Artnik, that's completely okay. But then you do them the proper way. (Yeah, Stefano, it was bad, when you look at it closer.) You don't put a clear blue sky on a distopian picture. It should have been dark and murky and ... and ... cyberpunky. It may be more of a knee-jerk reaction, but it would have been better, cause it would have been in accord with the topic and the rest of the picture. You choose your subject wisely, to put the accent on it. You do not drown it among other subjects. As I said, the fish is a great idea. But then you've got the microscope with an industrial smoke coming out of it, which is also a great idea, but not really connected with the rest. Then the Kalashnikov. Was that supposed to be a subtle commentary on a possible revolution brewing up because of the industrialists' actions? Or he just took the first gun that he could find? You also create a better composition so there is a focus to the picture, not a jumble of plans and elements. (Is that second pipe smaller because it's smaller or because it's more distant?) You create a better lighting, so it puts the stress on your subject and creates a mood. Not just the default sun, which is shining from the background so the factory is just a silhouette. Rusty (hi, AS :-)) walls would have made the thing better. To cut it short, the author had a couple of excellent ideas that he messed up in the execution. Incidentally, Angela and Stefano: http://www.betavote.com/ But take the result just like other Internet polls without limiting mechanisms - with a BIG grain of salt. :-)

-- erlik