Elaborating the relations of object with different sides of the frame is by large 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 a 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.

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 almost suggest a perspective here, and it really seems one can go down a diagonal infinitely without ever reaching the frame. 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 predominant 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 ground under our feet: the abundance of all that's possible within image sounds threatening to a clear view attempted here. Not wanting to adopt guesswork as a tool, and realizing that any analysis of such vast terrain (that surely exceeds interest of this text anyhow) would consume inadmissible amounts of time and space, we will not undertake this task. It is highly probable that at least first steps for this exploration can be found in "Art and Visual Perception" by Rudolf Arnheim, a book that I gladly recommend.
What we have to say on the issue is general (and our usual): do not underestimate the effect of objects within the image. Thanks to elementary nature of many visual phenomena studied and described here, we can use those as an alphabet in interpretation of more complex events such are mutual relations of objects inside the image; which will at least suffice the exploratory interests of this text.
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.