{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03351104341203351, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007616146230007616, 'mean_word_length': 5.140186915887851, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Illuminating The Shadow Canon

According to Stephen Kite, a “shadow-maker” knows that shadows cast by sunlight, moonlight, and candlelight are different; that “some illuminance is needed to see even the deepest blacks” (255); that “a lightening background ‘blackens’ a dark grey square” (255); that you can carve a block of shadow with light; and that a shadow cast by coloured light is perceived as having a complementary coloured hue (268). In Shadow-Makers: A Cultural History of Shadows in Architecture, Kite identifies the tactics of the shadow-maker for articulating ideas and intentions expressive of the introspective or brooding characters of architecture. Through meticulous research and analysis of built work, drawings, and images, he sets about “bringing shadows out of the shadows” (5). From the time of Vitruvius, architectural theory has been more concerned with the con-tributions of optics and the physics of light to the illumination of architectural form. Within this theoretical paradigm, shadow, understood as the absence of light, is interesting only to the extent that it is fundamental to the revelation of form; it is through the contrast of light and shadow that the eye understands depth and solidity. Kite overturns this paradigm to identify those times in history when shadow was the