This article honestly confused me and I felt that it jumped around a lot. I think one main point that the article was trying to convey is that two-dimension takes away from 3-D and what things actually are or look like. Most pieces of art are put onto a two-dimensional space. The things that are put into the piece of art are usually 3-D things. For example, if someone paints a picture of the Eiffel Tower, that is a 3-D object that someone is placing onto a 2-D space. It's not the same as the real thing and actually looking at the real thing. In a way it takes away from the meaning and from the true beauty of something by shrinking it, adding colors and placing on a different medium.
I liked the example of the railroad in this piece and the part when the author states, "in flatland, after all, every opportunity to spread additional information over an already-available dimension must be cherished." On a piece of paper or in a screen there is only a limited amount of space that information can fit onto. After awhile if there is too much information on a piece of paper or on a screen then it gets too confusing and too much to look at. The railroad map in the piece looks extremely confusing. There is so much information and so many things overlapping each other that it becomes all bundled together and just becomes a mess.
No comments:
Post a Comment