### Jan Willem Tulp

Shared publicly  -
1
1

pareidolia is one of my favorite topics… I even have a classification: clouds, maps, food, religion and sad objects; this post is clearly about sad objects… (and yes happy objects is a sub-class of sad objects)﻿

That's a nice classification, but why sad and not happy?﻿

…which gives my an idea for a project… I want to demonstrate my point, that pareidolia shows up in objects more often expressing sadness﻿

pareidolia is one of the most powerful concepts for me because it is relevant for art, design, cognitive sciences and philosophy as well. The fact that face-objects seems to be sad most of the times tells things about us (the inner us), about the way we perceive and about the material culture we have created… yes, it´s interesting!﻿

And do you also know what it means, or what the function is, of the fact that we apparently seem to be most attracted to sad faces?﻿

'we apparently seem to be most attracted to sad faces' is one hypothesis, and requires a psychological approach. The second hypothesis 'we recognize more sad faces'… which is slightly different (is not that we discard something that "is happy", is that we don´t see happiness in a form it could be interpreted as happy). The third hypothesis is that there are actually, in a formal sense, more sad faces than happy ones!, and this seems to admit a formal approach… for instance, it's possible that there are more handles whose concavity points downwards? (just as an example)

The three hypothesis are very very tricky and hard to verify!

What I think can be done is some survey (the kind of "do you think this is a face, if yes it's happy, neutral or sad"… with hundreds of images). And then visualize the results… perhaps interesting results will emerge that will help us understand this riddle!﻿