On 11-11-2011 23:10, Robert McGregor wrote:
> Thanks Thomas! The irony of the cover image is that the magazine's art
> guidelines specifically emphasize, several times, to keep the image concise and
> simple, and so I did (even though that goes against my general aesthetic, as
> you're well aware). I was informed last week that the image was "too simple" and
> they wanted something "more interesting." Oh well...

They missed the clue indeed.

And they probably mean "more interesting" in a "scientific" way instead 
of "aesthetic". whatever they may mean by that however...

It is a difficult domain to combine both, especially on this topic. It 
is easier I think with pure math, archaeology or geology.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message