Olivia, staring up from the ground, saw what she took to be either a
savage or a madman advancing on Shah Amurath in an attitude of deadly
menace. He was powerfully built, naked but for a girdled loincloth,
which was stained with blood and crusted with dried mire. His black mane
was matted with mud and clotted blood; there were streaks of dried blood
on his chest and limbs, dried blood on the long straight sword he
gripped in his right hand. From under the tangle of his locks, bloodshot
eyes glared like coals of blue fire. (Shadows in the Moonlight).
Mud and blood. Such striking scenes abound in this mainly moonlit tale. Conan may not care for the reeds that cake the body as it squirms, but the realism is palpable.
So saying, he laid aside his sword, and wading out shoulder-deep into
the blue water, went about his ablutions. When he emerged, his clean-cut
bronze limbs shone, his streaming black mane was no longer matted. His
blue eyes, though they smoldered with unquenchable fire, were no longer
murky or bloodshot. But the tigerish suppleness of limb and the
dangerous aspect of feature were not altered.
What
is real and what is unreal? Is an image of such a scene real, or is the
scene itself real? Clearly the latter, so is a realistic image actually
a type of unreality?
HB1
compared Leonardo and Durer in terms of perfection and imperfection; in
Leonardo geometry is incorporated in the figures, in Durer it is kept
separate. By the time of Caravaggio (HB114), perfection gives way to the illusion of light in chiaroscuro.
Once
that happens, the more real the image appears the less real it is,
since it is only composed of light. Outside of light-effects is the
physical substance of Earth; the dark forests that harbor Artemis and
her hounds; psyche and the symbolism contained in lunar and other
motifs.
It's
the very realism of light-effects that make them unrealistic in the
physical sphere of moonlit forests. The symbolism of a forest is that it
destroys light and by so doing transforms it. There is a physical
content there that is not contained in the technique of chiaroscuro.
The
modern scene is in many ways the heir to Caravaggio; reason (technique)
applied for the sake of effect (light). Our modern homes are objects of
light (electromagnetism) rather than huts in the forest.
A
forest represents physical substance, so that one could theoretically
cut down trees and use the wood to build a dwelling. A forest hut exists
in dappled shade and abuts on rough sward. In the construction and
habitation everything tends to be cyclical, reusable, since it is part
of the forest. Same with the beasts (see Buffy quote on transformation, HB70).
This concept of building in terms of physical substance (Earth) was so also with the Romans as I read in an article on Pompeii, where detritus of various kinds was piled along the town wall, apparently stored.
A
cyclical system shares in the feminine mystique of the materials of
Earth - terracotta, ceramics. This is part of the rustic empire of the
introspective mind (see HB1 for details; see HB2 for Roman engineering.)
The
modern mind is much more inclined to be taken by a convincing likeness
of reality a la Caravaggio, rather than the real thing. The Martian Home
is therefore much like a construction of light, built in straight lines
from external materials that are erected, all sorts of gizzmos fitted.
Light
is resolved space adopting a monotone style; the psyche and rustic
content are lacking. Where the rustic habitation is cyclical and part of
Earth, resolved space is simply erected, and all unwanted material
continually taken away as rubbish.
Psychologically-speaking,
this modern fixation for cleanliness creates a mindset whereby a lot of
the work involves constantly taking away rubbish. In other words, a
fixation for cleanliness becomes a fixation for rubbish.
It's
this straight-line sterility that has a very convincing appearance that
is almost the heir to Caravaggio. The very conviction points to a
convincing illusion of light-effects. The reality of Earth materials
(ochres), forest and moonlit groves are lacking.
Resolved space is always very persuasive - see CL Moore P8) but it is psychically lacking and, in CL Moore's Judgement Night, full of reptilian psychosis. The style is monochrome, flashy and tawdry (Trumplike).
The
modern psyche, through its fixation on straight-line sterility,
actually develops a fixation on numbers and rubbish (see Grace Slick
quote HB62/1). In other words, the physique can't be denied, and
the brain and body become one. To the Romans, and I guess all
pre-industrial people, the Earth is the body and recyles things as a
body does. There is no cerebral cleverness because it's not fitting that
a house should be clever; it's just mud, wattle, or mortar - nothing
more.
The
modern types who seem to have the smart ideas for straight-line
habitations and gizzmos - be it Bezos or Gates - are at the same time
full of rubbish because their cleverness necessitates a fixation on
sterility (illusory space, light).
Cyclical
systems are not smart; they have a primitive appreciation of fertility -
much as Conan does of Olivia. With fertility or dirt comes strength of
body, germs that stimulate the immune-system.
It's not rocket-science so "they" don't find it interesting. It's ancient psyche, ancient style and ancient heart.
