the original question

["Bill Urmenyi" <bill@zzzzzzzzzzzzz>]

Dear Elaine

OK. I give as an example Bill Weissinger's fish with whirlpool. If instead
of concentrating on aesthetics, Bill made the whirlpool look dangerous, made
the fish look helpless and added the essence of the inevitable, the piece
would have worked better in terms of what Bill wanted to portray in his
narrative stone carving. These are the three fundamental components of the
stone carving. There should not be anything else or the story will become
diluted and confused. (I've now used the word 'stone' twice, well three
times if you include this aside.)  If he can find a way of making that look
beautiful as well, it would be good but not essential.

Bill Urmenyi