When I wrote the description of "Non Nobis sed Tibi Domine" I had to choose
what to place in it and what to discard, since my original text was too
long.  I decided to shorten a lot the discussion about my personal
interpretation and focus on the history of the Duomo.  I thought the
former could have been deduced from the image itself, while it is
difficult that people know the complex history of the Duomo and the Dukedom
of Milan (IRTC is an international competition), and I thought it was still
important to give a schematic overview.

Now I understand that reducing my interpretation of the theme to a single
phrase has made somebody think there was no concept at all behind it,
although this was *not* the case!

My text file refers to the "verticality" of the decorations.  This is a
direct link to the spiritual meaning of the gothic art: buildings grow
towards the sky and towards God, in a strong contrast with romanic churches
(heavily chained to the ground).  My image suggests this by showing three
walls with increasing height, full of arches, spires and other vertical
elements that point towards the sky.  A typical observer would start
looking at the arches on the foreground and, by going up the window or the
spire, reach the upper set of arches.  At this point he would note the wall
on the far background with the stairs going up again, in an endless ascent.

It is obvious this concept could not have been achieved by showing the whole
building, as somebody suggested.  Because of the same reason, I decided not
to show the sky: this would have implied the ascent finally has to stop (on
the other side, ninja114 correctly noted that this would have given a more
colourful image).

I wrote a full article about this image and the gothic architecture in
general for the school magazine.  If somebody is interested in it, I could
post the full article here (give me some time for the translation).

Bye
  Maurizio.

Post a reply to this message

"ziotom" <zio### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:web.3edc5bf837dfa626eb6dfe500@news.povray.org...
|
| Now I understand that reducing my interpretation of the theme
| to a single phrase has made somebody think there was no concept
| at all behind it, although this was *not* the case!
|

Nah, I think that the concept was understood. It seems that every image
gets a few odd comments, especially non-traditional images.
xilo_m(at)hotpop(dot)com obviously has a *very* specific idea about what
constitutes a good picture. He left similar comments for many of the
images this round. Some will always appreciate what you are trying to
do, and some will not.

This was one of my two favorite images of this round, but I really don't
see it as exceptionally vertical. I do really appreciate the fact that
you removed many unnecessary elements from the picture. Irrelevant
things like weather, landscape, surrounding architecture, season, and
even time of day would have taken away from the important parts of the
image. 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.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message

I generally understood that the framing of your image was a conscious
decision and primary to the meaning though I would have described its 
effect somewhat differently than you intended.  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.  As it 
happens I was involved in a similar response to the topic myself but was 
unable to complete  my entry.  I was going to use the Hindu temples in 
India which feature decorative sculpture depicting sexual behavior.

-Jim

Post a reply to this message

ziotom wrote:
>When I wrote the description of "Non Nobis sed Tibi Domine" I had to choose
>what to place in it and what to discard, since my original text was too
>long.  I decided to shorten a lot the discussion about my personal
>interpretation and focus on the history of the Duomo.  I thought the
>former could have been deduced from the image itself, while it is
>difficult that people know the complex history of the Duomo and the Dukedom
>of Milan (IRTC is an international competition), and I thought it was still
>important to give a schematic overview.
>
>Now I understand that reducing my interpretation of the theme to a single
>phrase has made somebody think there was no concept at all behind it,
>although this was *not* the case!
>

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.  After reading that one line in the description and
viewing the image, the piety of the builders was readily apparent and the
decorations all seemed like arrows pointing to the heavens - it made the
image that much more elegant.  I think it really highlighted the effort you
put into the image.

Post a reply to this message

> (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

"ziotom" <zio### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:web.3edda1ae964ef56aeb6dfe500@news.povray.org...

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

I mean placing the light source in such a way that the rear parts of the
image contrast strongly enough with the front parts that the effect
becomes something like vertical stripes, thereby minimising any
horizontal continuity.

I knew I'd find an example if I went through Gilles site:
http://www.oyonale.com/ldc/english/selva.htm

I'll add that I prefer the long description. I have said here before
that the large number of entries doesn't allow enough time to study each
one closely. A long description can help someone comprehend something
about your image which they would have seen in the image itself if only
given enough time. This is similar to how some aspects of an image
aren't noticed until the thumbnail is scene.

 -Shay

Post a reply to this message