>>4065024This might be where we differ in how we diagnose "evil". For me it's about acts. I don't think a thing can be evil without an implicit human association or presence. Humans commit evil, soil is inert, and the stars spin like clockwork. To refer again to Blue Velvet, what in that film makes the motel evil? It's the lighting, maybe, but only because that lighting accompanies the events within the motel. There's that day/night dynamic in the film, where implicitly this small town is safe and cozy under the sun's light. Places can be fear-inducing, usually for of a lack of context, or information (darkness). What is terrifying is not necessarily evil. Why is a shrine to Mammon evil? It's the human agency implied, the potential that he inspires.
>beauty literally everywhereI'm not there with you. Lots of things are ugly, and most things are banal. Beauty is the exception. I pick my models based on their vibe or their appearance. In features, I look for notable idiosyncrasies: long noses, sharp eyes, broad heads, square features, etc. If you're seeing beauty everywhere, then you're doing it wrong imo.
