The part on perspective is intriguing, especially to us visual people. Another photographer friend of mine does much work on changing perspectives within the photograph, causing dizzying effects. She does this both with her subject matter, which is often ambiguous and can take on double forms, but also in her developing process, in which she lightens parts that the eye expects to have dark, and vice versa. In doing so, she creates dimensional illusions. It seems that it would be neat to apply this to higher dimensional computer art. A combination of perspectives would be just as interesting, but there would be one more dimension to play with, leaving the audience confused as to where they stood. When the vanishing point in a picture changes, the result is that the audience no longer understands their relationship to the objects, thus disturbing the typical subject/object relationship. For example, if all polygons in a space were drawn in central projection, yet the background and the surrounding shapes and colors suggested perspective, the eye would be confused as to where to place those polygons. How do they relate to each other? It is an impossible situation. I'm sorry that I can't draw this on the html text, because it is fun. In the book central projection in three space is described with the help of the idea of a sphere. When a polytope undergoes central projection, what is the analygous situation? A hypersphere would seem to be the obvious answer, but that doesn't make sense. Another question: I don't understand the rotation of the polytope. When the cube is rotated, its sides, the squares, "grow" and "shrink" alternately. This makes sense. And when I look at the analygous situation in four space, it makes sense that the cubes would undergo the same process as the squares in the third dimension. But what I don't understand is that the cube is being rotated around an axis. The squares are not really changing shape at all. What is the hypercube being rotated around? A planar axis? This is so hard to conceive of. That would explain the reversal of orientation, though. I would very much like to see the films again. Also, I would love to hear some about the process of the film. Did it start off as a visual concept? Were you already very involved with computer graphics, or did the inefficiency of other media lead you towards computers? Are there beginning steps of the film recorded and available? For me, sometimes it is helpful to see incorrect versions of a solution in order to understand why and how the final one is correct.