Beats me. I have no idea what that is.
Anyway, as a landscape, what's your thoughts on the fly?
See, what I was going for here was a sort of abstract landscape. The point was intended to be the contrast between the organic shapes and the straight angular shapes, with the mist sort of evoking a "conventional" landscape shot. You know, sort of like a mountain rising above the clouds, or the golden Gate bridge towering over the fog. Only instead of a mountain or a bridge, it's whatever the hell THAT is.
My concern though, is that including the fly makes the photograph too much about the fly (as opposed to the fly's surroundings). Additionally, the presence of the fly sort of adds context to its surroundings. What before MAY have only been "weird abstract shapes" now gets (correctly) interpretted as "piles of gore". I'm sure one could tell anyway, but I suspect that the presence of the fly isn't helping.
So anyway, get rid of the fly or keep the fly? I like the photograph with the fly, I'm just sort of concerned that including the fly changes the picture too much, and detracts from what I was going for with this photograph.