TITLE: Eyeglasses. NAME: Neal Delfeld COUNTRY: USA EMAIL: delfeld@lycos.com WEBPAGE: n/a TOPIC: Surrealism COPYRIGHT: I SUBMIT TO THE STANDARD RAYTRACING COMPETITION JPGFILE: nrdglss.jpg RENDERER USED: POV-Ray TOOLS USED: XnView (for image conversion) RENDER TIME: 2min HARDWARE USED: AMD XP 1700+, 480mb, 7200rpm hd IMAGE DESCRIPTION: A Brief Treatise on the Failure of Surrealism The initial problem of ray-tracing a surrealistic image (especially in POVRay) is that the art form is not directly related to subconscious thought. Even where 3D is not programmed by hand, it is not capable of being produced by the mere touch of a brush or pen. This may be a difficulty relieved by better equipment and 3D programs, but there is still the problem of conscious learning and understanding. Surrealism asserts that conscious thought is either duped or lying. What becomes valuable is honesty, which is said to be found by accessing the animalistic, honest, direct unconscious mind. So the initial demand of surrealism becomes the elimination of conscious influence within art. 'Automatic writing' is writing on the verge of sleep (or during sleep, if possible), which is where the unconscious thought is thought to appear. Even still, we write in one language or another, which is a conscious learning process. This means there is no such thing as true surrealist art work, since nothing we can consciously understand links to the unconscious mind (or, at least, we could not reasonably assess what is a true connection between the two minds). This problem is significant. The closest we can get is representative surrealism. The conscious mind interprets what the unconscious is saying, and writes, draws, ray-traces, etc. the truth discovered in the unconscious. This does carry a lot of baggage which the initial concept of surrealism wanted to avoid. An example of the goofiness of this system is shown in "Spellbound" by Alfred Hitchcock. There is a dream sequence designed by Salvador Dali which has a series of symbols which the psychologists take as conclusive (enough) proof as to who is the murderer. The interpretation of the dream is taken at face value (except for some of the intentionally ambiguous symbols). There is not even a question that - at some times - a man may just be a man, and a bird a bird; it is a foregone conclusion that the unconscious speaks, and speaks directly through symbols. This is an extreme example of unconscious thought being corrupted by the conscious understanding - there is no way to know what the interpretation of appearance of the unconscious mind might mean. Therefore, surrealist art is impossible. All inconsistent philosophies must end up in some form of 'democratic' reading. This simply means that when the philosophic prescription is impossible, the easiest method which seems to achieve the same goal will probably be adopted in it's place. This is surrealism as we know it - Dali, Miro, Ernst, etc. It has become a cult of the unconscious. Because of the strong belief that surrealism is truthful, religious imagery often appears. Because of the incongruous and illogical (commonly held) nature of the unconscious, incidental artists such as Escher and Magritte became successful with optical illusions and logic tricks; the artwork displays that the consciousness does not have all the answers. Confusion becomes a substitute for the rigorous logic required to rationally respond to such art. . . it is easier to believe in the confusion. All this stems from the initial concept that the consciousness is dishonest/deceived and can never rectify that condition without assistance from the subconscious. I see no basis for these conclusions, however. Uncertainty often does not limit trust; besides, all unconscious messages are still communicated through the faulty consciousness. Also, surrealism accepts the idea of a universal truth, but just not this particular reality's version of the universal truth - so it goes beyond the current reality to find the truth. This also suggests that if there is an alternate reality, something has to coherently interpret that reality - and unconscious mind would stand the same risks of dishonesty/deception in that reality. What grounding is there to treat the unconscious the reality beyond this one in a different way than consciousness in this reality? So what is acceptable as 'surrealistic' art? Practically anything. There is no basis for judging what is "good" versus what is "bad" art, or even what is or isn't surreal. We can never codify anything about surrealism without going beyond the limits of what surrealism's laws. At best, we are left to rely on the conscious word of the artist who rendered the work to tell us what it is about. Therefore, surrealism in it's essential form is not only is meaningless, it is useless. The image depicts an extreme of surrealistic belief. The eyeglasses are logical conclusions and insights which offer greater clarity to the wearer. However, once a person believes in an impossibility, other thoughts are left on the shore in order to pursue the faith. The person sees a hazy reflection of oneself in the surface and adopts the idea that the self is beyond the surface, since the surface image is hazy and distorted. Going beyond the surface, the figure drowns, exterminating all rational thought. Finally, if I have not been clear in some part of this essay, let me know at the email above. I will try to respond to any questions or comments. It is 5:30 in the morning, and I do not have the will or energy to re-read it a third time. DESCRIPTION OF HOW THIS IMAGE WAS CREATED: Image map. Glasses positioned using a variation of Mick Hazelgrove's mAlign macro (from his IRTC entry "Lord of the Hunt" 00/07/01). Stick figure hand designed. Reflections are using the new reflection features, which allows the thick pool water to be variably reflective. With credit to Rembrandt's work with lighting.