At first, I couldn’t understand how Euclidean geometry or more precisely, one’s non-Euclidean imagery might be connected to a trauma experience. …spacial disorientation, out of body distortions, the illogical dream-like fragmentation, the surreal …might these resemble a trauma dissociation. Recognizing one’s Euclidean imagery from one's non-Euclidean imagery might be very helpful in clarifying what's real from what's not.
If I’m grasping this, Euclidean imagery follows the conventional logic of 2 or 3 point linear perspective while, non-Euclidean imagery opens the door to almost anything imaginable and illogical. Though both can freely distort imagery, only the non-Euclidean is capable of bending and twisting its imaginary spacial planes ...a bit disturbing or spooky, as if, looking into a ‘fun house’ mirror.
I do think that Euclidean imagery and non-Euclidean imagery can be combined within a single painting, see examples of M.C. Escher’s artwork. However such attempts will never be illogical, as if, merely punching holes in the fabric of imaginary space.
If Escher’s illogical artworks could be presented in a virtual world, I think, this might make the experiencer feel quite ill, as if, they’d found themselves trapped within an hallucination.
When I first began to create imaginary non-Euclidean surrealistic artwork, my anxiety level would immediately sky-rocket and perhaps because I hadn’t yet fully let go of the more reassuring stability I found in linear perspective. I was too fearful of abandoning the logic. However, even the most realistic artwork defies logic. As a artist, this is something I've always had difficulty learning to accept.
Distortions have always been easy to draw or paint. However, the difficulty occurs when trying to combine the logic of Euclidean imagery with the illogical imagery of the non-Euclidean. They always fail to synchronize. Perhaps this lack of integration is a good thing, for it enables me to recognize what’s actually real from what’s merely imagined as real.