Perhaps one of the most interesting concepts that Mitchell explores in his discussion of meta-pictures is self-reflexivity. We've discussed it in class, but before this piece I'd never seen it discussed so thoroughly. I'd thought I had a decent grasp of the concept, but Mitchell expanded the term in a way I hadn't considered. Self-reflexive can simply mean self-referential (as with the meta-picture: a picture about a picture). But there are less explicit examples of meta-pictures that employ a different sort of self-reflexivity. Mitchell explains on page 48: "The ambiguity of their referentiality produces a kind of secondary effect of auto-reference to the drawing as drawing... [Self-reference] has as much to do with the self of the observer as with the meta-picture itself." This claim leads to the conclusion that an image may not be self-reflexive on its own, but through the discourse that surrounds it.
Mitchell draws on a few examples to demonstrate this (the duck-rabbit and its self-reflexivity through Wittgenstein's study of it). "If Wittgenstein had not written about the Duck-Rabbit, it would scarcely be remembered, and it would not qualify as a meta-picture" (60). He also references Magritte's pipe outside of our assigned pages, but I was already thinking of it due to our reading of McCloud. What's curious to me about this particular example of self-reflexivity (and what puts it within the category of dependent upon discourse) is that words are included with the image: This is not a pipe. Perhaps without the caption the image would have sparked the idea in some minds, but for most I think this revelation of self-reflexivity would not normally be found without guidance.
This category of self-reflexivity raises a lot of questions. If images are not necessarily self-reflexive in and of themselves, can the truly be considered self-reflexive? Even Mitchell addresses this as a concern, references the reluctance some people might feel at accepting such images as Las Meninas as self-reflexive. While I can understand the reasoning behind this reluctance, it should be noted that self-reflexivity seems to be tied directly to discourse, regardless of its dependence or "independence" from it. Mitchell claims that a chief function of meta-pictures is to explain what pictures are. Self-reflexivity is all about self-knowledge, and knowledge is not meant to sit untouched, but to be absorbed and discussed.
This expansion of my previous notion of self-reflexivity has given me a lot to consider in terms of what images I place within its category. Whether I should be more strict or more open with its boundaries remains to be seen (although Mitchell seems to be in support of the latter).
Great post Natalia! I think to answer your question " If images are not necessarily self-reflexive in and of themselves, can the truly be considered self-reflexive?" we have to think about hypertexts and what makes them self-reflexive. Not all texts are hypertexts but are hypertexts the only kinds of texts that can be self-reflexive? We spent time with our earlier readings this semester talking about how a reader can interpret basically any text any way they want based off of their own ideas and experiences. Does the same not apply for images? An image might not even purposefully be a metapicture but if two viewers see two different ideas within the image doesn't that make it self-reflexive? Even though Mitchell does use Las Meninas as an example, I think he kind of contradicts his earlier argument that all images can be interpreted any way.
ReplyDelete