mirror

In “Production of Space” Henri Lefebvre states: “In and through the mirror, the traits of other objects in relationship to their spatial environment are brought together; the mirror is an object in space which informs us about space, which speaks of space. In some ways a kind of ‘picture,’ the mirror too has a frame which specifies it, a frame that can be either empty or filled.”

Yet, can we imagine a mirror without a frame?

One that has no set peripheral limits, the contours of which escape into the expanse it embodies?

Inquiries into the nature of the mirror have always amounted to the recognition of its elusive character, its resistance to language, to luminescence based on boundaries. For light, in its totality, emanates without impedement, unless refracted by the contours of its mimetic mirage (the mirror specified by its frame) or by a centre of efferent actions (the blank screen).

Perhaps the totality is this very mirror without a center or a periphery, the reflection within which language and idealism find their tension, the apotheosis of their dialectic, their mutual insurmountability.

Discourse is never sufficient when grappling with the absolute opposite of depth.

How can we project representation into a reflection?

The mirror spits back at us, our eyes shatter before its illumination.

The fate of Narcissus was not caused by vanity and auto-attraction. It was caused by a deliberate attempt at countering a perpetual rebound; at diving into depth-lessness.