Tuesday 24 May 2011

What's weird?

Beedo at Dreams in the Lich House asked what weird is, and I've read some of the insightful responses, including the usual good thought from Von, here, at the new GAME OVER.

My own interest is less in weird as a genre than the idea of weirdness itself. For me it's not so much combining elements - which is common, and even simple in the struggle to make fresh things - but more a suggestion of hidden depths and reframings.

Weirdness in this understanding becomes the creation of a new space in which existing knowledge is reduced in value or needs to be synthesised anew - and still comes up short - where presumed fundamentals are undermined or replaced and where the observer is challenged to engage to a high degree, quite possibly at a more intuitive level, at least initially. It's clear this is relative and depends very much on the observer.

It's also a greater task for the creator too, but potentially very valuable. It's rather like the change we make in our world when learning a new language, in that a language is less a naming system than an alternative set of interpretative tools which can show spaces we hadn't imagined exist; the whole a process in which we find more than we might expect.

The value is in intimations of something as yet unknown waiting, an encouragement to explore. Weird takes those intimations and runs with them, and the further, the better.
_

6 comments:

The Angry Lurker said...

I think what's weird is unique to the individual, I find little weird any more perhaps people but not things or events. Maybe that's weird?

Paul´s Bods said...

I agree with Fran, wierd is in the eye of the beholder...and that depends on each individual, the less experience you have of the world..the wierder some events / people can seem.
Cheers
paul

Porky said...

That relativity does seem to be key. As we learn more, and become more familiar with previously hard to access places, the weird drops back.

We do follow though, and, to answer the question, in that sense it is weird not to be as weirded out these days. We need to work on that...

Then again, how deep can the rabbit hole go?

DocStout said...

Making the weird distinct from the absurd in terms of definition is key, I think. Maybe internal consistency, a sense of verisimilitude when moving from the known towards the unknown is the difference?

Ray Rousell said...

I'd say were all wierd!! How much bloody time do we all spend on our blogs, not to mention everyone else's blog. We should all get a life and go get a differant hobby , like going to the gym or jogging........

Porky said...

@ DocStout - I read your comment at Beedo's too and see the point, although I do feel the absurd can also be internally consistent, no matter how ridiculous it gets. I wonder if it could be another way round even, whether the weird might aim to be internally inconsistent for a more unsettling effect. But then there's nonsense, and with weird and gonzo that makes four areas. I get the feeling we're only just getting started!

@ Ray Rousell - Another good point. Just so hard to break free..!