The reason the waterfalls are not realistic is that they are preoccupied with the, apparently recently discovered, fact that things fall in the shape drawn, close to a parabola. One could say that the mist (and chaos) is omitted to report more clearly the result of that physics observation.
The reason the waterfalls are not realistic is that they are preoccupied with the, apparently recently discovered, fact that things fall in the shape drawn, close to a parabola.
One could say that the mist (and chaos) is omitted to report more clearly the result of that physics observation.
If only Simon Sharma was delivering the lecture, it would be fabulous...
a very exhaustive analysis of Zhao Danian's painting. But then any conclusion following all that analysis?