Well, you've both given me something to think about. And might I add, I am really enjoying this discussion.
I have been examining the version of my image where the lamp was photo-shopped out all morning. I agree that having it removed leaves the vase and flowers too close to the edge, leaving it feeling a little too staged. The space just feels a little too vast in comparison to what is going on in the lower left diagonal. I do think that the lamp offers some counter balance and after playing with it in photoshop I feel that fading it a bit (the shadow of the lamp even more so) will make it less distracting.
I am going to site a Mary Cassatt painting (The Bath) in my defense of this position.
http://www.artic.edu/aic/aboutus/wip...cassatt_lg.jpg
Obviously she was a master of making the child the star no matter who, or what, was in the painting. In this example the child sitting on the mom's lap is the most dominant element. Your eyes sweep back and forth between the eyes, slide down the body, and travel back up via the arm. Now the only thing that is more intense than the little girl's flesh (that isn't part of this circle) is the pitcher in the right hand corner. Like my lamp, it was used for counterbalance. Yes, your eyes are drawn to it but your eyes only drift there temporarily then it is back to the figure. It is the human element that will always be the trump. Psychologically the viewer cares about the little girl more and that pitcher is just an extra element of the story. When you start to eliminate too many objects in the background you sometimes take away from the intimacy of "the moment" and it becomes a little too posed. But, I certainly have noticed how even though there are patterns and bold colors, she certainly subdued them beautifully in value and detail. I will certainly strive to mimic the glow of her figures. But if we could all so easily just paint like the artist of our choosing we wouldn't have need for this forum, right?
Thanks again for taking the time to contemplate this issue.
-Amanda