2 / 19
Apr 2020

I'm gonna try to do some practice with surrealism...in case you're wondering, the setting is a version of Earth that has been sort of existentially corrupted, if that makes sense?

Like, the only recognizable features that can remain in this new warped landscape are ones that everyone has a strong cognitive/emotional connection with. Things that people will associate with their home...like the sun, I guess. And trees...those were two prominent features of my first iteration of this concept (in my mind).

  • created

    Apr '20
  • last reply

    Apr '20
  • 18

    replies

  • 985

    views

  • 13

    users

  • 33

    likes

  • 3

    links

I'm gonna put a non-natural thing here and say houses/buildings

Mountains, lakes, the sky itself.. I'm assuming you wouldn't wanna include any bits of civilization or architecture?

Actually, those things are important, too...I mean, you can easily identify a civilization by the things they've built (e.g. pyramids=Egypt) so I'd consider that a strong cognitive connection, at least.

Ah, okay. I'd say skyscrapers/ towers, cathedrals, and massive statues.. maybe even temples are up there for me

That it's flat

I'M KIDDING

I agree with @ar-ninetysix, show buildings like the Machu Pichu, Taj Mahal, Great Wall of China, the Pyramids that have suffered the existential corruption.

You can do the same with well known natural landmarks.

Because alien planets can also bear structures reminiscent of those you could find on Earth, as well as similar fauna and flora, I think what would really hone in the fact that is earth is artifacts depicting human life.

Statues, carvings, paintings, photos, or anything that features a human figure within it. Along with this, old newspapers, or anything that is time-specific to a date that people can relate to, like fragments of a 60s diner with debris or decor that we associate with it.

But to evoke feelings of nostalgia or emotion, bringing life and a story to the inanimate, and making them characters in themselves.

I'm honestly a bit 50/50 on the flat theory.
I know people make fun of flat-earthers but they really do have some valid points.

I've been watching many docs, globe VS flat.
In the end I'm undecided, it could be a globe but it could also be very well flat. So I leave it 50/50.

Statue of Liberty, the Eiffel tower, the wall of china, a house
A Giant broken bridge

Just outta curiosity: Do they have a counter-argument for the original calculation of the curvature of the earth (I dunno who did it...Pythagoras?? All I know is it was eons before taking pictures of Earth from space was even possible)?
On that note, do they have a counter-argument for those who travel high enough into the atmosphere to SEE the curvature of the earth with their own eyes??

Like, if flat-earthers are at all valid, that's something I really really wanna know.

I COME BEARING RESULTS

Here are some pieces I did based on some of these suggestions. You can tell by the time I did the third one I finally hit my stride~. ^^ But I learned a lot from all of them:

(BTW, do you guys like seeing the results of these threads where I ask for suggestions? If so, I'd be happy to make a point of showing them in the future, especially when I use them right away like this)

A simple counterargument on the flat earth theory....where are the edges of the world? Any recordings of it?

And also if the earth is flat, why is it colder at the poles and hotter at the equator? How does a flat earth orient around the sun to make that possible?

Sorry @DokiDokiTsuna for going off topic.

Green, Blue, and White stuff on a sphere.