish blue, such as cobalt blue (pigment blue 28), not to mention other blue pigments that are available. When so compared the differences are noticeable. Consequently, the term ‘blue' must be quantified. Such inexact choices of colour apply to the other simplistic colour descriptions above. Quite simply, such matters have persisted, and without doubt, an unsatisfactory state of affairs that has been allowed to remain for far too long. However, thankfully the matter has finally been resolved due to the efforts of Bruce MacEvoy, a ‘scientist artist' who has undertaken some original work in the field, and has consequently thereby established some specifics as against the previous uncertainties. Furthermore, the information is readily accessible at a popular level, with a list of the complementaries given, published as an online article www.handprint.com. (Many other so-called truisms of painting and colour theory are also examined and put to the test before being found wanting, and then duly being corrected.)
Of interest would be knowing Escher's views on this subject, of which he would almost certainly be aware of complementary colour theory. Regrettably, as he did not write anything on this subject, the only guide we have to his knowledge is the drawings. However, upon examining his examples, he seems to have essentially neglecting this aspect, as not a single example shows a complementary pairing. As a rule, he favoured a light and dark contrast without being too concerned as to which colours were used. Such apparent disregard for complementary colour I find most surprising, as the suitability of such a colouring scheme is so obvious
In general terms this particular choice of coloration is the one I prefer, of which numerous examples can be seen (and are discussed) on the site.
Colour Rendition
Colour rendition refers to the inherent quality of any finished motif, and as such, this aspect has a bearing on any finished work. Such rendition can range from a straightforward application of either one or two shades of watercolour, up to a highly detailed, photo-realistic finish, with, taking a bird motif for demonstrative purposes, individual feathers being noticeable. Therefore, when faced with these two extremes, the question arises as to which of these is most appropriate for tessellation purposes. Again, such matters depend upon circumstances, as a tessellation can be shown as of a mere handful of motifs or literally hundreds. Indeed, if the latter type is chosen, the ‘tedium factor' must be taken into account. Quite simply, in colouring so many motifs in an essentially mechanical way rather than being ‘creative', the potential for mistakes or slipshod work is increased, as motif after motif follows with tedium setting in. Therefore, such vagaries must be borne in mind. However, in taking an arbitrary tessellation in one of my favoured formats, namely of a ‘4 x 4' arrangement which thus consists of sixteen motifs, I now examine the merits in terms of time of the two renditions. Concerning the ‘one or two-shade' type, a single motif could be finished in a matter of moments, let us say, for the sake of argument, one minute. Now, as regards the ‘photo-realistic' type, this is obviously the most time consuming, of which for a single motif could easily take, say, an hour to finish. Therefore, upon applying when such renditions to the whole composition, simple calculation shows that we have examples taking sixteen minutes and sixteen hours respectively to complete, a ratio of 16:1. As this thus involves a considerable discrepancy in time quantities, the obvious question that arises is of how best to use the time at ones disposal. Effectively, it comes down to between a choice of a single, high quality (photo-realist) example, and sixteen (ability permitting of course!) tessellations of simpler, one or two-shades colourings. Now, as no one has an infinite amount of time available, such ‘excesses' of the former cannot thus be justified in a practical sense, therefore the ‘simpler' example is the only realistic choice, of which such a rendering permeates throughout my own work.
Upon examining Escher's periodic drawings for comparison, it can be seen that he too favoured the ‘simplistic' approach in general terms, with only occasionally highly detailed rendering occurring. However, such comparisons are not strictly fair, as the tessellations were not intended to be regarded as finished works of art in their own right. Indeed, some of these are most crude, with the impression given that they are of a study nature. As such, they can be said to be a 'report' of his experiments of composing various representational motifs. Consequently, the rendition is a reflection on this.
* Perfect Coloration. Compatible with the symmetry of the tessellation, but is not compatible with the minimum number of colours.
* Non-Perfect. Compatible with the minimum number of motifs, but is not compatible the tessellation.
Therefore, when so faced with a tessellation of so how 'best' to thus colour, then any one type has both advantages and disadvantages, these being evenly balanced out as above.
Of interest is how Escher approached the possibilities in this field. Of his 137 periodic drawings, only two, Nos.20 and 118, show more colours than the minimum that is required. (On No.20 he notes that a three-colour example is possible.) Furthermore, a preparatory sketch of No.3 shows four colours. As both types of colouring are equally valid, it is perhaps somewhat surprising that Escher did not make at least two examples of any one given tessellation when appropriate.
Last updated: 4 January 2006 (2007?) (perfect coloration added). Addition: 29 May 2007 (Map Colouring Section)