strings wrote:
SplendidSnail wrote:
As for Aphantasia, I have no idea, largely because I have nothing to compare with.
I can certainly recall being frustrated in elementary school when the teacher told us to picture something in our mind and I couldn't seem to do it, but then I was likely taking the teacher literally and actually wanting to close my eyes and literally see a picture, not just imagine something.
Picture a friend's face? Picture a rising sun? What's that supposed to mean? I'm not literally supposed to be able to close my eyes and see something as if I'm seeing it with my eyes am I?
I totally agree. Not having anything to compare with makes it almost impossible to decide how to answer the aphantasia test questions. I never realised I might have aphantasia until I encountered the test, after firemonkey posted it here last year. But I am still not really sure whether I have aphantasia. I had always assumed that people were speaking figuratively when they talked of seeing mental images, since I don't see any mental images myself.
And still, I remain unclear as to what other people mean when they say they "see" mental images. Do they really mean they see them, like a movie or a photograph? I think the best answer I can give is that when I try to visualise a person, or a sunset, I am aware of the concept of that person, or that scene. But I don't in any sense of the word "see" it. But how can I really know whether anyone else is "seeing" more than that when they speak of a mental image? Might they just be using more flowery language to describe the same impressions that I have?
Woow! I'm surprised to relate so much to this!
For me the mental image is a lot different from actually seeing something. Until now I've just assumed it's like that for everyone.
I've talked to other painters who's having difficulties getting the image in their mind out on the canvas. And my answer has always been "Well of course. The mental image is impossible to see properly". I'm realizing now that maybe we don't have the same kind of mental images.
I can imagine an object or scenery, and I will know the general concept of it. Say it's a yellow bird in an oak tree. If I wanted to paint it, I wouldn't be able to look at the mental image and replicate it, because the mental image is always flowing. It would still be a yellow bird in an oak tree, but I couldn't use the mental image as a photo. I couldn't zoom in on details, zoom out again, and still "see" the same thing. I couldn't look at it and replicate it, unless I had memorized that exact bird from somewhere else. And even then it wouldn't be a clear image, I would just know the anatomy of the bird and how to apply that to a 2D format, not so much visualizing a memory.
That's weird. It's annoying that it's so hard to explain.