Gen Rel is highly visual---as well as being formulated abstractly. I dont want to seem to be claiming that a successful quantization will need to be visual as well. If it has a clear rigorous abstract formulation and it works, makes testable predictions etc., that should be enough. But all the same it's worth asking what approaches are especially visual for you. what I mean is remember the GR idea that matter shapes space and the shape, in return, guides the flow of matter-----it is a dynamic geometry idea (dynamic just means "changing": the shape of space evolving in response to matter and to its own past history)----so in a quantized theory one might be able to visualize the evolution of a fuzzy, or flickering, shape or a shape that explores all possible shapes in a jittery way, as a particle explores all possible ways (in a Feynman path integral) of getting from point A to point B. that is, maybe a quantum Gen Rel can allow us to visualize an uncertain geometry that is, itself, jittering its way from shape A to shape B. and uncertain matter slurping around in it too all the while, I guess, but let's not bother with that right now so I'm asking please do not assume that a theory that is more visual is necessarily better than one that is more abstract and nonvisual----but would you say, for example, that Dynamical Triangulations is a bit more vivid than, say SpinFoams, or possibly than Loop?