UFO Conjecture(s)

Monday, August 19, 2013

The UFO mind-set: Surrealist Metaphors

Copyright 2013, InterAmerica, Inc.

Bruce Duensing and Paul Kimball think art and artists have an edge on reality and how art and artists think and perform provide clues to how non-artists may perceive things, such as when the non-artist spots a UFO, for instance.

That is, a UFO spotter may configure their observation in ways not unlike that of an artist, imaginatively and with weird elaboration, as found in some UFO accounts (like those of Jacques Vallee or Antonio Caravaca).

Here are twelve contemporary pieces of surreal art, art by artists extant today, not those who created and promoted surreal art or Dada of the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s:












These are present day artists, who see things in odd ways, just as some UFO spotters see odd things in the sky and on the ground.

What are shown above are images from today’s cultural milieu, not the milieu of decades ago.

How and why UFO witnesses see the things they have reported to have seen reside in the present day social construct, not the Cold War or World War II anxieties that provoked such incidents as the Orson Welles’ 1938 Halloween War of the Worlds scare.

Still, my contention is that some visions by UFO spotters are neurological in nature, or the result of a psychological malfunction.

That artists also envisage reality in queer ways, without the concomitant neurological quirks shows that normality may be just diverse, and UFO spotters engage unusual things in ways like that of artists.

It’s a consideration.

Or are artists, such as those represented here, also subject to neurological mischief and create images created by that mischief?

The workings of the mind are still unclear in 2013; consciousness and unconsciousness are as mysterious to neurology and psychiatry today as it was over a hundred years ago.

UFO reports, while much less imaginative than the pictorial representations of artists, like those shown here, do have, nonetheless, elements of the same kind, put simpler and in ways verbal or oral, rather than painterly.

But the UFO accounts do smack of surreality.

And that is the crux of the UFO literature and lore: the reports are surreal.

Are they configured by mental aberrations? Or vivid imaginative imagery, sublimated from and by the extraordinary observation?

No one really knows…..



  • I see surrealism as a language in it's own right whether it is visual or written as it is created from the prosaic pieces of( consensus reality ) as well as being a recombination of both semiotics and a deconstructive probe into meanings, that describes what often eludes language directly, which is more of a state than a narrative, although it has components much like a narrative, it is perhaps largely a metaphor. This seems to fit many experiential alleged encounters with so called extraterrestrials. Some of these seem to be subliminal social critiques, or some seem to be reconstructive of an interaction that surrealism does so well to describe as a metaphor of a state rather than a narrative.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, August 19, 2013  

  • I just need to point out that when I use the term "artists" and "art" I don't confine it just to painters, but rather extend it to all art forms - dance, photography, theater, music of all genres, filmmaking, folks who put together cool light displays, poets... it's a long list of anyone who does something creative.

    Indeed, as to PG's point in the previous thread, about how our gods seem to fit our preconceptions as eras change, and my rejoinder that it could be the other way around, when we look at art it is the artists (i.e. the gods) who are always leading the way - the rest of us follow (the Beatles are a perfect example, but so is Picasso).

    Of course, the third option is that we're all doing it together. And therein lies the co-creative aspect.

    I don't know if that's the answer, or some kind of unified field theory... it's just what I see as a pattern that makes sense if we accept that the paranormal is real to some degree or another (and I make that assumption for the sake of argument), after which the more important question is why, not how, or where, or even what.


    By Blogger Paul Kimball, at Monday, August 19, 2013  

  • Your view, Paul, smacks of that by Jose Caravaca, who sent me a note on his "Distortion Theory" -- which I'll be adding here shortly.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, August 19, 2013  

Post a Comment

<< Home