The Aesthetics of Narcissism

Rosalind Krauss’"Video: The Aesthetics of Narcissism" interestingly suggested deep notions of superficiality. The most appealing to me were the comparisons between video and static art forms, and the mirror-'self' vs. the video-'self'. Since the "medium of video is narcissism," according to Krauss, which "describes a psychological condition rather than physical," couldn't the medium of all art forms be narcissism as well? If, for example, a painter is creating something, she is holding a mirror up to her psyche and manifesting it through form, color, etc. It is a slightly different angle of narcissism, but narcissism nonetheless as it portrays an interest in preserving the "self." Furthermore, we are narcissists when viewing others' art, as we are facinated as much with the painting as we are with our own interpretation of it. We assign different meanings to different pieces of art based upon our personal symbolic associations and make assumptions which usually have little or nothing to do with the intended meaning or lack thereof.

It was particularly interesting when Krauss discussed the self vs. the mirror vs. video-art. Unlike a mirror, a video collapses time, subject, and object to the point where the subject becomes the object, whereas looking in the mirror is an attempt to fuse the self and a piece of reflective glass together. As two literally separate objects, we illusionistically attempt to erase the difference between subject and object. A video of oneself is not unlike a mirror with the ability to record and rewind. Krauss points out that our misrecognition of our mirrored image spans from early cognitive development and therefore plays an essential role in the formation of our ego. This causes us to mispercieve our own image in the mirror through internal filters and whatnot, and yet we wholeheartedly believe that the image in the mirror is truely ourself. The subject's ego in video-art in a similar sense is split between the mirror image and the actual image, as the ability to catch the moment in time becomes a factor.

When the eyes look at something, an imprint of that something is made on the brain. The image imprinted on the brain is just an image, until the ego interferes and associates that something with something else. This is visual perception, and it is much like the splitting of the ego described by Krauss. The eyes act as the self--the medium between the camera and monitor. The brain's imprinted image acts as the monitor, yet the subject is not looking at something else, he is looking at himself. The imprint of the image stems back into the brain whereas his eyes see out. This effect has a sort of boomerang quality. In the appropriately titled film "Boomerang" by Richard Serra, Nancy Holt speaks and listens to her own words played back through headphones a second after she says them. Her description of her experience is metaphorical for video-art in general. Holt said, "I am surrounded by me and my mind surrounds me." She described it as experiencing a "reality removed from normal reality." Furthermore, she felt self-encapulated in a "prison of a collapsed present." As the subject in a video is positioned or "sandwiched" between a camera and a monitor, he/she is literally contained in an inescapable domain. He/she is forced to face his/herself in a constantly revolving experience. As the subject is a subject, he/she is becoming an object--part of a new world contained in a 12 inch by 12 inch screen forever (or as long as the videotape exists). "Art consists of limitation," Gilbert Chesterton once said, "the most beautiful part of every picture is the frame."

Someone with impaired vision puts glasses on to see clearer, but is this altered way of seeing the 'real' reality, or is the person's natural fuzzy perception of the external world their reality?
When a person looks, they do not always really see, due to cognitive filters and whatnot. But what is really seeing?