Notes:
This photo is not an example of tactile or illusionary plasticity. The angles of the building and signage provide a clear sense of space and depth, as do the road, cars, and sidewalk. The fact that the entire photograph is in focus does not change this. However, the photograph is still relatively flat with little emphasis on depth, making the image a poor example of illusionary plasticity.
It is true that in real life, there is no relationship between the tree branch and the marquee. If you were standing on the street in front of the theater, you would have no reason to connect the two. However, as the photographer, I can link the branch and the marquee when taking a photo by including both inside the picture frame and using an aperture setting that allows both to be in focus. By moving my location, I can adjust where the tree and the sign are in relation to one another in the picture frame. In The Nature of Photographs, Stephen Shore calls this “the mental level.”
Having said all of that, this photo is not a good example because the correlation between the branch and the theater’s signage is weak both visually and symbolically. Frankly, this isn’t a very good photo.