Nah ah. My point was that his image wasn’t illuminating, this applies to whether you’re making one for a story or even just a quote. You’re stubborn.
Everything is ridiculous. I told you already! 
What could have been illuminated?
perhaps he would have preferred to see a picture of a man whose face was showing signs of shame.
google.com/search?q=shame+fa … 40&bih=707
I don’t think the picture was meant to be illuminating. Rather, it was meant to accent the quote, make it look nice.
Yes, I am stubborn. So are you.
Are you saying you think shoes are ridiculous? And chocolate cake? And kittens? Come on.
Maybe this one?
It’s a quote and if you’re an artist, you present the content of that quote, or whatever it means to you, through your own hands, you offer your own take on it, which is called “illumination.”
Sure, that would be amazing.
Are you being sarcastic? 
No, why? That would be great.
So because you weren’t “illuminated” by Humpty’s bit of artwork, it’s not illuminating? Funny, I was under the impression that artwork is a unique expression of the artist, not the viewer. If the viewer doesn’t get it, isn’t “illuminated”, does that mean the artist’s expression is lacking?
You’ve got it back to front, badger, quite trying to bite my ankles. It’s not an illuminated piece because there isn’t actually anything there (i.e. imagery) besides the quote itself, which I could just write here in text, and besides the colour it’d be pretty much the same as Humpty’s piece. But “illumination” wasn’t the intention so it doesn’t matter.
“Illumination” isn’t a just a fancy word, I guess you could call it a genre of art, e.g. William Blake’s illuminated books.
Perhaps those colors and the way he muddled them up a bit speaks to him, adds impact to the words. Maybe there was a look he was specifically going for. Or maybe he was just trying out the watercolor feature. Who cares?