Given the below context:  Rossier first arrived in Japan in 1859, at a time when early experiments in photography were being conducted in Kyūshū, particularly in Nagasaki. The city was the centre of rangaku, the study of Western science, and it was here that physicians Jan Karel van den Broek and J. L. C. Pompe van Meerdervoort were instrumental in teaching their Japanese students not only medicine but also chemistry and photography. Neither Van den Broek nor Pompe van Meerdervoort was an experienced photographer, and their attempts to produce photographs were largely failures. Nevertheless, in turn they taught wet-collodion process photography to Keisai Yoshio, Furukawa Shumpei, Kawano Teizō, Maeda Genzō, Ueno Hikoma, and Horie Kuwajirō, among others.On his arrival in Japan, Rossier presumably introduced himself as a photographer despatched to Japan by Negretti and Zambra, perhaps thereby inspiring a misconception, for while he remained in the country he was often referred to as an "English" photographer. In Nagasaki, Rossier was assisted in his work by Maeda Genzō, who had been instructed to accompany the "Englishman" and to further learn photography. With Maeda and other students escorting him around the city, Rossier took photographs of priests, beggars, the audience of a sumo match, the foreign settlement, and the group portrait of Alexander von Siebold and samurai. Rossier believed that Pompe van Meerdervoort's failures in photography were due to a lack of the necessary chemicals and so he provided Maeda with a letter of recommendation to procure photographic apparatus and chemicals from a source in Shanghai. Both Maeda and Furukawa bought lenses, chemicals and albumen paper through Rossier.At this time, Ueno Hikoma and Horie Kuwajirō also received photographic instruction from Rossier. Apparently Ueno had originally intended to learn not only the practice of photography but also the manufacture of cameras. The encounter with Rossier seems to have convinced Ueno to pursue photography as a career, but he was so overwhelmed by the...  Guess a valid title for it!
----
Answer: Pierre Rossier


Given the below context:  Wile E. Coyote leaves a telephone at the hole of his neighbor, Bugs Bunny. He calls from his cave, asking to borrow a cup of diced carrots. Bugs' whiskers twitch as he sarcastically looks at the Coyote's mailbox, and realizes what he's up against. He then mocks him: "Are you in, genius? Are you in, capable? In, solent? In, describable? In, bearable?..." Wile E. grabs Bugs, ties him to a stake and prepares to complete his rabbit stew, but Bugs gets the upper hand by hopping on the floorboards, setting off a wine cork that, after it ricochets around the room, triggers Wile E.'s Murphy bed to open, crushing the Coyote into the floor, with only his head sticking out (ll to the tune of Raymond Scott's Powerhouse). Bugs makes his getaway and hops back to his hole. Wile E. then tries a vacuum cleaner to suck up the rabbit, getting a dynamite decoy instead (before the decoy explodes, he says, "Well, well, the boy has talent"), a cannon shot, which Bugs re-directs at the Coyote thanks to some underground pipes (Coyote: "But how? Well, even a genius can have an off-day"), and "Quick-Drying Cement".  The cement dries into a cylindrical block.  As Wile E. laughs, saying, "What a wonderful way to cement a friendship.", he runs right into the block, which tips over on top of him.  Bugs then pops out and says, "Well, now he has concrete evidence that I'm a good neighbor".  Guess a valid title for it!
----
Answer: Compressed Hare


Given the below context:  Van Eyck gives Mary three roles: Mother of Christ, the personification of the "Ecclesia Triumphans" and Queen of Heaven, the latter apparent from her jewel-studded crown. The painting's near miniature size contrasts with Mary's unrealistically large stature compared with her setting. She physically dominates the cathedral; her head is almost level with the approximately sixty feet high gallery. This distortion of scale is found in a number of other van Eyck's Madonna paintings, where the arches of the mostly gothic interior do not allow headroom for the virgin. Pächt describes the interior as a "throne room", which envelopes her as if a "carrying case". Her monumental stature reflects a tradition reaching back to an Italo-Byzantine type – perhaps best known through Giotto's Ognissanti Madonna (c. 1310) – and emphasises her identification with the cathedral itself. Till-Holger Borchert says that van Eyck did not paint her as "the Madonna in a church", but instead as metaphor, presenting Mary "as the Church". This idea that her size represents her embodiment as the church was first suggested by Erwin Panofsky in 1941. Art historians in the 19th century, who thought the work was executed early in van Eyck's career, attributed her scale as the mistake of a relatively immature painter.The composition is today seen as deliberate, and opposite to both his Madonna of Chancellor Rolin and Arnolfini Portrait. These works show interiors seemingly too small to contain the figures, a device van Eyck used to create and emphasise an intimate space shared by donor and saint. The Virgin's height recalls his Annunciation of 1434–36, although in that composition there are no architectural fittings to give a clear scale to the building. Perhaps reflecting the view of a "relatively immature painter", a copy of the Annunciation by Joos van Cleve shows Mary at a more realistic proportion scale to her surroundings.Mary is presented as a Marian apparition; in this case she probably appears before a donor, who would have been kneeling...  Guess a valid title for it!
----
Answer:
Madonna in the Church