Basically, it's a teenager with a high functioning autistic disorder. To about 90% of the population, any music, film, drawings etc. creating by this SCP will be considered the highest form of art regardless of their actual quality or meaning. For example, the recovery event might be when a low quality sketch of a cat was being displayed in an art gallery. The other 10%, who tend to have a cynical, nihilistic or antisocial personality type, will see the SCP's artistic ventures for what they are and will either attempt to constructively advise the SCP or berate it. Both groups act with marked hostility towards each other when in the presence of or discussing the SCP, with the majority using phrases like "But he's autistic" and "Do you even have a soul?" and the minority using phrases like "Why do I have to like it just because the guy's a r——d?" and "We should all be judged the same in modern society."
I've had an expansion idea. What if the item has savant-level intelligence, is highly skilled in the STEM subjects and since his containment has wanted to become a researcher, but he's not allowed to pursue his dreams because society has cast him as an artist? Sort of like a reverse '80s musical.
Thing is, how did the foundation identify it to be anomalous? It sounds pretty much like a normal thing our society does. The 90% could simply be seen as a form of support for the work of a disabled person. There are already art galleries displaying art created by the disabled, talent shows showcasing talent from the disabled, all to show support.
All while the 10% are just honest critiques.
We normally look up to the disabled that can showcase talent/simply do anything. We normally argue with those who criticize the disabled, often using the disability of the person as an excuse to make the critiques look heartless.
Unless you're talking about that cat drawing replacing Monalisa's spot, or to the point that they end up praying to that cat drawing, then I don't see anything unusual/anomalous.
That's kind of the point. I'm trying to critique a few aspects of society. I'm also using his feelings and personality to critique the almost caste-like way in which we treat children who can do one thing, disabled or otherwise, and it's not their actual strength. The SCP is a natural scientist born into a culture that cares more about the arts, so society worships the fact that he can draw crude shapes but not his encyclopedic knowledge of particle physics.
I suppose the anomaly could come from the degree that people support or revile him, to a degree that he gains an almost literal cult following. He could be contained by one of the 10% who has absolutely no understanding of what's going on or why people like him. Or maybe the twist is that it's a bit like the recovery event for SCP-804- there is absolutely no memetic component and everything can be explained through group dynamics and personality types.
encyclopedic knowledge of particle physics
This doesn't make him a physicist, he would need to be able to apply that knowledge, and do original work (which in particle physics nowadays usually means access to a collider; which usually means graduate school). If he was a physics progidy there are people who would notice.
This whole idea smacks of being a highly contrived allegorical polemic, and one that is largely a rant about a relative non-issue; I don't predict that it will be successful here.
I'm also using his feelings and personality to critique the almost caste-like way in which we treat children who can do one thing, disabled or otherwise, and it's not their actual strength. The SCP is a natural scientist born into a culture that cares more about the arts, so society worships the fact that he can draw crude shapes but not his encyclopedic knowledge of particle physics.
First off, an observation… what you're saying, intentional or not, is the following: "Society should not value the work of autistic artists and savants. All autistic individuals, are, of course good at science and math, and there is no variance in where their talents lie. High functioning autistic individuals especially should not pursue the arts because they are a waste of time for a person who should instead be prized as a human analytical engine, regardless of their personal interests."
I don't think that's what you're really meaning, but it might be something for you to ponder.
Can you cleanly separate d'Vinci's engineering and biological studies and his artistic sketches? Were Jules Verne and H.G. Welles wasting their abilities writing science fiction that advanced and inspired humanity rather than restricting themselves to contemplation of the mundane? Should Brian May have devoted his young adult life to academic work in astrophysics rather than following his artistic passions and helping to create some of the greatest music of his generation?
Personally, I'm very good at science, engineering, and math, and find them fascinating and a source of creative inspiration. They are a vital enterprise for humanity. And for most of my life I was encouraged to focus on these over my artistic impulses. As it turns out, however, I am just as good, if not better, at the study and engineering of pure ideas, through the creative arts.
Aside from that, the problem here is that you're going into this with the stated intention of creating an Author Tract. That's not a strong base to build on. Its hard to explain the difference, but what it comes down to is that a good creative work can make social commentary, but social commentary cannot make a good creative work.
I am not saying that at all. I myself am autistic and am taking a media studies degree which I really enjoy. I'm saying that people should be valued on what they're good at and society tends to value media and sports over the sciences. If the roles were reversed (if he was really good at art and enjoyed it but was made to be a physicist), no one would read it how you read it because society deems it more "wrong" than pushing STEM subjects away from someone who is passionately into them and forcing them to study something they do not enjoy and are not very good at.
That is the frustration that the idea is borne out of. If a parent pushes their child to study math when they want to be a musician that's rightly seen as abuse, but if you make a kid play guitar (which they hate and don't have a talent for) when their idols are Stephen Hawking and David Attenborough and they dream of trawling the Amazon for beasts or landing a ship on Mars, you're "progressive" and "bucking societal norms".
I'm sorry if that tirade seems like an attack on you, it's not. I just grew up autistic in a society which wrongfully praised everything I did as brilliant when most of it wasn't. I almost didn't pass high school math, but I could count to ten so I was the next John Nash. I had a good friend with high functioning autism who was brilliant at engineering, could name every train and every component and glance at a manual for two seconds before fixing an engine, even when I first met him (I believe we were both 11). However, his talent wasn't nurtured and he was pressured into joining the glee club. Trouble was, he was terrible at singing and nobody wanted to say it. Eventually he realised himself how bad he was and stopped enjoying it. I would rather praise somebody for all the great talent they have and nurture that than try to shove something down their throats that they would never be strong in or wouldn't enjoy.
Sometimes I look at comments and wonder "why did I just put that online" but I felt I needed to vent here. It's a pretty bad SCP idea, one that can be explained through mundane human behaviour (which was kind of the point but those are the worst SCPs, except for SCP-1841-EX but that benefits from the huge historical impact its containment had) and it's more a slash vent for me. Ah well.