content: SURREVER Art & Control by Johnny McIvor “That’s where the Shaper saves them. Provides an illusion of reality—puts together all their facts with a gluey whine of connectedness. Mere tripe, believe me. Mere sleight-of-wits. He knows no more than they do about total reality—less, if anything: works with the same old clutter of atoms, the givens of his time and place and tongue.” -- John Gardner, Grendel Let us assume the following: Definition of Surrever Surrever is a psychological process in which the brain attempts to resolve a dissonance between concrete and missing information with a series of propositions. These propositions create an imaginative high. Etymology “Dream beyond.” I decided to base the word in French in order to connect it to another French neologism: surrealism. Surrealism is a classic example of an aesthetic that heavily relies on the presence of surrever, and so I felt it was appropriate to not only borrow the “sur” (“beyond”) but complete it with a French “rever” (from “rêverie,” which means “to dream” or “to rave”). The Brain is Biased Surrever trends towards ideal or extremely negative propositions. A sexual tease produces ideal imagery and scenarios; a mysterious noise in the closet produces the worst of nightmares. Definition of Art Art is the manipulation of surrever. Technique is the concrete part, ambiguity is the aerated part. Together these contrast just as fuel does to air in a fire. The most celebrated works of art emit a very pure end effect. “Bad Art” Means One of Two Things “Bad art” is either boring or repulsive. In the first case, there is little contrast between technical skill and ambiguity. In the second case, the subject matter repels you (bad acting, racially ambiguous characters, creepy expressions, religious blasphemy, etc). Surrever is the Technical Ends of Great Art Consider the ambiguity / technique contrast we find in Hamlet, take a look at any Da Vinci or Michelangelo. The greatest works of art are simply managing this effect in their respective mediums. Their impact on the public has just been successful, and thus they are remembered. If you value the end effect for its own sake as I do, surrever can be grotesquely exploited by merely depicting incomprehensible matter with technical sophistication, as can be seen in my drawing at the title. All I did was set a few “rules” for my drawing to increase the contrast necessary for a strong surrever effect. When I look at it, I imagine tropical islands, occult manuscripts, postmodern furnishings, secrets by candlelight, also Brain Eno. It works for what it wants. Whether or not you like it or care doesn’t matter to me in this case, but it is the other concern of great art, which is the luck of cultural relevance. Art must have great subject matter, and get lucky, to become great in our typical sense of what makes great art. Contemporary Art is Also Good at Surrever The public overwhelmingly hates our galleries and universities which promote dysgenic and highly underwhelming artworks. While I do not believe that this art is culturally relevant, and generally find criticism of it to be out of touch (reacting against technique, reacting at all, trying to build alternative institutions), it is a good example of how surrever can explain the appeal here. Contemporary art is highly counterintuitive, it is elitist, its existence is incredible but feels somehow justified, and it commands an intimidating amount of money. What’s more, the immense spaces that house such projects offer an enormous contrast between the simple, mundane forms, and the grandiose presentation. Furthermore, the effects are usually convincing if one merely examines the artist’s statement as one examines the piece. When you walk past the Dan Flavin “Monuments” exhibit in the entrance to the Dia:Beacon, and read the little statement piece, you do see how he “paints with light,” you do begin to pull up imagery in your head of the Industrial Revolution taking place. But such autistic appreciation of texture, of which is genuinely had among the artists themselves and a very small segment of the population, is irrational to most ordinary people, who do not care and do not experience the effect. Really, the worst examples of contemporary art are expressions of insanity made “real” through the surrever effect, and then made even “realer” through Jewish money and institutional signalling. Surrever Justifies Irrational Explanations There is no such thing as “metaphysics.” All belief systems which purport transcendental realities are simply filling in the blanks with physical propositions, however abstract. When someone accuses you of being a “materialist,” what occurs to them in their philosophy are just a series of flashing, abstract shapes and beautiful scenery, all of which produce intense feelings in their hearts. The imaginative high makes them feel that these values are “real,” or “sublime,” or whatever you want to call it. To a sorcerer, there is no magic. Surrever is Tied to Control Ancient archaeology shows us that structures, symbols, and objects of power all contain incomprehensible details of lavish expense and craft. Power objects come in random, intricate shapes -- crowns, rings, sceptors, vessels, moons, the headdress, the fertility doll, etc. What all objects of power have in common is that their utility is unclear and heavily implied. Ancient cultures poured an extraordinary amount of resources into the construction of power structures of unclear utility. While food production was limited, ancient people would spend time and energy constructing obelisks, pyramids, earthworks, and shrines, all of which did not produce food. Modern belief structures such as racial egalitarianism, homo rights, quantum mechanics, libertarian universalism, circumcision, democracy etc are built upon a similar robust counterintuitiveness. Vague explanations mate with strong technique to produce a dissonance whereby the viewer introduces a menagerie of exotic propositions and feelings. Nationalism is Intuitive, Globohomo is Counterintuitive Nationalism has not been as selective as leftism in part because leftism is much more about the surrever effect, and thus sounds a lot more convincing to anyone who isn’t paying attention, including conservatives. It is a lot more convincing to propose the idea that sexual identity is some kind of choice, because choice is vague and artistically fertile -- whereas “homosexuality is a mental illness” is a theory that offers a hard-up interpretation that engages critical thinking and some amount of cognitive dissonance. If it doesn’t seem immediately important, people will go with the easier choice that allows them to fill in the blanks.