We are indebted to the eminent Llhuroscian art critic, Sir Hilliard Cecil Smallpiece for the following evaluation of the arts of Llhuros:
Unfortunately for critical interests and scholarly research, Llhuroscian art presents no innovative aspects and allows scant dichroistic interpretations. Perhaps the salient characteristic of the art is the biased emphasis on vertical axes that are countered by stylizations of decorative motifs and alternated by changes of direction and speed in line and contour. It cannot be denied that patterns exhibit a concatenation of abstract decoration which conceivably could have meaning if adequately analyzed from a semiologistic viewpoint. At a present reading of the available material, however, few critical interpretations could support the notion that the repetitive design organizations warrant further analysis for transfrastic content. Nevertheless, it must not be supposed that the inconsistencies one is regularly confronted by, in the abandonment of evidences of creative growth — unconsciously demonstrated in the most recent excavations at Ronup — point unmistakably to a retrogressive milieu or innate otiosity but rather suggests, if one cares to regard that as an unlikely presumption, the presence of an ineffable aesthetic tendency.11
11. Hilliard Cecil Smallpiece, “Instances of Archaic Survival in Pre-Uoyabian Sculpture,” pp. 196-97.