When books mention light regarding phatasams/charaters/objects etc what do they mean? Should i think about a character well lit or a scene or place well lit, or do they mean make the character as realistic as possible with many attributes and properties (lots of things that tie to other memries) or something I haven’t mentioned.
Noting, I do not have a visual memory so can’t just introduce more light. I’d have to introduce the idea of light or the feeling sunlight provides on a warm day when going outside.
You may want to check the threads with “aphantasia”. Plenty of people who don’t visualise memorise (it works perfectly fine if your images are conceptual instead).
I understand how to make an image more memerable by adding more properties to it like smells and taste and tactile sensations, and connecting emotions to the images or scenes etc.
I’m not sure if “light” has another meaning. Do the old memory practitioners mean actual light? Why does it matter if the image is well lit?
I’m reading The Memory Palace of Matteo Ricci and it refers to making the characters well lit.
Ah sorry. Yes, in that context, my understanding of “well lit” would be making the images vivid, so they are clear and impactful - it could be with light or something else depending on your “visualisation style” (for me images are very burry, I just know what’s there because I build them with “internal logic” and a dash of emotion). I don’t recognize people because of detailed visual cues, only very basic ones, but rather I have a sense of their personality (I put a character in a locus/situation and they react a certain way… for example, Kyou is often angry and suspicious).
Also a photographer would tell you that light is very important (good light makes everything look beautiful, bad light is… really hard to work with). I guess in that sense it is for me: I prefer to choose “pretty and peaceful” places for my memory palace, for example.
(All of this is pure opinion and to take with a grain of salt, because I didn’t actually read that book)