[x]

deviantART

 

Supranormal Sign Stimulus*

Sun Apr 20, 2008, 8:38 AM
*Also Supernormal Stimulus or Superstimulus

This is a term I first ran across while reading some of Carl Jung's work a while back. I found it interesting because I think it's the subject of a great deal of art.

Basically, we're programmed to respond to certain stimuli (often more attractive stimuli when it comes to art), and we respond even stronger when the stimulus is exaggerated.

So... in our man-altered world you end up with Australian beetles mating with beer bottles, for example, rather than with their proper mates... and other such things.

But, as it pertains to people and art--make-up, outlandish breast-enlargements, comic-book heroes, junk food, etc. all owe a certain amount to our preprogrammed tendencies, which never anticipated such exaggeration.

I often see art as merely a pursuit of supernormal sign stimuli. We're 'improving' upon nature in order to create something that's more compelling, arousing, titillating, etc. than the subject normally would be.

Of course, sometimes we go too far... as is often the case with female depictions... but we all have our own thresholds and (for some) fetishes.

Anyway, just thought this was something interesting to chew on.

  • Mood: Neutral
  • Listening to: "Dig!!! Lazarus Dig!!!", Nick Cave...
  • Reading: "Graphic Classics: Bram Stoker"

Devious Comments

love 0 0 joy 0 0 wow 0 0 mad 0 0 sad 0 0 fear 0 0 neutral 0 0

makes sense

--
:strip:Join Anatomy Grid [link] :strip:
I usually see art as something I make because I think of something I really want and I can't acquire it pre-made. It's a matter of possession. But I can see this being an influence, the pursuit of ultimate beauty, and I certainly don't think it is anything people should get their panties in a knot over... but obviously they do. *sigh* People who resent beauty because they don't personally embody it... puzzling. I covet it, of course (see first sentance), but that doesn't make me hate it.

What really puzzles me are the people who turn the ideals around, so big boobs = sexual arousal, sexual arousal = bad, therefore, I am only attracted to women with no boobs. That disturbs me more than the Tank Girl rockets, lol.

/too much philosophizing...
I agree--I think it's a good thing that we can pursue beauty to such a degree in art.

It seems moderation is required for the art to be effective, however--I was thinking of the implementation (style, etc.), as much as the reason for making something. For example, you can only push human proportions so far and in such a way before they become grotesque rather than attractive (to most people). Or modulate the intensities of color and contrast so much before they repel rather than entrance.

I think cartooning and abstraction fall a bit into this--the Japanese really push style with anime at times, exciting some, confusing others.
Haha. Have you ever visited CuteOverload.com? She tries to "scientifically" identify all the rules defining cuteness. Like little ears, big eyes, etc. But I love animals with big ears and little black beady eyes. And insects, I adore most insects. So for whatever rule you have or line you draw, there's gotta be some weirdo on the other side, ha!
Hehe, cute site. Yeah, there's always gonna be variations in taste. I think combinations are more important than any specific features.

Journal History

Site Map