(no subject)

[abigailbrady]

Peppa Pig is in the news. I still can't work out whether the artwork of this character is a brilliant attempt to introduce young children to cubism (bearing as it does a strong resemblance to "Woman in Hat and Fur Collar"), or whether it just went wrong.

I am further troubled by the glasses of another character depicted at the link (I believe this is "Daddy Pig"), which rest neither on his ears nor his nose. I think I may tomorrow spend a few minutes making a 3D model and a texture for young Peppa, to demonstrate what happens when you try and rotate her.

Comments

[tsuki-chama.livejournal.com]

Rotating Peppa Pig?! I'm expecting some Cthonic non-Euclidean horror, myself.

[katsmeat.livejournal.com]

The artwork is deliberately aping childrens' art. Children find it hard to deal with the idea that a realistic depiction of something will usually require part of that thing to be obscured. A child's drawing depicts every major feature if the thing - because Peppa has two eyes, they both must be there even though this means they get placed in a bizarrely unnatural place.

I would think this would be because children haven't yet gotten the idea that "everybody knows" pigs have two eyes. They think that if you were to draw a pig in profile, showing only one eye, the viewer would assume they were looking at a one-eyed pig.

[pfy.livejournal.com]

Ia! Ia! Shub-Piggurath!