=====
From :
The person and loincloth textures are incompatible.  The statue appears to be
marble but the loincloth appears natural.

=====
From batronyx@cadronhsa.com:
The man is very well done geometrically. You might want to re-familiarize
yourself with the rules on 'permissable post-processing'



=====
From marlo.steed@home.com:
I felt like the lighting and textures could have added a more dramatic look to
your image... loved the concept.

=====
From johnson@pharmacy.arizona.edu:
Good conception, mediocre execution. 

For all the work and expensive software thrown at this, it's  still pretty
plain. This shows the perils of thinking a still composition can be just tossed
out as a frame cut from an animation. The intent and execution of a still image
isn't the same as that for an animation.

=====
From StephenF@whoever.com:
Simple but effective.  Nice use of lighting and fog-type 
effects.

=====
From tom@tomandlu.co.uk:
I like the lighting and composition. The figure seems a 
bit plastic.

=====
From chris_hormann@gmx.de:
It would have been nice if you had been more precise on how much of the
things you modelled yourself.  Atmosphere looks good.

=====
From youknow@ucan.foad.org:
Slight twist on an otherwise overused concept.

=====
From delfeld@mailcity.com:
Epistemology:
Do we really see money as a symbol?  I do not think it would be perceived this
way.  But, if so, why? 

Axiology:
Looks too good to be dismissed as a valid form of worship.  Maya?  Seems like a
little money worship is the inspiration.

Ontology:
I will never be crucified for money's sake, and I do not see that it is likely
that money itself will crucify me.  Who put him up to it?  It turns out to be
less -explanatory than I first thought.  Maybe it should be made clearer in the
image.


=====
From file:
Original, however a bit plain
Notable for originality