Elaborating the relations of object with different sides of the frame is mostly a synthesis of what was already said about up and down and left and right, with the previous chapters about the image's edge. The extremes of up and down can, for our symbolic purposes, unmistakably be represented by heaven and earth. Bottom edge of the image is a stabile, solid border, suitable for support of the heaviest weight, and the most appropriate foundation for something to sprout up and grow out of. Top of the image, on the contrary, is an labile phenomenon of rather spiritual matter. Left and right sides have their best description in properties of left and right within the image: intuitive and self-oriented versus rational and turned outwards. All this is a good testimony about asymmetry within the frame, ignored in the past two chapters.

The above mentioned properties make the sides group in pairs: and that is left and up, and right and down. These are, therefore, the most opposite corners. (Of course, just to keep our awareness balanced – whatever is valid for the contact with a particular side, certainly is felt as an influence throughout the surface of the image.) From all this follows the difference in impression of a line coming out of a particular side.

Particularly interesting is a line emerging from a corner (as a diagonal). The converging sides suggest a feeling of perspective here, and it really seems one can follow a diagonal into a corner without ever reaching the frame, because it meets it at the ends of the sides, together, in a perceived infinity. As well, just because this is the farthest point ("of the world"), there is some mystical power, enhanced by the sharpness of the vanishing point, "there, on the horizon". Comparing this with the line that comes out from the side, where the cut is dominant and precise as a momentary transition into non-dimensional, line coming out of the corner is preserved in all its length, beginning with the optical perception itself. 

Fig.'s a), b) and c) show drastic difference in impression between something that is mechanically indeed minimal change (such as the small camera movement in film and photography).

mutual influence of the objects
This is where we lose the ground under our feet of theory: the abundance of all that's possible within image makes a clear analysis impossible, or at least vastly exceeding the scope of this text. At least some first steps of this exploration can be found in "Art and Visual Perception" by Rudolf Arnheim, a book that I gladly recommend. Those helpful tools, just like the elementary visual phenomena studied and described here, can be used as an alphabet in interpretation of more complex events such are mutual relations of objects inside the image.
in the frame:
sides of the frame

The positions in this image overpower the impression of object's actual appearance. The biggest mass seems as something heavenly mobile, "the hand of god", while the frail flowers at the bottom achieve the seriousness of a staid intelligence.