Image Inception: The effects of Hypertext and Metapictures on the Reader

      It seems that no matter what the specific topic is that we are reading about, we are always brought back to the idea of "the reader" and how their role is played when dealing with a text. This applies with this weeks readings, especially with the concepts of "hypertext" and "metapictures."
 
     Landow explained that a hypertext could have any effect on a reader because it was dependent on what the reader took out of the hypertext. This same infinity applies to metapictures and the idea that a picture within a picture could continue on into forever. Which begs the question of how could we ever identify the beginning or rather the center of these ideas?

    Would we ever know if what we are reading or seeing is just what we see on our own as an individual reader or is it also what others see as the intended center?

     Landow tells us that a hypertext is decentered, meaning that the reader can get whatever they want out of the text. He explains that a hypertext is "formed by the interaction of several consciousnesses, none of which entirely becomes an object for the other" (Landow 36).

     This concept stuck with me when I read through Mitchell's work and I noticed a few points when he is describing a metapicture and it almost could be as if he were also describing hypertext. Mitchell talks about a well known optical illusion of the rabbit/duck image where different viewers could see either a rabbit or a duck in the image. Mitchell points out however that in reality the image is neither a rabbit nor a duck but rather a "curious hybrid that looks like nothing else but itself" (53).

     This reminds me of hypertext because once again it is up to the viewer/reader to get out of the

text/image whatever they see or read. The optical illusion makes me think of a spiral, not knowing where the image begins or ends. Was the drawing originally intended to be a duck? Or is it possible that it was drawn as a rabbit that happened to look like a duck? 

After reading Mitchell's work and understanding the idea of a metapicture, I know further understand the idea of a hypertext and how both of these concepts fall under the idea of "self-reflexivity." Once again it is up to the reader to decide what is taken from the picture or the text, without any knowledge  to the circular flow of in the information. Mitchell points out that the images he focuses on are unstable, and decentered, just like Landow points out for hypertext, and being decentered allows a reader to make their own choices about the text or the image.

Overall, I think it is clear that Landow and Mitchell's ideas overlap when it comes to self-reflexivity and interpretation of texts. I would be interested to explore the idea of how a reader's experiences and ideas effect the interpretation of a text, and if presented with both "options" (rabbit or duck?) could a reader identify with both, or would they only be able to see their original idea?