=====
From spanky@wpi.edu:
This is a very nice rendering of boxes, good job!

=====
From denny1@home.com:
Very stark and elegant.

=====
From klynn@uswest.net:
I like the b&w.  

=====
From xtmb@solutions.fi:
B/w really looks cool in this image!

=====
From manorton@jps.net:
Its simple.  Its clean.  Its . . . Great!  I love it.

=====
From Nathan@Kopp.com:
looks nice.
too simple.

=====
From Alain.Culos@bigfoot.com:
I know it is technically simple, but nevertheless merits a high mark. Simple use
of technique is not always easy to set up because you always wonder if people
will buy it.
Well, this won me.
Again the same spirit as the magic box, but much more poetic there.
The best so far imho, sorry for the one I had previously said it was the best,
he's been surpassed there.
Very elegant.
One comment though : I had to lower the marks a bit because there is what I
regard as a flaw in it : in the right hand cube, the hollow one, a reflection
can be seen of a portion of the other cube, this breaks a bit the magic of the
scene.
One of two things would have made this picture much better still (unbeatable) :
either no sign of a reflection in the right hand cube or well centered in the
opening see one corner of a cube as if sticking out and appearing to be
mirrored into a sphere below.

=====
From ethelm@bigfoot.com:
Plain but nice.

=====
From gshaw@monotix.co.za:
Interesting. I don't think anything could be added without ruining it.

=====
From clem@dhol.com:
Minimalism has a place, but this does nothing for me at 
all.  Incidentally, b/w, like all special effects, suffers 
greatly with uncritical overuse.

=====
From m.r@lemel.fr:
Yeah ! Minimal form ! Minimal light ! maximal rendering 
time ! attractive image. Martial.

=====
From mar@physics.usyd.edu.au:
The lighting is nice, but really this is way too simplistic and image.

=====
From peter@table76.demon.co.uk:
Since composition and concept form so much of this image, I can't give many
points for technical merit :-( .

=====
From jull43@ij.net:
The composition is very good but all else is barely of interest. 


=====
From r@pc4.cs.siu.edu:
Notable for lighting


=====
From r@spider-wa013.proxy.aol.com:
This entry leaves me flummuxed.  There are aspects to this image that are so
intriguing that I am not sure I can find the words.  Yet the conception as
described by the artist is so mundane.  As a depiction of mathematics, or its
language, or as an elegy to math's imaginative potential, this image is
predictable, at best, fatuous at worst.  BUT!...as a meditation on visual
language it astonishes me.  As a tour de force of visual aesthetics it is
courageous and accomplished.  The vocabulary for accomplishing three
dimensional affect on a two dimensional surface is one preoccupation of art, at
least since cubism.  While the available vocabulary has persistence, perhaps
universality, it is always lived one within the limitations of a visual medium,
drawing, painting, photography, printmaking, raytracing.  In this very simple
seeming, but actually very complex image, the artifacts, or signatures of
raytracing actually dare the eye to provide an explanation.    
Notable for composition