Jake
I have put together Redout’s theory in a word document for future reference.
If you look at a varied selection of hyper art you’ll start to pick up a consistent trait they all have and that is that they’re generally flat angles and that the size of the body parts in question seldom feels ‘physical’, like it doesn’t actually occupy space – meaning its just there randomly; being impossibly large without having any weight or just making them collapse or fall over, basically meaning that it doesn’t have any physicality to it. Its just there.
A lot of hyper art thus is less about fetishizing the size itself and more about how much this particular visual element occupies the space in the image, like it doesn’t matter what’s even happening, the dick has to be 30% of it. They could just draw their picture with the viewer closer to the action but they want to depict the wholeness of things without losing that 30% of genitals in your face.
Whether they intend to do it or not, they lose the ability to perceive proportion or distance over time, because like all fetishes based on excess there’s an inevitability of further degeneration. They usually mask it with self deprecating humour or an attempt to play it off as absurdism but deep down they’re begging for someone to come and give them boundaries.
Whatever the case is, the outcome is the same, they end up drawing a small character attached to a mountain of flesh. It’s almost symbolic of how much their unfulfilled obsession consumes them when the genitals dwarf the character so much it just disappears.
I find this deconstruction soo fascinating.
