Last autumn I did a brief blog-text titled "Thoughts on Horror," wherein I attempted mapping certain horror genres into a more-or-less coherent mindmap; the effectiveness, or "closeness" of various types of horror as to how they relate to the human experience. While on the surface level somewhat accurate, this description was left lacking in some aspects, mainly the juxtaposition of "Escapistic" vs. "Confrontational" nature of certain works... and so, in this graph I attempted rectifying some of that, mapping things in the aforementioned axiis with the additional "Disheartening" or "Pleasant" added as vertical.
This graph, like the earlier, is of course subjective, even though I think of it as containing a degree of objectivity. There are some notable 'disagreeable' examples such as Cormac MacCarthy's "The Road", of which I'm not quite sure where it would belong. While certainly disheartening at its nature and not "enjoyable" in the traditional sense, does it nevertheless remain in the realm of "escapism" or "confrontationism"? In the end I ended up placing it more into the escapist-category, mostly due to its bleak-but-somewhat-distanced post-apocalyptic future. Furthermore, I think that works such as "The Sunset Limited" by the same author are much more grounded, exploring the human condition in more a confrontational manner... and thus the distinction you see on the map. It should also be noted that this scale is not intented to convey a work's inner "quality", or at least the perceived nature of it; rather, it's meant to show the intention of the author - for example, the Twilight can hardly be considered a work of exceedingly high-quality, yet nevertheless the author's intention was that of "fantastical escapement for teenage girls with the aid of regurgitated horror tropes", and thus, it retains its place on the scale, quite accurately where I intented it, I think, firmly adjoined to the circle of blandness, yet leaning on escapism & questionably enjoyable fantasy. Nonwithstanding this apparent discrepancy of genreical confusion, Twilight is useful as an example for another reason as well; namely pointing out how loosely defined horror is in the contemporary society. In all fairness though, rarely anyone considers Twilight as "horror", per se... but at the worst of situations a conversation might ensue between two horror enthusiatists, wherein both express their infatuation to "The Horror Genre", only to realize that the other person is referring to the Ligottian nightmare... and the other Twilight's boy-vampires. The very least a substantial gulf stands between those who remain firmly in the mainstream realm and the types of cosmic horror fans. The "normal folk" will have difficulties perceiving, let alone understanding, the disheartening side of the genre due to its very confrontional, oftentimes truthful and off-putting nature. These normal folk will have, at most, heard of the "The Atmopsheric Fright" side of things, and perhaps enjoyed it to some degree, but will most likely shudder & shun away after hearing of the "Horrific Truth" if openly and honestly presented to them in all its straightforwardness.
0 Comments
It is well-known that an author's mental state will invariably alter the image that gets conveyed through art. The "True Image" is impossible to convey with perfect accuracy, even if nonwithstanding one's technical skill, for the very human condition always carries a degree of subjectivity. In addition to the inescacable core facts, there are more mundane obstacles, as well, in the way of conveying - even as simple as not having eaten properly for the day might subtly alter the idea or the image, turning it more pessimistic with the aid of poor mood. In short, as the artist always remains the sole 'conveyor' or 'moderator' of his- or herself's thoughts, one simply has to content with the fact that the image will never be perfect thanks to general human error. Things would just be easier if the whole business of art-conveying could be delegated to machines, but sadly that day is yet to come.
In any case, a lesser-discussed (or at least I feel so) topic is the conveying of character's own views of themselves. This matters little in the visual arts - although some may disagree, for it is said that behind every painting there's a story - but nevertheless it's all the more relevant in storytelling. Every author worth his salt knows to know their characters (or the artist's own inner personalities in some cases) as thoroughly as possible, for only this way authenticity - or believability in more common terms - can be reached. If one knows the characters, then they will know their motivations, hopes & dreams, and when presented with differing situations little additional thought is necessary, as simply observing the character's actions is enough, and so, writing it all down becomes a formality. So all that aside, what is this about "character's own views of themselves"? Well, if one has come to understand the fact that everyone's views of themselves are ultimately subjective (like Crawzinscky famously came to realize in "The Essence of Isolation"), then the character's selves are, as well, equally fleeting & tenuous. We might not even need to go that deep in order to ponder, for example, that if Sophia was to paint a portrait of herself - assuming for a second her technique was perfect - would this "image" be the objective truth of things? Obviously not, but what else there is to be projected for the audience? What would be an "objective truth" of her image? A photograph, sure, but considering it is difficult to take a picture (purely objective representation of a physical thing) from a fictional universe... the thought is akin to taking a picture of an idea. It would be like an "objective" image of mathematics - certainly one can represent certain numerical truths as numbers, such as 2+2=4... but can one take a picture of the concept of a number? No doubt much has been written about the relation of an artist and his works, of how the initial image or 'vision' is actually conveyed via the chosen medium, be it visuals, music, writing, poetry, or so on. While I've struggled with the topic myself a little, namely in writing when juggling between gothic styles and the more conventional approaches, it was only recently, when starting to learn drawing, that the thought concerning the lack of technical skill begun to harass the mind - in other words, does one's lack in skill inhibit the expression of his 'true vision'?
At first the answer seems obvious - a clear "yes", for if one can merely draw stick-figures in stead of beautiful gothic ladies, then very little of the original intention gets conveyed. However, can there be any point when one's skill with the pen gets too good? Will the minutiae detailing cloud the unique touch that a less-skilled artist might have? Again the answer seems somewhat obvious - a stout "no", for said details will surely only aid giving flesh to the tiniest hazed details that would otherwise be left uncertain, or perhaps altogether out of the picture. Despite coming to know & understand all this, I've begun to notice some... benefits - although of questionable kind - when it comes to lacking finer technical skill. While all the earliest attempts have been rather pitiful and unquestionably worth nothing, now, when feeling a bit more confident with the pen, but yet still remaining firmly in the "amateur" -category, some new insights have revealed themselves... namely the "uncanny valley" that seems beneficial in what I've been meaning to convery with the dark, somber imagery of the two sisters of melancholy, Sophia & Deliria (who are familiar to the handful of you who've read the relevant stories). Of course, in the end, the judgement of the technical skill or lack thereof falls on the observer; as in, does he or she perceive these works of questionable art as "good" or not - do the slightly off-base faces and angles serve any discernable purpose in delivering the intented aesthetic of gloom and doom, or is it just plain poor artwork that distracts from the overall experience? The artist himself is, of course, in a poor position to answer this question, having the obfuscating cloud of self-doubt standing fast in front of him. |
A.K
Gothic fiction novelist Archives
July 2023
Categories |