In her 1976 essay, "Video: The Aesthetics of Narcissism", Rosalind Krauss argues that video art is overtly based on narcissism (excessive or erotic interest in oneself), and also points out that its medium is psychological, rather than physical, which separates it from its visual art counterparts (drawing, painting, etc). Krauss explains that although "medium" is often used in the art world as almost synonymous with "media", the term is used in "parapsychology" (pseudoscience involved with paranormal psychology) to describe people who are able to communicate with absent or displaced presences. They work in real time, but also refer to the past, which is an ability video is capable of. What also separates video art from other visual disciplines is its ability to transmit images instantaneously, which the viewer could both directly identify with and distance themselves from, splitting the ego and consequently forcing narcissism. Krauss uses Lacan's writings to support her point. Lacan, similar to Sigmund Freud, was a psychoanalyst who theorized a concept called the mirror stage. In this primal stage, the infant is unable to recognize his/her own image in a mirror, separating him/herself from his/her idealized image. It was a transformation from understanding themselves as a subject to an object. The infant sees the baby in the mirror as perfect because the image does not have to rely on anyone (i.e. parents) for simple functions. Lacan believed this was where the conditions for our dependence on idealized images of ourselves is conceived, and video has become the tool with which we investigate issues of the split ego. In my Intro to Visual Studies class, we read Laura Mulvey's 1975 essay, "Visual Pleasure and Narrative Cinema" which delves into the underlying patriarchal structure of movies, and why we are drawn to them. She emphasizes the importance of Freud's scopophilia, voyeurism, and the pleasure of finding oneself reflected on the screen, which is also supported by Lacan's mirror stage theory. Because we recognize ourselves as subjects not externally communicated to the outside world, we look to the screen and find representations of our ideal selves in movies. We see the ideal image of movie-people and connect it to our internalized subjective selves.
I do not necessarily disagree with either of these essays. Quite the contrary, really, I absolutely agree with their points. Understanding that they were written in the 70s may invalidate my largest complication with them. Both essays use Freud and Lacan, psychoanalysts, as their cited authoritative sources. Psychoanalysis did do wonders for the psychology world, and should be respected for what it was in essence. And many of Freud's theories have been able to be empirically/neuroscientifically proved/supported within the last 50 years or so (i.e. the importance of childhood, the ID, etc). However, it is still widely discredited and, particularly in the psychology field (not so much in the literary field, where psychoanalysis is still often used regularly), cannot be used as a credible source without other sources supporting it. Psychoanalysis is to Psychology as Alchemy is to Chemistry. It has its place, a very important place, but not as a credible source. The theories, although thought through, were not empirically proved when they were made up, and Psychology was only finally considered a science after it began using the Scientific Method for experimenting and researching. Therefore, I believe these essays should be rewritten (or rethought) using more credible sources in order to make the arguments stronger.
No comments:
Post a Comment