New SCP posted on 12/12/11.
SCP-1236 / Discussion
Forum
» Per Page Discussions / Per page discussions
» SCP-1236
This is the discussion related to the wiki page SCP-1236.
While I have been writing more intensive reviews lately, this one gets a resounding 'Meh.'
Admin, SCP Wiki
Hmm. Well, it's not bad. There's something about the idea of paintings that are such blank slates that the viewer impresses their own desires or fears upon but the execution leaves something to be desired.
At the very least, get rid of the ol' "stop playing with the SCP" note at the end.
This. It's not bad enough for me to downvote, but not good enough for me to upvote.
Piffy is an SCP Foundation Moderator, Lv. 9001 Squishy Wizard, and Knight of the Red Pen.
I think the note makes it more obvious that these are potentially dangerous, but that should probably be mentioned in the description itself.
I don't think the note is unnecessarily humorous, but it is a lot wordier than necessary. If you really want to write a note to show the effect the paintings have had on staff, I'd suggest probably just date it and phrase it as professionally as possible - like, "Following investigation into 4 staff suicides and multiple emotional problems reported to staff psychologists, non D-class personnel are barred from directly viewing any of the SCP-1236 set of paintings."
Again, I'd try writing in the dangers right into the description, and then evaluating whether you even need the note.
Thanks for the input, Lasergoose. I'll edit. Can I use your words directly? That is a good modification.
By all means. I personally hope this survives. It's at -3 right now, and I'm about to upvote because I like it … but that little horizontal dash can be hard to overcome.
For me, what works the most about the concept is that the painting is not showing you something you didn't already know or think.
Everything you'd see in any painting is taken straight from your own thoughts, and the whole idea of a person not being prepared to admit or face their inner thoughts is a time honored concept in horror and drama.
I almost think I'd like it better if people were disappointed by what they saw, either because the real world will never match a person's desires or because they realize they aren't getting anything new… or something like "I was expecting to see my ultimate desire and all I got is Bea Arthur in a bathtub filled with chocolate pudding"
I mean that's fantastic and all but at some point you are going to get sick of chocolate pudding.
Edited per advice provided by Lasergoose and Sorts. Thanks!
I'm kinda curious as to how people with certain psychological problem would view the "see yourself" painting. Specifically, would people with severe narcissistic personality disorder or severe depression see themselves any better/worse/differently than they already do? Note that I'm not asking for you to explain whether or not this is the case; it's just something that I'm curious about.
Giving bearhugs to the unsuspecting since 1872.
I saw it post-edit, and I'm gonna + it up. And I kind of like not having TOO much description involved with how different personality types see themselves; I have a lovely little mental image of a severe narcissist seeing #4 and utterly losing his shit, someone with extreme self-image issues seeing #2 and becoming MORE despondent, etc.
Of course here's one; what kind of person would it take to look at the "self-image" ones…. And see nothing?
Someone with visual agnosia?
Also, what if someone doesn't have a "Significant Other"?
…. Damn, good point on the VA.
As far as the significant other bit, I believe that's what the "most recent" part implies… And I'm guessing that could go right up to that old crush you had back in junior high if you never actually had a relationship after that.
Of course, if you just happen to be the person that's never fallen for anyone… It would likely be a pretty much exact duplicate of #1, an ideal which you have never actually seen.
Ooh, what if the viewer was asexual? That'd be interesting.
Addendum added, based on further consideration and an outside suggestion.
Oooh, you added two more mystery paintings. Intriguing. I wonder what they do?
My guess: One shows your favorite food personified, while the other shows you what you'd look like as a muppet.
I like, and think it stands for itself currently. My suggestion for improvement is to follow up with an interview about what the other two missing are like, from the months old vague memories of the gallery patrons. It shouldn't be explicit, maybe even just (EXPUNGE) the whole thing, but it is something the Foundation would certainly do in a routine investigation.
If I had to guess, based on the fact that #4 is the opposite of #2, I'd say one of them shows your significant other at their worst, while the other shows the human embodiment of all that scares/disgusts you. Which makes me wonder about the buyer…
I hadn't actually given a huge amount of thought to the two missing paintings, but I like this idea. I had considered some ideas about locations, but perhaps what you said was what I subconsciously thinking. And it does make you wonder about the buyer, that's for sure.
/forum/t-421174/scp-1236#post-
page revision: 3, last edited: 22 Sep 2018 03:57
