most still look amazing no matter what angle, a few exceptions, but do you have to put "Same place, different angle" on everyone of them? i think we understand the concept
OR, its just how taking a picture at a different angle can make something look totally different. The "different angle" pictures aren't meant to represent what it looked like at a later point in time and thus "city life is taking over"
The "original" pictures still would have had all those things in them, they were just taken much closer to crop out all that stuff.
I think so, too. I mean, it's a really beautiful painting, but it's incredibly overrated. There's thousands of paintings of women whether it was madonnas or portraits of noblewomen and La Gioconda is just one of them. That's why I like Orsay rather than Louvre - in Louvre there's so many people, taking pictures (when I wanted to see La Gioconda I had to go through a fucking crowd of people taking selfies with her!) and trying to see everything in the little time they have, while Orsay is peaceful and has a nicer atmosphere. And I just love the train station design. (Obviously because it used to be a train station before it was a museum, but it's just so cute)
I feel so bad that my country (India) isn't taking care of it's rivers properly... (Taj Mahal is beside river Yamuna, The picture shows the river now.)
It's like capitol building in Washington DC. I am always amazed at how the area is made to look so green and clean and tidy on TV. But I guess its true for almost every landmark.
Is that seriously the Acropolis? I thought it'd be away from civilization...I thought it'd be beautiful...I have only ever wanted to go there, and now it's surrounded by a city!? I think I'm about to cry...All these lies ;-;
The "original" pictures still would have had all those things in them, they were just taken much closer to crop out all that stuff.