Why am I writing a footnote? Because I broke our rules. I didn't allow my imagination to just absorb images and knit them together at its own speed and in its own way.
I actually enlarged the larger reproduction of Leszel Buinowaki's painting. The arch and the forest couldn't tell me their story in their own way once I began analyzing details from part of a column instead.
See what happens when you have graphics software and you know how to use it?
At the end of FFF#6, I wrote the following:
...Like you, I originally saw Leszel Buinowski's painting in the same-sized screen capture you did. ...I rummaged the internet looking for a larger version of his work. ..."This isn't necessarily good. All other things being equal, a larger version of the same picture will add details. (Oh, no! Not details!) Additional details may "contradict" your earlier imaginings! If they do--and if you don't like such rudeness--ignore the details!
Yeah... Well... The bigger you blow up a detail, the more difficult it is to ignore.
What's my "take-away"? (Is that what it's called?) Hm. Don't do this again?
And, oh yeah, the right column has a long identation. Or not. Yawn.
I promise I'm not going to consciously pursue this detail. (We have little control over our subconscious.)
Our imaginations will provide far more intriguing raw materials than a maybe indentation if we just keep out of their way.