I should avoid being unduly pedantic or literal about the analogy between viewing an image and listening to music (see previous post). It is, after all, a metaphor and not a direct correspondence. I can readily accept that there's something similar, which may be enough to make the comparison worth playing with.
However, to unpack the formal 'relationships' seen in images surely requires some understanding of the terms used to describe the elements that they're said to contain. Machotka talks about relationships of size, colour, distance, balance and movement, plus patterns of tension and resolution.
There's much talk about music in Peter Khoroche's discussion of Hitchens' paintings (some of it taken from Hitchens' own writing). The vocabulary here includes Machotka's terms but is far broader and includes counterpoint, rhythm, echo, harmony (linear, tonal and colour harmony, in fact), and melody. There's talk of 'progress' and 'time' (analogous to features in music). More prosaically: form, shape, tone, contour, light/shade, solidity, flat, direction, gesture, weight, dark/light, warm/cool, up/down, in/out, 'large sombre areas' contrasted with 'short quick notes'. (Hitchens set great store by balancing all these pairs of opposites in his paintings.)
A convincing way to demonstrate understanding of the musical analogy would be to deploy some of these terms accurately; to recognise the presence of the various features in specific images, give an account of them and (best of all) explain their function or effect. And, if I can't do this myself yet, to amass examples in others' writings to begin to get the idea. So that's what I mean to do.