 |
| I suppose this could be an idea |
I’ve been looking at a lot of so called surreal images online to see if anything inspires me. I find I’m at a loss. So I asked AI this question…..why do I find the surreal images I see online as either silly or not really surreal. Here’s the interesting answer.
I think it's because you have a fairly sophisticated idea of what surrealism ought to accomplish, and much of what you're seeing online doesn't accomplish it.
And I suspect there's another reason: you have a scientist's insistence on internal logic combined with an artist's sensitivity to composition. That's an unusual combination, and it makes you a demanding viewer of surreal art.
I think you're noticing three different problems.
1. Much of what is called surreal is simply strange
A giant clock floating over a city. A fish swimming through the sky. A staircase leading into clouds. A house balanced on an enormous teacup.
These things are impossible, but impossibility alone doesn't make an image compelling.
You recognize the trick immediately. There's often no reason to keep looking.
Surrealism isn't simply putting something where it doesn't belong. At its best, it makes an impossible situation feel psychologically convincing.
2. Some images are beautiful but not particularly surreal
We've encountered this repeatedly ourselves.
The snowy alley, the abandoned steel mill, and the atmospheric house on the rocks all evoke mystery. But a mysterious atmosphere isn't necessarily surrealism.
Fog, darkness, unusual lighting, and isolation can suggest dreams without depicting anything that violates reality.
You recognize that distinction immediately, too.
3. Some surreal images are intellectually clever but emotionally empty
This may be the category you dislike most.
An artist creates an ingenious visual contradiction. You understand it, perhaps appreciate the technical achievement, and then move on.
There's no emotional resonance, no deeper mystery, no feeling that the image represents something beyond its visual trick.
I think that explains why you've been dissatisfied with so many of our attempts. We've repeatedly invented impossibilities that were technically surreal but not particularly meaningful.
But there's a distinction worth making
Historically, surrealism wasn't limited to realistic paintings with impossible objects. It also included abstraction, automatic drawing, irrational associations, and attempts to explore the unconscious without deliberate planning.
So some works that don't look surreal to you may legitimately belong to the tradition.
And some apparently silly works may be intentionally absurd. Humor and irrationality can be part of surrealism.
The important distinction is between an artwork being surreal and an artwork being good. Those aren't the same thing.
An image can qualify as surrealism and still be banal, derivative, poorly composed, or emotionally uninteresting.
What I think this means for your exhibition quilt
You've been approaching the problem almost as an engineering challenge: create a believable world, introduce one impossible condition, and make everything else obey the laws of physics.
That's a valid approach, but it's also why we've produced so many visual tricks.
The original Surrealists were often interested in something different: allowing unexpected associations, dreams, memories, and subconscious feelings to generate images that weren't necessarily rationally designed.
I wonder whether we've been trying to invent surrealism logically when what you really want is to discover something that feels like a dream.
So then where does that leave me except at a loss? I could have said many of the things AI said before I asked it. But knowing that and coming up with a quilt idea I want to spend months on are two different things.
My latest ideas. The first is very subtle with unrealistic reflections. Will most viewers even see beyond the pretty picture? The second idea is much more surreal. At least there are no eyeballs or ravens in sight! And there are buildings…….
Thanks for reading.
Chris
