Stock Screams, Stock Images, and Other Artistic Conventions

Several days ago, I happened to catch a few moments from the 1950’s science fiction film Them! on television. In one scene, a man and several children are trapped in an underground space, and are being threatened by gigantic, monstrous ants. The man helps the children to safety, but then one of the mutant ants comes up behind him and traps him in its jaws, causing him to scream. Almost as soon as I heard this scream, I thought to myself, “have I heard that somewhere before?” I remembered seeing internet articles within the past few years about something called “The Wilhelm Scream,” a famous movie sound effect. I had a hunch that maybe this man’s scream from a scene in Them! was an instance of this sound effect.

Sure enough, upon researching the Wilhelm Scream on Wikipedia, I found that the sound effect was indeed used in this scene of Them! The Wilhelm Scream is a highly dramatic recording of a man screaming — actually, it probably sounds melodramatic and exaggerated to many modern ears — and it has been used in a number of different movies since the 1950’s. (The first Star Wars movie is one example of a popular modern film that uses it.) Until reading the Wikipedia article on this sound effect, it never really occurred to me that films would use stock sound effects in the same way that visual media sometimes use stock images. But once you think about it, it actually makes sense. Stylized or conventionalized images or sounds can be a convenient shortcut for filmmakers putting together the details of a movie. If a scene in your film requires an agonized male scream, and a pretty dramatic one has already been recorded and is available as a stock sound effect for you to use, why go to the trouble of recording your own when you can just use the stock effect and save money and other resources? Of course, if many films use the same effect, then it becomes very easy to parody it or use it as an inside joke, and it’s not surprising that this ended up happening in the case of the Wilhelm Scream.

But whether it’s used for parody or whether it’s played straight, the Wilhelm Scream fascinates me as an example of a conventionalized technique that is used in an artistic medium that people often associate with individualism, realism, or (supposedly) non-symbolic storytelling. It seems to me that modern audiences typically expect all the voices in a movie to be “realistic” or reflective of individual people (usually the actors who are playing the characters). According to this logic, the sound of a character screaming will be perceived as more “realistic” if you actually go to the trouble of recording the actor screaming in a moment specifically arranged for the film, making the scream sound as individual and as “true to the character” (or at least to the actor) as possible. But the use of the Wilhelm Scream suggests that this assumption does not always hold true. Under certain circumstances, a conventionalized, prerecorded scream can stand in place of an actual “real” scream.

Modern audiences often bristle at the idea that art involves such conventions. We tend to look down on clichés or any other element in a work of art that we’ve seen somewhere before, because our culture has a notion that great art is supposed to be original. The more that we are made aware of conventions at work in a book, or a movie, or a piece of music, the more we tend to judge that piece of art as unrealistic or unoriginal. We also tend to assume that only a very inferior or untalented artist would descend to using stock techniques like a prerecorded sound effect or a piece of stock film footage. The most common way of recognizing conventions is to parody them, a response that usually involves a negative value judgment on both the conventions and the works of art that use them.

And yet, once you start looking for them, conventions and stock techniques are everywhere, and even the most famous artists use them. Michelangelo Buonarroti is often seen as a paragon of artistry in western culture, a prolific genius and embodiment of inspired creativity. According to some observers, part of the secret of his prolific output is that he often re-used many of the same elements of his depictions of the human anatomy in different pieces. Michelangelo’s work on the Sistine Chapel is sometimes seen as a triumph of western art, an extraordinarily elaborate design crowded with tremendous detail and many different human figures. But Ross King argues that “it was precisely because Michelangelo had a most retentive memory that he was able to generate, in a short space of time, so many hundreds of postures for the Sistine’s ceiling.” King contends that various details of the ceiling’s painting of the Delphic Sibyl, for example, are based on diverse elements cobbled together from many different depictions of the Virgin Mary that were painted by Michelangelo before he worked on the Sistine Chapel.¹ Understanding that Michelangelo sometimes reused elements from earlier pieces when crafting a new work of art need not lessen his achievement as an artist; on the contrary, it can make it easier to understand and appreciate the sources of his creativity. Sometimes creativity involves reusing or repurposing what is old, rather than simply creating something “original” out of nothing.

Bloggers, too, sometimes make use of conventions or stock techniques. My blog currently uses WordPress’s “Syntax” theme to organize its layout and set its visual style; this theme is relatively new, but my blog is hardly the only one that uses it. And on at least one occasion, WordPress’s “Blogging 101” course that gives new bloggers advice on the craft of blogging has offered pointers on how to use stock images on a blog. (Unfortunately, I can’t find that particular post right now, or I would link to it.) I myself have not yet managed to work specific images onto my blog. I’m not too worried about it, since my blog emphasizes writing and text as the most important elements anyway, but I do plan to incorporate images and visuals in some future posts. Using stock images isn’t something that I really thought about before I started blogging, but I can see how they might be useful, especially if you’re not a professional or highly talented photographer or visual artist. Again, creativity need not be a matter of whipping up something out of nothing; sometimes it’s a matter of making good use of materials you’ve already been given.

So, there are definitely reasons to use conventions and stock techniques from the point of view of someone creating a film, or a blog, or a painting. But to me, the use of these elements also reflects the social and symbolic aspects of art. Our culture tends to have a view of art as the creation of lone geniuses who toil in isolation to produce works of towering originality. Maybe there is some truth to this picture; many people who do creative work need some time alone in order to concentrate on their craft. But artists also borrow a great deal from the societies in which they live, and so they necessarily draw on conventions that are shared with other people. And when many different works of art incorporate the same conventions, they create a shared symbolism, a pattern of meaning that recurs throughout a wide variety of works by different authors or artists. If we always insist on realism and individualized authenticity, then we might get to the point where we are able to appreciate a conventionalized technique like the Wilhelm Scream only when we’re making fun of it. To me, that’s unfortunate, because shared symbolism and shared conventions help to remind us of our common humanity and the social bonds that draw us together. I would even argue that realism and individualism are themselves a kind of conventional thinking, one that resists acknowledging its own conventionality; but that’s a subject for another post. In the end, I think that modern technology helps feed our desire for realism and individualism, but it can also give us tools to make it easier for a wide audience of people to discover conventions and other recurring patterns in art, as sites like Wikipedia and TV Tropes demonstrate. With these kinds of tools, we can remind ourselves of how artists create, and why we appreciate what they make.

1. Ross King, Michelangelo and the Pope’s Ceiling (New York: Walker & Company, 2003): 171.

The Creativity of Wandering Minds

NPR’s All Things Considered ran a story on Monday about how smartphones might make it harder to be bored, and how that might not necessarily be a good thing, since boredom may be an unexpected cause of creativity. What particularly interested me in the story was a quotation from Sandi Mann, who was cited as a “U.K. psychologist.” Mann suggests that boredom induces the mind to seek stimulation. When we’re bored, she says,

We might go off in our heads to try and find that stimulation by our minds wandering, daydreaming and you start thinking a little bit beyond the conscious, a little bit in the subconscious which allows sort of different connections to take place[.]

I’ve heard about similar research (though unfortunately I can’t remember the source at the moment) suggesting that engaging in a routine or repetitive task frees the unconscious mind to concentrate on drawing new connections between ideas, which in turn leads to innovative or “creative” thoughts. Whether it’s through boredom, as Mann suggests, or through routine activity, to me the effect is the same: allowing the mind to let go of a singular conscious focus often helps the creative process, instead of hindering it.

I would imagine that many people who do “creative” activities (such as art, or writing, or graphic design, or composing music) know this phenomenon through personal experience. It still makes me chuckle sometimes that ideas for something to write about often come to me when I’m taking a shower, even though it’s happened to me for years. And part of the reason why I’ve decided to make this blog about an open variety of topics is that I’ve learned to trust the part of myself that tends to stray from being focused. I’m confident now that letting go of that focus, when the time and circumstances are right, can lead to beneficial insights. As the quotation from Mann suggests, letting your mind “wander” allows the subconscious or unconscious part of your mind to think in ways that you normally might not when your conscious reasoning is in control. In a similar way, I’d like to think that a blog that wanders from topic to topic can be as interesting as one that is all about a particular chosen subject. (The mechanics of wandering blogs are not exactly the same as those of wandering minds, of course, but I think the analogy still holds up fairly well.)

It is fascinating, though, to watch scientists and researchers explore these aspects of the mind that we tend to think of as non-rational. The “unconscious” part of the mind would seem to be very difficult to study through empirical science, since by definition it operates “behind the scenes,” so to speak, away from our conscious powers of reasoning and observation. And studies like these always raise the question of what kind of thinking counts as “creative” or “innovative” or “original” from a scientific point of view. Still, it’s interesting to have another perspective on the kind of thought processes that drive creativity.