> (Shay:) I think that ascension isn't obvious in this picture because the
> horizontal elements continue into infinity as do the vertical,
> especially on the left side of the picture. Dramatic shading of the more
> distant parts of the image would also highlight your vertical lines.

Hmmm, I haven't noticed the importance of the horizontal elements.  I'll
look at this.  What do you mean with "dramatic shading"?

> (Jim:) I thought it asked questions about the scale and decoration of
> architecture and how those elements are actually perceived by an
> individual observer. It seems that the decorations mediate between
> the overall structure of the architecture and what can be taken in by
> an observer close up.

This is very interesting.  Note that my discussion about verticality was
written down when the image was nearly finished: yes, I started the image
by thinking about "verticality", but it was a quite abstract idea.  Only
the act of writing down your thoughts lets you realize what these thoughts
are.  But I cannot exclude that I was guided by this motivation too; in
fact, after I chose the theme I thought: "Well, choosing a close-up of the
upper part of the Dome will probably lead to something different from what
one would expect".

> (James:) Actually, I prefer the short, single phrase theme in the
> description.  To me, at least, it leaves more room for the viewer to
> interpret the image in a more personal way.

It is a pleasure to hear it, this is my opinion as well.  I have to admit
I've heard this many times in the comments, but strangely I remember better
the few comments on the other sense.

Post a reply to this message