Interesting about the four dimensions point. I studied the history of architecture at university (1660-1720 British). It was beaten into me over and over that

Interesting about the four dimensions point. I studied the history of architecture at university (1660-1720 British). It was beaten into me over and over that to really get close to understanding what was going on you had to actually see the buildings to grasp the effect of them. This came home to me when I stumbled upon Bramante's Tempietto in Rome. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=bramante+tempietto https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=bramante+tempietto Only when I saw it, and having seen what came after it, and knowing that all the great British architects had seen this in Rome (or had been told about it second hand), did I grasp its significance to those that had seen it rather than simply seen it drawn in a book. Similarly with the Pantheon in Rome. A 2D drawing just doesn't cut it, and can mislead. And yet those are the sources we (mostly) deal with as architectural historians. Of course, I was looking at it with "modern" eyes, so there was still a level of indirection...