I happen to agree with that particular commentator... except for 2 points. 1) If I felt that religious art was offensive, I wouldn't go into that section of the gallery. 2) Religious art (from any mythos) doesn't have to be drily documentary or badly executed. (It doesn't have to be sappily sentimental either!) The encouraging comments mostly dealt with the fact that the artist got so many figures in one scene. This is hardly an ideal to strive for! It may do the artist a disservice if he is led to believe that accumulation is a worthy goal. If the artist got other things right, perhaps you'd have had more to talk about? If I were really going to help this artist, in lieu of applauding the number of figures, I'd suggest that he look at the dramatic lighting in the relevant medieval altarpieces: the scenes were busy and intense, but the eye was led where the artist intended. Flat lighting removes emotional impact, and this is supposed to be an emotional moment. I'd also suggest that he look at other, more dramatic and interesting, perspectives (including Dali's Crucifixions), and then determine where the viewer would be standing (or floating) for best effect. He may choose a documentary distance view... but it would be a deliberate decision. Note, a lower viewpoint would obviate the necessity to show any city walls. Having decided whether he was going for the documentary or emotional approach, he could THEN determine the needed accuracy for the elements of the image. Soldiers who drew duty on that hilltop would probably have rather been doing latrine-cleaning... there would be few officers. The men might be bored, but they'd have kept an eye out all around (since this was a religious fanatic with a known group of followers). An emotional approach would have the soldiers reflecting the might of Pax Romana (spiffy armor); a more honest approach would have slightly scruffy guys on guard duty (overweight, bored, and resting tired feet when they got a chance). The dirt, rocks, stonewalls, etc. in that area of the world are mostly RED sandstone. I'd suggest to the artist that he look at photos of some of the remaining structures or desert landscapes. This rock under proper lighting can be almost bloody in appearance, or quite brilliant with a bit of polish. Heavy overcast increases the effective saturation of colors. (I prefer to photograph wildflowers under a grey sky, and many people pack white umbrellas with their cameras in case the clouds don't cooperate.) If his sky is going to be this bleak, he needs to enhance his colors accordingly. Whether it is a starship battle, a NVITWS, a ballroom filled with waltzing aristocrats, or a religious scene, WHATEVER, it doesn't have to be awful... if the artist does some research and makes some decisions about lighting and composition before getting started. Carolly