12.5. The Uncanny

"The uncanny is the psychological experience of something as strangely familiar, rather than simply mysterious."

N. Royle, The Uncanny (2003) p.1

"It may describe incidents where an everyday object or event is encountered in an unsettling, eerie, or taboo context."

Royle, p. vii


The Uncanny

Throughout my project I have had my work described as "uncanny" time and time again. Initially, I did not understand, but as I looked into it more deeply I began to see where this idea of "strange familiarity" comes into play.

Beginning with Kara Walker's work.

Walker's work

My Development

Kara Walker's work was incredibly strange and uncanny, even before I made my mark on it. The use of silhouettes allows her to convey simple shapes in strange ways. Since there is no depth to the silhouettes, viewers can find it difficult to decipher what is right and what is wrong. For example, the extra legs.

Walker's work fits the "uncanny valley" concept perfectly. It could be described as "unheimlich" (unhomely), which is a concept explored by Sigmund Freud. Heimlich means familiar - unheimlich is to say that something is not familiar, not homely, not comforting.
Kara Walker's pieces are certainly not comforting, instead they are confusing and hard to read, which blesses viewers with that strange, uncomfortable feeling that we refer to as the uncanny.

Freud explains that an “uncanny effect is produced by effacing the distinction between imagination and reality” Freud, Sigmund. “The Uncanny.” 1919.

Blurring the lines between reality and imagination is something that I love to do, and something that I can see in my work throughout. Perhaps I naturally gravitate towards uncanny feelings.

All of the pieces above blur reality in their own ways.

Although, I would argue that they are not ALL entirely "unheimlich" in a way that they would cause certain discomfort, but I am biased and familiar with my subjects, and my art. I can see why other viewers would see my art as slightly disturbing from a fresh perspective. 

Freud explores the 'causes' of the uncanny valley feeling.

“when an inanimate object becomes too much like an animate one" Freud, Sigmund. “The Uncanny.” 1919.

I feel that my art blurs the lines between what is animate, and what is not, by forging them together in a bond that ensures the two elements are no longer distinguishable from one another.

It is not clear whether the faces are amongst the flowers, or whether the flowers are amongst the face.

It is not clear whether the silhouette is amongst the darkness willingly, or whether the darkness is encroaching on the piece.

Speaking of inanimate objects, I would like to refer back to the work of Arcimboldo.

His work is a pinnacle example of inanimate becoming animate, and when this is related back to the concept of the "uncanny", it becomes understandable why many of the people of his time found his work to be slightly disturbing. Especially so, when Arcimboldo was one of the first artists to encroach on surrealism in the 1500s. Perhaps he bordered on the art of the uncanny, without even realising it.

WHY AM I INTERESTED IN THE UNCANNY?

I find "the uncanny" interesting because of its uncertainty, and how it makes viewers feel individually. No two people will have the same experience with a piece of art that is deemed uncanny - some could feel disturbed, whilst some could feel attraction. Sigmund Freud explores the idea that the uncanny is based on repression:

"It may be true that the uncanny is nothing else than a hidden, familiar thing that has undergone repression and then emerged from it" (S. Freud 1919, p79) 

- and in this case, every viewer is going to have a uniquely defined experience based on their childhood, their memories and their associations. I enjoy the idea that uncanny art does not have a "black or white" response, instead being open to interpretation, contemplation and discussion.

I would like to employ similar devices in my own work, to evoke similar responses.

EXAMPLES OF UNCANNY ART:

+ Brief Analysis

Barry X Ball, Envy / Purity

Do I like it?

Yes, but they make me feel uncomfortable to look at, which is fitting for the uncanny theme. The "Bust" sculpture format is very familiar, although the colours and textures used are not. The flesh / blood / earth tones strike me as "unhealthy" as I would not associate the reddish brown as a healthy skin tone. They make the sculpture appear realistic, in some regards, as the colours resemble skin or bodily fluids - the sculpture on the right is disturbing because of how the "skin" is tearing, broken, sagging. It does not look "right" at all. The human on the right seems to have snakes in his hair, which could be a reference to Greek Mythology. Greek Mythology is FULL of "uncanny" beings that merge non-reality with reality to create mythical creatures.

Why is it uncanny?

The artist has merged a familiar layout (bust sculpture) with creatures that are not from this realm. Bust sculptures are usually elegant and reserved for respectable humans, intending to capture a person regally and impressively. These sculptures throw "elegance" out of the window and deform the typical bust sculpture into something disturbing and confusing.

Jeff Koons, Michael Jackson and Bubbles

Do I like it?

Yes. I can appreciate the craftsmanship that has gone into capturing Michael Jackson's likeness, and I think that it is impressive that they managed to capture him even with ghostly white skin / white hair (unfamiliar features). As a sculpture I find that it is slightly unnerving because of the colours used. Michael Jackson is not naturally ghostly pale, and monkeys are not white and gold either. The gold is regal, welcoming, inviting and warming - but the faces are not. The eyes are the darkest point on the sculpture, which demands attention. 

Why is it uncanny?

Monkeys are not white and gold, and humans are not white and gold either. The identities of these people have been captured in shape, but the colours make them unrecognisable. The ghostly white skin is eerie and vampirish, ghostly, and makes them seem dead.

Diane Arbus, Identical Twins, Roselle, New Jersey, 1967

Do I like it?

I think that this photograph is a little bit unnerving, but only because of previous associations I have with the two twin girls from "The Shining" movie. The girls themselves are not scary as individuals, although the fact that they are complete mirror images of eachother is unnerving, because this does not happen in everyday life. The photography helps to set an eerie tone, by using dark black and white with low contrast.  The background is entirely blank which lets us focus on the girls, who are demanding attention by looking straight into the camera.

Why is it uncanny?

Humans are generally not identical to one another, and differences in appearance are what we are accustomed to in everyday life. Seeing two of the 'same person' appears WRONG, because we know logically that there is only one of each person on the planet. It may have been more bearable if the twins were wearing different clothing, but since they are IDENTICAL in face, body and clothing, we are led to assume that they are the same person (which is impossible). Cloning is a scary concept which comes to mind.

Nancy Burson, Untitled

Do I like it?

I like it in a very strange way. Although, I know that many other people wouldn't. There is a strange combination of reality and the artificial. The nose clearly belongs to a doll, the jawline seems to belong to a human... The lips, eyes and eyebrows are difficult to determine. They do not look real, to me. The eyes are dark, void of a pupil and appear hollow. And the lack of hair is strange... It could resemble a baby, with the big eyes, small nose and bald head, but the neck and shoulders say otherwise. It's very hard to determine, which is what makes it so confusing, and so uncanny.

Why is it uncanny?

It resembles a child, a woman, a doll and a baby all at once. Dolls are one of the most studied features of "uncanny valley" due to their resemblance of humans. Some people find dolls scary, whereas on the other hand, some people can find them desirable and comforting. In Mike Kelley's book "The Uncanny", he explores an extreme example of attachment and uncanny - "Ed Gein spoke of the bodies he dug up from graves (and kept) as being like dolls, and a certain comfort was received from their presence." (R. Gollmar, 1981 p. 60) Although this is an extreme example and not one that relates to art, it is an interesting window into the psychology of repression, that can reintroduce itself when observing art / dolls. Repression and memory can play a great role in a person's response to art, due to the power of the subconscious memory (as explored by Marcel Proust / Henri Bergson).

Pipilotti Rist, Gravity Be My Friend

Do I like it?

I find this piece really interesting, especially because it is by Pipilotti Rist, who was the first artist I looked at in this project. It is her use of projection and colour that inspired me to use it in my own work, so it is intriguing to see this art style used in an "uncanny" way. I enjoy how the focus is on the ceiling, forcing the viewer to tilt their head back and look up, which is disorienting and forces the viewer to feel very small. The high angle of the projection dominates everything below it. The viewers below are laying down on the ground, which makes the experience interactive. 

Why is it uncanny?

The viewers are laying down on the ground, looking up at strange colours, patterns and human body parts. I think they are feet. The involvement of human elements is uncanny, because of their ridiculous scale, distance, and position on the ceiling. It is very confusing to look at, and the fact that viewers are encouraged to lay flat on the ground will inevitably make them feel vulnerable, and exposed.

Of the pieces of art I looked at, my favourite was Nancy Burson, Untitled. I found interest in the use of dolls, because of how confusingly realistic they can be (despite being lifeless). I would like to experiment with dolls in my own work.