Mitchell discusses the artists self reflexivity in his article, and in regards to art I believe it is best summed up here: "Everything in his world, including himself, has been created by himself(Mitchell, 40". Mitchell relates this notion to modernism and the sublime, which I think are perfectly exemplified by this. Modernism in itself is self-reflexive; 'meta' principles are prominent in many modernist works (one that comes to mind is the literature of James Joyce; he references his own genre, himself, his critics). The sublime, too, as defined by Longinus, can be considered "the expression of spirit", and what better way to achieve this than to use art to reflect ones self. Meta Pictures, then, are works of art/drawing that reflect the author.
The Duck-Rabbit is a perfect example of this, as Mitchell discusses. It goes a step further into the idea of the sublime by allowing the viewer/reader to project themselves onto the work, allowing them to connect to it. Looking objectively though, one can discern that it is neither the duck nor the rabbit, and it is also both the duck and the rabbit, but it cannot be one without the other: "physical eyes see alike, but... mental eyes reflect their own individualities"-- "When I see the duck, my mind's eye interprets the Duck-Rabbit as a duck; when I see a rabbit, my mind's eye interprets it as a rabbit(Mitchell, 51)".
I particularly like how this relates to a reading of literature: meaning in literature can be subjective, and often young readers may take their interpretation and think it is the only one. But that is their "mind's eye", as Mitchell would call it, and the mind's eye is not perfect. Just because it can be a rabbit or a duck does not mean that it can't be both.
This notion of "self-reference" relates to both a literal version of The Duck-Rabbit and as I have discussed its relevance in literature; often, when we look at something, especially art, we see ourselves. The "meta" aspect of meta pictures is important because being self-reflexive in a work insofar as that it refers to its own genre or its own author allows us to step outside of ourselves and look more objectively. Because we are something refer to itself we don't have to put ourselves into it in order to make meaning.
Hi Taylor,
ReplyDeleteGreat Post! I thought you made some really interesting points about the duck-rabbit! In regards to self-reflexivity and the viewer being able to see themselves in the image, I thought about what he said about metapictures being pictures that "show themselves in order to know themselves: they stage the 'self-knowledge' of pictures" (48). Which I also think could be said for the viewer of the picture; they have to be able to show themselves in order to see themselves in the image. For them to reflect themselves in the image, they have to be able to know that it is themselves that they are looking at. Sorry, I think that was a little confusing.
Best,
Joelle Garcia