Roy says this would be lovely if it weren't square.

I recently discovered a book of watercolours painted by an artist named A.R. Quinton in the late 1800's and early 1900's. Most were of English villages, some of which we know.

Obviously they were lot more picturesque then, and more of the beautiful old buildings (which were beginning to disappear even in his day) still survived, and certainly by the 1920's he would have been using a certain amount of artistic licence, his compositions are remarkably similar to mine, and Roy (had be been around then) would have criticised them for not having enough foreground and too much North.

As would I be.

Sorry, but I don't see much similarity, as they're mostly very well composed.

Try Specsavers.

I don't need glasses to admire Quinton's beautiful pictures.

But you do for mine, evidently. As I've told you before, the singular of lens is len.

I can see your pictures well enough without glasses,
and changing lenses would not alter the composition.

Would be what?

Lovely if I weren't square.

Fuddy-duddy?