Yes, one can't forget Escher, tho I think he would have worked in more figure/ground ambiguity to bring out an optical illusion. Here's a pre-Escher example of mirror symmetry done about 1000 years ago in a canyon not far from my home:
Another aspect of this that needs to be looked at is the fact that the photo posted for critique includes a representation of the art work of another person. One has to decide in such a composition whether the represented art work is the major constituent of the picture, or just a component performing a supporting role. I would say in this case that the depicted mural has a central purpose in the composition. I get the sense that the mural has been portrayed in a way that would not be objectionable to the artist or to the work's admirers. So from a reportage point of view, I think the picture is a success. Other questions to consider are whether the photographer has selected or composed his representation in a way that creates a meaningful context, and also if the photograph makes an artistic statement that somehow transcends the work that is portrayed.
It is also significant that the mural is public art or art displayed in a public place. So, one can ask how the photograph takes cognizance of that fact. I think all of us focus our cameras at some time on such subjects. Sometimes the results can be quite nice, but it can also be difficult to tease apart the contributions to the picture by the original artist and the photographer. My little NYC photo essay (
http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=499273) done on a recent trip through the City was all about public art. I was happy enough with the outcome, but I'm sure there was quite a variety of opinions from viewers of the folder.
