insane secret of painting? Continues.... - Page 9

On December 03 2006 18:47 Refrain[FriZ] wrote:

Maybe so, but what's the bad side of making a group of people critically analyze something together in a civilized discussion?

On December 03 2006 17:57 Refrain[FriZ] wrote:

Page 11. Wade through 1 page of "goon talk".

The difference between them is one of perspective. In the original painting, the vantage point is one which would be typically observed by a human standing on the ground. We see plants in the foreground, and there’s plenty of open sky.

In the painting done by the patient, the vantage point is obviously significantly higher than one would expect. The perspective seems to indicate that the scene is being viewed from above while looking down at it, with almost no room for the sky.

This individual suffers from a dissociative disorder, and may possibly fear that they become unattached from their bodies and float away. It’s terribly common amongst schizophrenics.

Problem solved.

Also, to answer the question “what would you hear?”:

In the original painting, you would hear what you would expect to. Horses, people, etc.

In the second painting done by the patient, you’d hear only the wind whipping about.

But just to milk it for a few more thousand hits… the following, apparently, is the answer. Given to me by an anonymous commenter claiming to be the professor’s former student. I don’t know if it should be believed or not. But it sounds crazy enough. And it fits in with the patient’s alleged condition — he saw imaginary things all around him.

Here goes.

“In this painting, we are Spring. You can see water, melting snow, in the lower left corner. The people are looking at us, afraid that their little world is about to melt down. They’re escaping from us, from Spring, in those sleds. It’s also why all the doors of all the houses are shut.”

On December 03 2006 20:27 lugggy wrote:
but skyglow, the disorder(s) in that solution aren't "rare". to me, this looks like the kind of thing that is attractive because everyone thinks they can prove something by figuring it out, but there's no real path to figure it out, it's just like looking for a needle in a haystack if you ask me, except it is set up to make people feel like if they are smart and special, they'll find the needle that no one else is finding and might not even be there.

On December 03 2006 19:10 Scorpion wrote:
He's afraid of being out in the open at sea.

The clue that the Professor gave out: What would you hear if you where there?.... and what would you see if everything was taken off?

What would you hear? The sleds going across the snow... "swwoosh" ... like the ocean... and what would you see? Nothing.

He's afraid of being stranded at sea... some sort of Agoraphobia.

Well, I agree that it has got something to do with spring.

If we just look at the clues we are given the main one is that we should “think of the place without any objects”. If we do that then we see only snow except for the running water and grass that is regaining it’s color at the bottom of the picture.

We are also told that we should imagine what could have been prior to this scene. Winter before spring ? Should we be thinking about seasons as the big picture ?

Another theory suggested that the object that the people were looking at was a burning strawman, a symbol of the end of winter and beginning of spring in some pagan beliefs.
The professor responded with: “Not a strawman, but close”.
So, not that specific symbol, but close ? Maybe just spring in general ? Or rather the end of winter ?

Also, one of the first hints was “If you were inside the painting, what would you hear ?”
Well, horses is the first thing that comes to mind, but seeing as that hint was given along with the “all objects removed” hint I would guess that the only thing you would hear would be the sound of the running stream at the bottom of the picture, seeing as everything else would just be snow on a hill.
Running water during winter ? Nah, it’s getting warmer, spring is here. The professor also mentioned that “water and air” were key elements. I can see the water part, but I’m not sure about the air.
Maybe it’s referring to the slightly less snow in the copy than in the original, and also that the snow seems much more distant ?

Well, this is the only way it makes sense to me. The hints and clues don’t really make any sense at all together unless they are related to the seasons. They made me more confused than I would have been without them.
I don’t reckon that this theory makes much sense though, seeing as the original also included spring, although the professors hints all seem to lead to it.

It’s just a guess.

On December 03 2006 20:36 Refrain[FriZ] wrote:

This one is consistent with his supposed "other" painting:

On December 03 2006 20:36 Refrain[FriZ] wrote:

This one is consistent with his supposed "other" painting:

On December 03 2006 20:44 skyglow1 wrote:
And here's an explanation for the "correct" answer by the suppossed student: