The biggest difficulty I ended up having with this reading was being able to look at it philosophically. So rather than cause myself undue headache, I read it as myself, a person who has read a lot of literature but isn't so great on the art aspect of things. The idea that images are more precise and richer than literature is probably true, although it is not a concept that I necessarily agree with. The beauty of un-illustrated literature is the ability to devise one's own images. While images are more precise, therefore, I believe that imagined images based on text are far richer. Also, I feel that the idea of "when we `see' a landscape, we situate ourselves in it. If we `saw' the art of the past, we would situate ourselves in history," is, if not antiquated, then not necessarily true of the majority (p.11). I...