The aesthetics of narcissism

Strangely enough, I did not have much difficulty reading the first half of the article, but by the end I was just like "What happened?" Aside from Krauss's less than accessible word choice, I found the article brought up great points about narcissism and how it functions in both video art as well as other forms of visual art. I find myself drawing similarities in how narcissism functions similarly in video art, to Serra's Boomerang in which like Holt is contained to a reality of self, video art is also encapsulated in self because of the mediums inherentness to be connected to self. One aspect of the reading I really liked was Krauss's distinction between reflection and reflexiveness. Reflexiveness still maintains a separation between the object and subject. Reflection is about the fusion of subject and object and how the differences can be resolved through appropriation. Reflection being in video art seems much more narcissistic because it is about the "self" while Reflexiveness in other forms of art is not about the self. One aspect I do have trouble with in this article though, is that I do know their are paintings about self and video art not about self. Why did Krauss not address this more aggressively? I know I'll have to go back and read this a few thousand more times to really get what Krauss is saying, but I miss a little bit of counterargument that could strengthen his argument more. Or maybe if he plainly states what exactly he/she is chasing in the article, what the goal is. However, what I gathered from this reading is how narcissism functions in some types of video art. For me I think narcissism is common in video art because of the performative approach many video artists take. Humans are also inherently always going to be fascinated with themselves as well, which also lends itself to narcissism.

memoryscape reading

I really enjoyed how this article brought up ideas of connection and accesibility. Often times in the "art world," I feel as if people are put off by the idea of art because of how convoluted it can become. In the reading, I particularly like the part "connecting place in oral history" and how much of an emphasis is placed upon community and shared experiences. Because sound is something so accesible, no matter age or place, I believe it in the art context can be a connecting factor, as opposed to one in which no one can understand. I found it interesting towards the end of the article, when the author is discussing his own memory scape experiment, and stated that even people who did not have a direct connection with the experience, were still able to be connected. This I think really demonstrates the accessibility of it.

Scott McCloud reading

As someone who has not read comics or thought about them at all really, I was surprised to find some valid and interesting points made by McCloud about the structured control comics have over the viewers interpretation. I had never realize how "trained" our eyes are in regards to reading both images and words from left to right. McCloud addressed this in the idea that the reader is rarely given choice in the matter, due to the comics almost rigid classical structure. I find this idea of "leading" the viewer, or forcing them to interpret information not a negative thing, but instead a valuable tool in my role as a communicator of ideas. I think this will play an important part in all image making, but especially the stop motion project since stop motion projects are essentially "comic" like in that they are static pictures given movement through small increments of change.