Would you say that Surrever could be described as a kind of pareidolia art?
(Also, in case you’re wondering where I’ve come from, I’ve been lurking on this site for a while, after seeing it posted on Ruqqus and watching the Geoconservative interview.)
Hello, welcome to the website. Surrever isn’t so much a genre of art as the mechanism by which art works. It’s a psychological process – for example, a boy hears a strange noise in the closet, so he imagines a number of horrible images to fill in the blanks – that’s surrever.
Yeah, I mean when you see the surrever effect produced in art/media etc. Like a shadow of an inanimate object in a horror movie looking like the shape of a person, or a face, or some other shape that the mind automatically seeks out. The surrever effect would act as a naturally produced artform that messes with people’s perceptions similarly to how pareidolia does.
Yes, it’s a lot like that. The brain is essentially resolving an ambiguity.
Art is when a person manipulates this effect using mediums. Art= Manipulation of surrever. Whether the art is “good” or “bad” is an opinion but as a general principle, successful artists are very conscious of this effect and are able to evoke a pure “high” in the listener / reader / viewer etc.
Thank you for taking an interest in my ideas!
Also, what’s exciting about this idea is that it allows us to A) achieve great art at a low level of technical proficiency and B) allows us to achieve “super” art or art that has an exceptional ability to capture an overwhelming effect.
This idea germinated from my desire to basically “milk” a superior end effect out of a medium. The end effect in my view is the most important part of creating art.
If you follow Bill Gaede you’ll know that there’s no such thing as metaphysics, alternate universes, etc; there are only objects in this universe. So for example, light and gravity are mediated by a physical object ie a rope. This ties into surrever because what a person “fills in the blanks” with will always be a physical object, whether it is abstract or not.
The next thing I’m trying to figure out is how to write fiction more efficiently and vividly which also ties into Gaede’s physics. Prose is so difficult to put together I think because it is loaded with concepts and irrational language. For example, it is irrational to say that your character “mustered up the will to become a better person.” You can’t “muster up” a will or that will as if it’s some kind of physical object. And you can’t use the concept called “will” to become the concept called “a better person.” The writer gets stuck because thinking about this is like glue. He has to process an assortment of physical objects in order to understand the sentence. When you have dozens of sentences like this, it just becomes impossible to work with the already difficult task of organizing objects and causes chronologically. Ever wonder why they say “show, don’t tell?” This is why.
And then this obviously causes the problem of being unreadable outside of this particular time/culture, even after a really good translation. You can try to write in a way that’s as universal and non-chronoscopic as possible, but there just isn’t the same focus on the same objects within different settings, so all of your dead or foreign metaphors will leave people scratching their heads. That’s an obstacle I’ve come up against in the past when experimenting with the idea of writing for an alien (as in literally extraterrestrial) audience, and with writing fiction that contains characters who speak in metaphors that are unfamiliar to us.
Yeah I’ve thought about that too. In Spandrel I kind of want to do something along similar lines, but I realize it’s a bit hopeless.
Hey what is the project you’re working on?
I haven’t been working on anything like that lately, but about 5 years ago, one of the things I was working on for quite a while was trying to create a hypothetical law code with a preamble that would very dramatically explain the necessities of the law, in a fairly moralistic-sounding tone, that could still make sense without drawing too much on non-transplantable human concepts. I gave up on it though. Every phrase you use needs dozens of layers of explanation, which in turn will need their own explanations, and so on and so on.
I hate to see people give up on writing, that’s why I want to refine the process.
I’ll probably go back to it at some point, when I have some kind of breakthrough in terms of how best to do it.