Ha! Inspiration! I had a cool daydream set in a parallel version of the late 1990s and I just had to turn it into a digitally-edited painting 🙂 And, yes, astute viewers will notice that the game on the computer screen is the fictitious one from my “Survival Horror 2002” art series (yes, an anachronism, I know. But the idea seemed too fun not to include).
As usual, this painting is released under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND licence.
“Parallel 1998 (A Daydream)” by C. A. Brown
Well, I want to talk about a weird problem with the horror genre today. And the best way to illustrate this is to compare two things I watched shortly before preparing this article in early December last year – a horror movie and a short animated sitcom – which both focus on a classic horror villain: The Devil.
On the one hand, there is Ti West’s 2009 horror film “The House Of The Devil” (Note – the DVD case includes a photosensitivity warning). Inspired by the “Satanic Panic” in 1980s America, this historical horror movie is a masterpiece of atmosphere and suspense. Whilst it might lack the beautiful psychedelic palette of Dario Argento’s “Suspiria” (1977), it is one of those films where the suspense itself is actually more scary than the cruel and/or grisly moments that happen afterwards.
It is an exquisitely slow-paced slow-burn of a film, giving the audience time to get familiar with the main character and the location and the understated “retro” 1980s atmosphere. Even the premise itself is designed to build suspense, with its creepy rural mansion and bizarrely well-paying babysitting job. No-one expects anything but horror to emerge from this, but the suspense comes from wondering how, when and what it will be. It’s a “love it or hate it” type of film, but a really cool homage to classic 1970s/80s horror movies.
On the other hand, there is Winston Rowntree’s “Secret Satan” (2023) (Warning – flashing/flickering images, mature humour). An eight-minute animated sitcom pilot revolving around the idea that Satan has been banished to Earth in human form. Most of the episode consists of her drinking with her friends and having a more meaningful and intelligent conversation than most Hollywood films could ever dream of.
It’s a short film about how everyone is weird, about ridiculous social traditions (“Even gender roles“), about the universal nature of hedonism (eg: people in both heaven and hell reacting in the same way when she sets up a stall selling booze and risqué magazines), about impossible standards and imposed guilt/self-loathing etc… It’s the sort of incredibly well-written feel-good thing which, like most of Rowntree’s work, makes everything else seem shallow by comparison. The characters seem more like real people than some actual real people do.
Anyway, the point I want to make here is the different way that both things handle the idea of “weird”. Whilst there are certainly some things in the horror genre – mostly in the vampire genre but also novels like Clive Barker’s “Cabal” (1988) and TV shows like the 1960s “Addams Family” series too – where the main character is a weird misfit and the horror comes from the “normal” world around them, these are very much the exception rather than the rule. Often, horror tends to focus on “This monster or villain is WEIRD! Aren’t they scary?“. For something so “rebellious”, it’s a bizarrely closed-minded and conservative genre a lot of the time.
And there’s a paradox here. The horror genre is a genre for misfits. Even if, like me, you have a weird love-hate relationship with it – the fact that you’re interested in movies, games and novels where the atmosphere is gloomy and ominous. Where monsters lurk and there are rarely happy endings. Where the budget is low and the pacing is slow. Where the villain is often more of a main character than the supposed main character. I could go on for a while, but it is very much an outlier compared to the other genres. Being a fan of it is – when seen “objectively” – a weird thing.
Yet, more than any other genre, it often demonises the “weird”. It often makes its villains misfits and its main characters paragons of “normality”. Yes, it’s subversive in the sense that it evokes the feeling of fear for entertainment – rather than evoking it in order to manipulate people (in the way that religions, newspapers, activists, politicians, advertisers etc… can do). But, for a genre which appeals so much to the really interesting people in this world, it’s oddly staid and conservative most of the time.
On the other hand, the short Winston Rowntree film I mentioned earlier absolutely embraces the fact that the audience – myself included – are weird misfits. It’s a film which makes you question why Hollywood movies and TV shows rarely ever do this. In keeping with this, the film is ridiculously subversive – a gigantic middle-finger to the stories we’re all told in real life (or about real life). The artificial game of “normality”. Almost hinting that perhaps the real devil isn’t the quirky red-haired lady but is instead the society which the characters live in. If you’re even vaguely “weird”, this short film will be literal balm to your soul. You’ll gleefully be shouting “YES!” and “OF COURSE!” at the screen at various points. Yet, despite the main character being the literal devil, it isn’t in the horror genre. It’s a comedy.
And it made me realise that, for a genre where most of its strongest fans are “weird”, the horror genre isn’t really the sanctuary that it is often made out to be. Again, there are exceptions to this (Luca Guadagnino’s 2018 remake of “Suspiria” is another good example) but it is a genre that often relies on presenting the weird or unusual as being frightening or unsettling. One which often reveres “normality”, presenting any challenge to it as being frightening or dangerous.
So, yes, there really should be more horror media for weird people, rather than about weird people.
———————
Anyway, I hope that this was interesting 🙂
This “mid-1990s” style digitally-edited painting was a total failure, which I was only barely able to salvage with a lot of digital effects.
As usual, this painting is released under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND licence.
“Party Window 1996” by C. A. Brown
Well, since I couldn’t think of a better idea for an article, I thought that I’d talk about how the internet can distort how you think about the things you enjoy. You’ve probably been there – you’re interested in a topic (eg: stationery, tea etc…) and you look on a site like Youtube out of curiosity about it.
Of course, you are instantly dazzled by the sheer variety on offer. There are videos by experts, collectors and connoisseurs, where – in seemingly every one – they’ve got something new to show you. And it’s easy to end up feeling limited or “second-best” by comparison. But you shouldn’t. Because it doesn’t really reflect how most people – even as little as 10-20 years ago – interacted with the things that they are interested in.
Realistically, you would just find something good and settle with it for as long as you do. For example, despite the dazzling array of stationery being shown on the internet, I’ve pretty much found my favourite “everyday” pen and notebook combination at the moment – both are relatively cheap (about £4-5 per notebook and, if I can find a good deal, £1 per pen), but fancier than what I used to use – and I pretty much just buy those when I shop online. Why? Because I enjoy using them, because they are things that I know that I’m actually going to use regularly. They are things I can stock up on in case the price changes or something goes out of stock or whatever.
Likewise, although I don’t really drink that much tea these days, I usually just stick with my favourite type when I do. A teabag of green tea brewed strong in about half a mug of hot water almost to the point of bitterness, then topped up with about a quarter-mug of cold water. This was something I developed in part for practical reasons during the 2010s (eg: the cold water allows you to drink it pretty much instantly) and in part because, whilst there was a variety of teas in supermarkets, cafes etc… back when I drank tea more regularly during the mid-late 2000s, it was more limited than the dazzling array of loose-leaf teas, tea bricks, aged teas etc… you can see on the internet these days. So, after some experimentation with what was available, I found my favourite type of tea – green tea – and just stuck to that.
And this “Find what you like and stick with it” thing is fairly normal for most people. There is literally nothing wrong or weird or “second-best” about it. Throughout most of human history, this is how most people interacted with the things they enjoyed. You found whatever worked best for you – shaped by things like cost and/or availability – and stuck with it. You couldn’t see what people on the other side of the world were enjoying and, if someone was showing off a variety of things, they were often either boasting (in order to make themselves feel better at your expense), it was an educational lecture/documentary or they were trying to sell you something.
As for why people on the internet keep showing off lots of new and different things, part is motivated by enthusiasm for the topic but it also has a lot to do with coming up with interesting and entertaining videos, articles, reviews etc.. Making new stuff to post regularly. And it isn’t always as fun as it looks.
For example, back when I spent a couple of years reviewing novels and a total of about a year writing daily articles about horror videogames, there was this constant self-imposed pressure to find new things. To study, rather than fully enjoy, then move on to the next thing. And, although I was able to discuss a variety of novels and games, I was also still limited by things like my (relatively low) budget, my strong preference for physical books, the specs of my computer etc….
And, whilst it was cool to feel like a cultured expert, it isn’t really a “natural” way to enjoy novels or horror games. As hinted earlier, both of these phases only lasted a year or two before I felt “burnt out” by either thing. Yes, I’ve read – or tried to read – a tiny number of books since then and I’ve played a small number of horror games since then (and written about them every once in a while), but this focus on constant, excessive variety for the sake of being a “connoisseur” eventually exhausted me and lessened my interest in both things.
So, don’t feel bad if you enjoy things that you are interested in in a more normal way. Don’t feel bad if you just find whatever is best for you from the available options and stick with it. It’s a more natural and long-lasting way to enjoy things. The way that people enjoy things when they’re making stuff to put on the internet is at least somewhat different to how most people normally enjoy things.
It can be very easy to watch lots of videos about a given topic and feel like you’re “second-best” in comparison to the enthusiasts on the internet, but you aren’t. You’re just normal, like virtually everyone else who uses stationery, drinks tea, reads books, wears clothes, plays videogames etc… It’s the internet which is the “weird” thing here. And if you treat what you see online as normal, then it’ll just make you feel bad about yourself. Even though there’s nothing to feel bad about – because you’re just doing what virtually all of humanity has done (finding the best things for you – shaped by cost/availability – and sticking with them) for centuries or millennia.
————–
Anyway, I hope that this was interesting 🙂
Although this was a quick ten-minute piece of digital art that I made (using GIMP) when I was feeling unenthusiastic, I actually ended up writing a blog article about the creative process behind it.
As usual, this picture is released under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND licence.
“Lazy Morning (Ten Minutes)” by C. A. Brown
Well, since I couldn’t think of a better idea for an article, I thought that I’d offer a fun sci-fi metaphor for your art style. And, yes, this is another “Star Wars”-themed article. Anyway, if – like me – you have a vague passing knowledge of the mythology of this classic sci-fi series, then you’ll probably know that each of the series’ “Jedi” characters has their own unique lightsaber.
For those who have been living under a rock for the past forty-seven years or so, a “Jedi” is a benevolent interplanetary knight errant who can wield magical powers (called “The Force”) and who – famously – carries a glowing retractable laser sword called a “lightsaber”. And each of their lightsabers looks at least slightly different. The shape of the hilt might be different or the “blade” colour might be different, or they might even use a different configuration (eg: two shorter lightsabers, a double-bladed lightsaber etc...).
Part of the series mythology is that each “Jedi” has to build their own lightsaber. They have to meditate upon an energy crystal until it reflects some aspect of them or something like that. In the “Star Wars” universe, you can’t just go into a shop and buy a lightsaber. You have to make it yourself. And you have to train with it.
On a side-note: It’s very telling that one of the themes in the “Star Wars” series is that the villains are a lot more “standardised”. Whether it is the identical armour and identical laser guns used by the Imperial Stormtroopers or whether it is how the “Sith” (an evil version of the Jedi) literally ALL have red lightsabers. These days and in this context, it’s difficult not to see this as a metaphor for “A.I. art” or for chasing “popular” art styles, rather than finding your own.
And this idea is hardly unique to “Star Wars”. In fact, before “Star Wars” was even a thing – the long-running sci-fi TV series “Doctor Who” has a famous thing where, whenever the actor who plays The Doctor (a time-travelling alien) changed, then the character would “regenerate” into a different person. One interesting side-effect of this was that other stuff often changes too. Not only does the interior design of their time machine (“TARDIS”) change, but the design of their multi-functional “Sonic screwdriver” gadget also changes too.
Anyway, the point is one about uniqueness, time and practice. For an art style to really mean something to you, you have to build it yourself. Even if you start with one or more pre-existing styles or inspirations, then enough practice will mean that more of yourself will start to seep into it. Even if you stick to the pre-made style on the surface, things like what you choose to paint/draw will be shaped by your own sensibilities and imagination (unless you’re just “chasing clout” on social media...).
If you make enough art often enough, then it will shape itself to you. Even if you start out with a “standardised” style. Even if you try out lots of different stuff – in fact, trying out different things is how your style develops (because you’ll find something you like and, consciously or not, incorporate it into other art you make).
And, if you make art, you probably know all of this already. But, still, finding a silly way to liken yourself to a Jedi can certainly be a fun motivational thing to do 🙂
—————————
May the force be with you 🙂
This “1970s folk horror” style digitally-edited painting was a lot of fun to make, and you can read more about the creative process behind it in this old article.
As usual, this painting is released under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND licence.
“Luminous Loft 1971” by C. A. Brown
Well, I thought that I’d talk briefly about why people say that the modern day is terrible. Whilst part of this is because memories become “rose-tinted” over time (with the bad parts fading away), it’s usually because someone is trying to make a point about something. It’s as much a rhetorical tactic – and one that I’ve almost certainly used here – as anything else.
But, the reality is probably a lot more nuanced. Some things are better in the present day and some things were better in the past. Often, it balances itself out. For example, whilst “AAA” videogames were less greedy and more creative in – for example – 2003, there also wasn’t really the vibrant indie gaming scene (where creativity is plentiful and greed is rare) that there is today. And, yes, I chose 2003 for a very specific reason here – since it was one of the last years when physical media was pretty much the only way to get games (Steam – for better or worse- sold its first digital game in 2004).
Not to mention that, whilst some things are unfortunately lost to history, it’s surprising how much old stuff carries over into the present day. The day before writing this article late last November, I wore an old T-shirt from 2002-3 (Iron Maiden’s “Rock In Rio” T-shirt, if anyone is curious) and played a modern digital re-release of a computer game from 2003 (“Jedi Academy”). You can still buy MP3s and DVDs online – I still do. Older websites – like Youtube and DeviantART – are still here at the time of writing, even if they have changed over time (in both good and bad ways). There are still forums on the internet too.
And, if you actually look at history – rather than nostalgia – the past has just as many, or more, flaws as the present day does. For all of the fuss about how the modern internet has impacted freedom of expression, would you really want to go back to the repressed 1950s – where, in Britain, novels could – until 1959 – still be banned for being even vaguely steamy or rude?
Where, in America, even the mere suggestion that someone was vaguely left-wing was enough to get them called a “communist” and – to use the modern term – “cancelled”? Where significant portions of the population had fewer civil rights than others? Where, due to moral panics – using similar tactics to modern ones – on both sides of the pond, horror comics either got unofficially banned or formally restricted?
And some things really are a constant. Yes, if you read news sites or newspapers these days, they will paint a very bleak, frightening and depressing picture of the world. But, from my memories of early-mid 2000s Britain, they did that back then too. Yes, the “issues” might have been different – but the underlying mood of “These are grim, miserable times… and the future will be worse” was basically the same. What can I say? It sells newspapers. And newspapers are businesses.
Don’t get me wrong, the present day certainly isn’t completely perfect. But I remember the first time I got nostalgic about the 2000s during the 2010s. It really caught me by surprise because I never expected to be nostalgic about that decade. Whilst there were a few good moments, some of it – like today – just seemed “ordinary” at the time. Mostly though, during large portions of the actual 2000s, I thought that it was a rather crappy and miserable time. Yet, thanks to heavily-edited, selective and rose-tinted memories, that decade has received a major upgrade today.
So, yes, the reality is a lot more complicated and nuanced. Still, when people say that the modern day is terrible – then it is usually for the sake of arguing a point or making a case about something. It’s an easy rhetorical tactic to use and – in some cases, there can actually be merit to it – but it’s worth recognising that people often say it for the sake of making an argument about something.
Perhaps Suzanne Vega summed it up best in her 2001 song “Last Year’s Troubles” (warning – brief flickering lights), but – lest anyone say that meaningful popular music is a thing of the past, I recently stumbled across a song from 2021 called “Ancient Dreams In A Modern Land” (warning – flicker) by Marina which has surprisingly deep and thought-provoking lyrics.
The modern day has terrible elements and good elements, just like the past did.
——————–
Anyway, I hope that this was interesting 🙂
If I remember rightly, this digitally-edited painting was originally supposed to be a coldly metallic “Y2K era” style sci-fi painting. But I messed this up and had to do a lot of digital editing, which eventually resulted in an even cooler psychedelic painting 🙂 Yes, it’s probably more “mid 1990s” in style, but I ended up keeping the original title (with “1998” in it) regardless.
As usual, this painting is released under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND licence.
“Space Station 1998” by C. A. Brown
Well, since I couldn’t think of a better idea for an article, I thought that I’d talk about a clever design decision in the old computer game that I was playing at the time of writing. I am, of course, talking about the 2003 sci-fi action game “Star Wars: Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy”.
One of the interesting things about this game is how – through game design alone – it encourages you to use the Star Wars series’ iconic lightsaber (a glowing laser sword) instead of other weapons.
Whilst it is the very first weapon you are given – during the introductory level – the designers clearly wanted to avoid turning it into a typical videogame starting weapon which usually gets completely ignored after a couple of levels.
Not only is it the most famous sci-fi weapon ever created, but there was also clearly a lot of effort put into animating attacks for it and other cool features – such as the ability to learn/change fighting styles, to throw it like a boomerang, to customise its appearance at the very beginning of the game etc… – to the point it just feels seriously cool to use. Not to mention that it is also part of the “special sauce” which makes the Star Wars franchise so unique.
After all, “Star Wars” was one of the first major media franchises to blend both the sci-fi and fantasy genres in an innovative way. The series famously takes place “A long time ago, in a galaxy far far away“, allowing for both the historical-style theme of a fantasy story but with enough leeway for lots of spaceships, planets, lasers, robots etc… too. A major part of this mixture of genres is that one of the main groups of characters – the Jedi Knights – uses magic and swords… sorry, “The Force” and lightsabers.
With the exception of the introductory level and the tutorial level, where you can only use the lightsaber, the other levels in “Jedi Academy” (2003) let you choose two futuristic guns before you start each level. In the real world, guns are more powerful weapons than swords. So, as soon as the player gets one, then they will intuitively use it instead. And, given how laser guns are also an important part of the series, the designers couldn’t just not include any guns in the game.
Not only that, when you switch to one of the guns, the game’s perspective changes and it becomes a first-person shooter game. Given how – even back in 2003 – a typical player would already be very familiar with this style of gameplay, there was a real risk that players could quickly end up neglecting the game’s coolest weapon – especially given its limited range. So, how did the designers prevent this?
Simply put, they used weapon balancing and level design. Until at least a third to half of the way through the game, the ranged weapons are noticeably weaker than the lightsaber. However, many early-game enemies will fall with just a single swing of your lightsaber – encouraging you to run towards them and use that instead.
It isn’t even until about two-thirds of the way through the game that you get a weapon – the “Stouker Concussion Rifle” – that is considerably more powerful than the lightsaber. And, by that point, you’ll already be used to reflexively drawing your lightsaber whenever there is trouble.
Likewise, whilst the game certainly does include wide-open levels, there is also a heavy emphasis on claustrophobic corridors, smaller rooms and places where it is more intuitive for the player to fight at close range. Again, this is also there to encourage the player to switch to their lightsaber rather than trying to fight from a distance with a – less powerful – laser gun.
Also, especially during the later parts of the game, there are sometimes lightsaber-wielding villains who can only be fought using lightsabers (and “force powers” – magic spells). If you try to use a projectile weapon against them, they will literally just deflect the projectile right back at you. Yes, these lightsaber duels aren’t really the most well-designed part of the game’s combat, but it’s still a clever way to ensure that the player still uses this weapon even very late into the game.
But, yes, something as simple as weapon balancing, enemy design and level design can be used to shape how the player plays the game. Again, whilst the lightsaber looks/sounds cool, you’ll probably still instinctively switch to a laser gun as soon as you get one… only to quickly switch back to the lightsaber when you realise that the gun isn’t as powerful as you thought it would be. It’s subtle, but excellent, game design 🙂
—————-
Anyway, I hope that this was interesting 🙂
PekoeBlaze - the official blog 