Option 32: cubism. The picture is split into shards, and each shard shows the bot from a different angle at the same time: front, turned left, from above. So eyes appear in several places, as in Picasso and Braque. Views drift and rotate. Tap "Shatter" to blow the facets apart and reassemble a new arrangement.

**One picture, many viewpoints.**
The canvas is cut into polygon facets by random straight lines, packed more tightly around the bot's face. Inside each facet, the bot and the still life (table, cup) are redrawn from that facet's own camera angle and offset. Eyes appear two or three times, shifted and foreshortened, just as Picasso painted faces front-on and in profile together.

**Views keep turning.**
Each facet slowly rotates its viewpoint on its own rhythm, so the portrait constantly rearranges.

**Two phases of cubism:**
**View spread 0.**
Every facet shows the same view, and the bot reassembles into one normal image under a cracked-glass pattern. Spread creates the cubism, not the cuts.

**Tick "Label viewpoints."**
Each shard shows its angle, e.g. "left 38° · above 12°." You can read the picture as a map of camera positions.

**Facets 32.**
Small shards near the face give analytic density. At 6 the result is bold and poster-like.

**Shatter.**
The facets fly outward, and a new arrangement forms while they're apart. Every reassembly is a new painting of the same subject.

**Untick "Passage edges."**
Every facet gets a full outline and becomes stained glass. Broken edges let planes flow into each other, a key analytic device.

**The cuts are weighted toward the face.**
Bigger shards far from the subject, many small ones near it. Picasso and Braque put their densest fracturing where the viewer's attention lands.

**The sphere is shaded in hard bands, not gradients.**
Each facet splits the ball into light, mid and dark along its own light direction. The "lighting" disagrees between facets, which makes shadows cubist too.

**The table edge breaks at every seam.**
Each facet shifts it slightly, like Cézanne's tables that never line up across a still life, a direct ancestor of cubism.

**The newsprint is invented.**
Synthetic cubists pasted real newspaper. Here it's fake text rows, so nothing is copied.

**How a facet is drawn**
```
facet polygon ─► clip to it ├─ background plane (flat or graded) ├─ optional collage texture ├─ table + cup, shifted by this facet's offset └─ bot from this facet's (yaw, pitch): circle + 3 hard tone bands + eyes projected in 3D edges: ink line, some partial or skipped (passage)
```

**Cutting the canvas**
```
┌─────────────┐ ┌──────┬──────┐ ┌──╱───┬──┬───┐ │ │ ──► │ ╱ │ │ ──► │ ╱ ╲ ◉│╲ │ ◉ │ ◉ = eye seen from │ ● │ │ ╱ ● │ │ │╱ ◉ ╲ │ ╲│ │ another angle └─────────────┘ └─╱────┴──────┘ └──────┴──┴───┘ pick biggest (face-weighted) facet → cut through its centre at a random angle
```

**Shatter timeline**
```
0.0s assembled 0.8s facets flown apart (up to 22% of height) → new layout generated 1.6s new arrangement snaps together
```

**Critical thinking:**
cubism claimed to show objects more truthfully , since we know things from many sides. Is a many-view image more honest than a photograph, or just a different lie?

**Lateral thinking:**
360° product spinners, exploded diagrams, architectural plans (plan, section, elevation) and security-camera walls all show multiple viewpoints at once. Could a single cubist-style image explain your product better than several photos?

**First principles:**
how many viewpoints does a viewer need before they can rebuild a 3D shape in their head? Why does the bot stay recognisable across all the shards?

- How did cubism influence modern logo and poster design?