Here is Rahul Malayappan鈥檚 essay entry in the Rahul was a finalist in the contest, and he wrote about his experience
There is something persistently enigmatic about the works of In all of his聽art, from the most complex of his illusions to his most regular geometric tessellations, he
combines elements of artist, mathematician and illusionist in a way that leaves his viewers聽asking, 鈥淗ow did he do that?鈥� as if they have just witnessed a magic show or a daredevil stunt.聽Escher鈥檚 artwork is more than simply visually appealing途 each piece poses an intellectual聽challenge to its viewers, forcing them to make sense of the conundrums that he creates. Out of聽all of Escher’s works, Waterfall , a lithograph of a perpetual cascade of water, is among the most聽striking and powerful. The power of Escher鈥檚 Waterfall lies in the subtlety with which it presents聽the impossible and exposes the fallibility of our own capacity to observe and perceive.
At first glance, there is nothing overtly outrageous or unusual about Waterfall. The work appears merely as an exhibition of the water carrying聽structure that takes up most of its space,聽with a rather flat perspective that gives the work an initial air of technicality途 it is reminiscent of聽an architectural study or a mechanical drawing. The work is monochromatic, typical of Escher,聽and the lack of color compounds its sense of ordinariness. There are no extreme distortions or聽striking imbalances途 Waterfall dons a regular and unassuming visage for those who peruse it聽briefly. A little more attention tunes viewers to a slight sense of oddity, created by geometrical聽forms near the top, exotic looking聽plants in the corner and a background that intersperses聽foliage amidst irregularly layered formations. But while these details do give the work somewhat聽of an air of strangeness, they do not violate the viewers鈥� senses themselves. Rather, their peculiarity alerts the viewers to the possibility that there is something more that is deeply bizarre聽about the lithograph, and they encourage a deeper look into Waterfall.
It is only afterwards, when the viewer鈥檚 eyes take the natural course and follow the water聽along one full journey in its path, that Waterfall 鈥檚 most important paradox becomes apparent途聽even so the realization is gradual, more like the development of an annoying itch than a slap in聽the face. Initially, the path of the water flowing through the channel from the base of the waterfall聽seems perfectly natural途 the sides of the path step downwards, and it is common knowledge that聽water flows downhill. The slope does not appear steep at all, and so it looks as if the water is聽ambling along steadily through the channel. Yet one full loop around the path and down the聽waterfall puts the viewers in a shock途 after following the water all the way downhill, they find聽themselves right back where they started, at the base of the tall waterfall from which they聽embarked. The other contradictions flood in soon afterwards途 pillars appear to layer segments of聽the path that are of almost equal elevation, while the channel appears impossibly to raise and聽stay approximately level at the same time. It is not possible to pinpoint any single element of the聽work that causes this contradiction途 rather, the issues come from views of the lithograph from聽different perspectives, each of which is completely incompatible with the rest.
What is unsettling about Escher鈥檚 illusion is the ease with which he convinces our minds to accept such an impossible construct. Each element of Waterfall seems to make sense
individually, and Escher鈥檚 use of perspective allows the various parts to cohere internally. In聽isolation, the waterfall and the flow of water and the differences in elevation seem to exist聽without posing any difficulty to the audience. The descent of the waterfall past two levels of the聽aqueduct seems perfectly natural, as does the stream of water flowing around the structure and聽the stratification of the channel into different levels separated by pillars. This is true even after聽the viewer becomes aware of Escher鈥檚 farce途 we are still able to see the water making its way聽through the channel and down the waterfall even though we are aware that such an聽arrangement is physically impossible. In spite of Escher鈥檚 violation of our physical and natural聽intuition, we are still able to digest and accept the disparate elements of the work途 our聽discomfort stems from our understanding of these independent elements and the contradictions聽that arise between them. This is especially unnerving in Waterfall in comparison to the rest of聽Escher鈥檚 art because of its dynamism. Unlike the static pillars of or unmoving聽staircases of ,聽the water in Waterfall must give the impression of聽moving, and so Escher must toy not only with the laws of perspective but also with those of聽physics to be successful in his illusion.
Escher鈥檚 juxtaposition between the ordinary and the outlandish is apparent even in minor details. A host of quotidian elements is strewn about the lithograph途 the canal is constructed of聽ordinary brick, while the building adjacent to the water is structurally normal and unremarkable聽in construction. A person is hanging clothes from a line in the corner of the work while a聽bystander is casually reclining down below. Yet there are also details of Waterfall that are as聽unusual as the others are banal, including the plants in the corner that look like they come聽straight from the depths of the ocean and the polyhedral shapes that ornament the two main聽columns of the aqueduct system in perhaps a surreal nod to Escher鈥檚 dabblings in solid聽geometry. Escher鈥檚 choice of detail contributes to his ability to disrupt our power of perception途聽in immersing incongruous elements amidst normal ones, he subconsciously makes them more聽difficult for the viewers to question.
The most troubling aspect of Waterfall is that it calls into doubt our ability to observe and gather information about the world, one of the most indispensable qualities that we possess.聽How can we trust our powers of observation when they are so easily deceived by a structure so聽patently impossible, and how can we be sure of our perceptive faculties when they manage to聽provide us with ideas that contradict each other? Waterfall makes it clear that our observations聽are frail途 they can easily be deluded to construct pictures of the world that are nonsensical or聽incoherent. And these senses attempt to piece together models of the world even when they are聽conscious of the impossibility of their task途 this is why the separate components of Waterfall聽appear to make logical sense long after a viewer realizes that they are part of a hopelessly聽absurd structure.
The issue is that we have no choice but to trust these senses that are so facilely deceived. There is no alternative way to gather information about the world around us, and we聽become encumbered when any of our faculties are impaired. These senses form the bridge聽between our minds and the world around us, and they are irreplaceable. This is the most聽crushing realization that Escher forces the viewers of Waterfall to face途 while our perceptions聽may be easily deceived, we are stuck with them. We are constrained to use flimsy sensory聽powers, and those are the only senses that we can employ. We can only hope that the picture聽that we develop is reliable and that our interactions with the world around us are accurate. Waterfall tests the limits of our capacity to understand and reason, and Escher bamboozles us with disconcerting ease. Waterfall teases us途 its semblance of normalcy and聽isolated comprehensibility make it appear within our grasp, yet it manages to confound us and聽stay just slightly beyond our reach. Waterfall makes it painfully clear that our own hold on reality聽is a fragile thing and that we are deceived more easily than we would like to be.
Rahul Malayappan is attending the University of California at Berkeley. His聽 interests include physics, computer science, electrical engineering and mathematics. Rahul was the valedictorian of his graduating class at Danbury High School in Danbury, Connecticut.