This study explores the image mainly in it's two dimensions - a lot of our simplified examples do not have neither need nor possibility for a third, and stay within the world of plane. Well, the third dimension, or rather our experience of it within the image, can arrive from two directions. One is the presented reality itself, which is being recognized as three-dimensional. Obviously, this spatial impression is direct product of the amount of reality in the image - or the abstraction level of our perception here, and owes nothing to the essential attributes of the visual medium itself. The other source of "depth" can therefore be found in the capacity of specifically visual elements to convey the spatial relations between the objects. We are talking about superposition, perspective and relation of sizes, color and lightness, aerial perspective, sharpness, etc. It is arguable that here our experience plays equal part, since our perception is trained to recognize this elements (abstracted from our experience of reality). Or, more interesting, that some of these 3d triggers have physiological foundation, and we measure outside by the rules of our own body. In any case, what's important is that this way we perceive the third dimension regardless of the level of abstraction. This independence makes it able to sometimes contradict the experience of reality within the image in figurative art, just as it makes it the sole source of depth in non-figurative visuals.

Except in the extreme cases of total illusion (where visual medium theoretically does not exist anyhow), the image always impresses something of its two-dimensional nature. The experience of third dimension, if, and as much as it is present, always mixes into this impression, and thereby influences the total effect of composition. This interplay (or conflict) of two mostly autonomous views characterizes the objects within the image, although psychologically it can have an overtone effect (of harmony or conflict, for example) by itself.

Additionally, three-dimensional in image invites the relation towards the space represented (as opposed to identification): this happens because if we already have this perpendicular axis established, it is only a matter of time just when are we going to hang ourselves onto the existing rod, as a foreground. Even though identification is possible with the three-dimensional view, (if not for the metaphysical symbolism, than at least for sticking with one of the elements within it), the relation often mixes in here. It is to be judged if this means a loss, and which is the point when the third dimension turns from potentially dynamic into a destructive element of composition.		 third dimension

Territory of this image is an equipoise of two- and three- dimensional, a plane and a space. A certain perspective is welcome, but the excess of it (brought mostly by the texture of ground) distresses the coherency of frame.