Show HN: Delaunay Triangulating Robert Delaunay's Eiffel Tower Paintings

As suggested in the discussion points, thin lines/stripes get muddled up with wider adjacent surfaces. Is this a problem with the goal of the exercise ? Maybe it needs to be more clearly defined. I suppose the idea is that the method and the style fit together nicely, and as a result the paintings are representable quite efficiently with low resolution triangulations. It already mostly fits the bill, except for some exceptions to the main shapes represented. Does the author suggest further work should be devoted to improving the efficiency of the depiction? I guess the thin lines are quite important in keeping the paintings structured but I'm not sure what's to gain from that exercise if straying too far from the original triangulation — I think you'd lose the amusing coincidence of these concepts applying nicely together.

I did some work [1] on constrained Delaunay triangulations similar to this where visually important, and constrained, edges were automatically determined by Laplace-like filters.

[1] https://femtondev.wordpress.com/

The main idea is to explore the concept of skinny triangles being unaesthetic (and thus undesirable for triangulations). This is true for many tasks in computational geometry, but not so true in art. Bringing these two together shows jarring conflict where the Delaunay Triangulation and your brain's sense of aesthetics disagree.

It's not really supposed to be useful, just exploration in reduction of an already reduced art style: what is lost when we enforce that all shapes are triangles that tend to be more large-angle? For one, I think this destroys the perspective since one common trope is to make objects narrower as they are farther away.

Although the entire thing is mostly a joke based on their shared last names.

Super cool! Why does the Delaunay triangulation avoid skinny triangles?