Write as A Historical Essay, in the Manner of Oscar Wilde
ChatGPT Prompt
I. On the Charge of Narcissism
It has long been the custom of earnest people to accuse art of narcissism, as though this were a crime rather than a credential. The artist, we are told, gazes too intently at himself; he listens to his own voice with an indulgence bordering on sin; he prefers his sensations to the world’s necessities. All of this is perfectly true—and entirely beside the point.
Art does indeed begin in narcissism. It must. One cannot paint, write, or sing without first finding oneself intolerably interesting. Creation is impossible without a certain exquisite selfishness. The artist says I, and says it with emphasis.
What is remarkable is not that art begins there, but that it sometimes manages to escape.
II. The Mirror Is Necessary—but Insufficient
Narcissus, after all, did nothing wrong in falling in love with his reflection. His error was not self-regard, but permanence. He lingered. He mistook fascination for completion.
The mirror is indispensable to art. Without it there is no style, no voice, no obsession worthy of cultivation. Yet art that remains trapped in the mirror becomes merely decorative psychology. It flatters the artist, consoles the audience, and leaves reality entirely untouched.
At this stage we do not yet have art.
We have expression.
III. The Moment Stakes Enter
Art comes into being only when the mirror cracks.
Something must be at risk:
- reputation
- dignity
- coherence
- belief
- the artist’s own interpretation of the self
The work must be capable of betraying its maker. It must say more than he intended, or worse, something he would rather not have said at all.
The instant a work can wound its creator, it acquires a curious autonomy. It is no longer a possession; it becomes a danger. At that moment—never earlier—it deserves the name of art.
IV. Why Sincerity Is Not Enough
Modern culture, with its touching faith in sincerity, imagines that honesty alone sanctifies expression. This is a misunderstanding. One may be perfectly sincere and perfectly trivial at the same time.
Sincerity without stakes produces:
- confession without consequence
- exposure without judgment
- emotion without form
It is narcissism insured against loss.
Art, by contrast, is sincerity placed in jeopardy.
V. The Artist as Gambler
The true artist resembles a gambler who wagers not money but meaning. He risks being misunderstood. Worse, he risks being understood too well. He accepts that the work may outgrow him, contradict him, or return his own gaze with unwelcome clarity.
This is why art ages, while content merely circulates. Time is merciless to work that has risked nothing.
VI. Why So Much Modern Art Feels Bloodless
The failure of much contemporary art lies not in excess of self-regard, but in its complete safety. It is protected by irony, buffered by theory, and insured by approval in advance.
Nothing real can be lost; therefore nothing real can be gained.
Where stakes are absent, narcissism does not ripen—it stagnates.
VII. Art and the Luxury of Judgment
The artist does not need praise. He needs the far rarer luxury of judgment. Judgment implies that something mattered enough to be weighed, perhaps even condemned.
Art that cannot be judged is not generous; it is evasive.
VIII. Conclusion: The Necessary Risk
Art begins, inevitably and gloriously, in narcissism.
It becomes art only when the artist allows the world to answer back—and accepts that the answer may not be kind.
The self must speak first.
Reality must be allowed to respond.
That exchange, dangerous and unequal, is where art lives.
Everything else is rehearsal.
iHack, therefore iBlog 
interesting… – just about to close my eyes4 2night
i will read this again2morrow
but quick glance – i c it may be true in many cases, maybe
however, i also, at quick glance, believe the box to be too small
smaller than a coffin or, the low bunk on the USS Inchon (decommissioned)
just my quick first response with no pondering.
i like the part that you wrote about art only becoming art in the interaction of the people, and it may not be nice (the feedback… and paraphrased
i may have missed the part about the beholder, or maybe it is about the interaction part – but – still, i have to go back, but the beholder is the only person or people who make it art in the real sense… even for the cheaters in the art world, or the rich and powerful who’s art is employed in the ready set group of influence proxy to resource[s]
been working on “synthetic hell…” writing in the description section to that piece, still needs editing, and i likely will add to it, then in about a month after i find it finished, i will publish it on my web-site.
anyway my friend, thank U for sending the writing, i may use it as a writing prompt and publish the response writing on my site.
WISHiNG you and your’s a most auspicious New Year (despite the fake crown in the White House)
kenneth james
-i-
Did anybody even know, the artist who was murdered? Could anybody play one memory of who he is on the flickering eyelids in a motion picture ran by memory? Have the synapses refused to relay messages to the brain? Catch the train of thought, for that rats in the race to try to live their best lives, and the privileged who with silver platters, less any restraint they may or may not have to accelerate or cautiously proceed into the their predestined “rightful place”? Those proclaiming superiority in gifted intellectual abilities, rather than those who lacked nutritional health in the formative years, as well as environment and educational opportunity for the have nots, brings stark contrast to the outcomes of opportunity and the lack thereof. Liken it to snots, blown into a silk hanky, a rag, paper towel, toilet paper, or through the nose to the trailer trashed ground that one found themselves to be in, the snots are all the same, reconfigured dirt expelled.
Hedonists, do they not live in the arena of delusions of grandeur as full of themselves as they are, living for the next episode of pleasure, and truth and reality be damned?
Narcissism, is it not the same conclusion to all the questions above? How is it that a person born into poverty could possibly be a narcissist, instead of focusing on the experiences of what one has to do to just survive, let alone living in the opulence of solely thinking about solely themselves? A person born eating with his or her fingers, not a wooden spoon, chopsticks, nor a weak assed metal spoon, not precious as silver, nor gold nor platinum, but picking food up from the dirt, not knowing the next place, time, or location where he or she will be able to eat again. Do the hungry then, have the energy to be narcissists?
The answer is yes, not only just to eat to live, and find shelter, if it is that they could only think of themselves if they think there is not enough food for everybody in his or her very situation. However, it is a different kind of narcissism, when the poor become liars, they intending to be as the exemplar criminally corrupt before them, who have their lifestyles of the rich and famous by robbing the common man/woman, extorting them in prices higher than plausible, paying unfair wages in comparison to the “success[es]” of the business or enterprise, and by refusing to invest in the populace from which their riches came etc. When the poor relies on the “inspiration” of the greedy rich, and they see, that if they lie, cheat and steal their way into the lifestyle of using and abusing all and anybody who can lead them to their desired hedonistic lifestyle, is the only way, then YES, SOME OF THE POOR ARE OF THE SAME NARCISM AS THE “ENTITLED”.
It is imaginable that some, maybe even many artists, are of this ilk, spewing out words of chaos, and fabricated stories, lies and plotting with others to bring the innocent down, in order to create drama for their own pleasure and to rid themselves of those who are standing in their way of their hedonistic fantasies, to eliminate those who hurt their precious feelings, and so the hedonistic narcissist then sees it as a war, that they must destroy the innocent who merely has an opposing -opinion- to their own. All or any of this, a narcissist will use, as well as having the lack of integrity to any standards for themselves, selling themselves for anything rather than merit, in order to get into a gallery, a museum, the good graces of those who can and will purchase their art or shit that they or somebody calls art. Such an artist finds their muse in chaos that they create or find, or they bring about the chaos through the chaos in their head, the latter can come from both the narcissist, or the artist who’s muse is experience, whether good or bad, beautiful or ugly or the combination of all such experiences.
So to presume art begins in narcissism (alone or at all), can be seen as yet another false, or inconclusive narrative from a mind not knowing all of life experiences from where an artist or individual would have come from. or, it may come from a mind of a person who they themselves, knows nothing more than narcissism as an origen for wherever they are in life. It could stem from the zeitgeist we find ourselves in today, where too many people use gaslighting in the pick-me mode, operating in the Opposite Day kind of rhetoric, like when a -never been president[ial]- but sits his big ole obese fat ass in the office – and calls reporters with legit questions miss piggy, or talks about others being disgustingly fat. What did i miss, i am sure there is something, or many things i have yet to ponder.
However, it must too be said, that there are ample examples of artists who come from or live in the example of narcissism.
The fact is, that if a person is of love, and [they them theirs] have always been a nurturer of the people, given of themselves to service of Country for the Constitutional rights of ALL, and have always wanted to make a difference to make the world better, who have kept serving after military service, until all opportunities (recently) have been taken away, then it can easily be concluded that, some artists are born of altruism rather than narcissism. At first it may have simply been medicine, to both navigate and mitigate the adverse affects of diseases like cPTSD and severe depressive disorder etc. It is then that the art is likely a reflection of the trauma that the artist has experienced, as well as who the artist was before being murdered to trauma. The person that may have been lost to the severe multiple traumas that have been trying to take, or has taken the person’s life, opportunities to live by, so the artist by their own suicidal hand, to end the pain, and/or by the hand[s] of murderer[s], who want to end the truth that they are. Therefore it is not that all artists begin at the point of narcissism, and they therefore, don’t need to escape what they never were, but what they need to escape is the pain of trauma and or poverty and their approach is therefore raw, not giving a fuck if the rich sponsor them, nor the populace, less they see the truth of the art made from the hell of trauma and/or life experiences from the person they are in those experiences.
-fin- response 16.25.52 on -sat- j.31.2026
-i- On the Charge of Narcissism
-missing- the manner of Oscar Wilde-less by mistake of the aforementioned author mentioned by the Dr. E – author of Art as Narcissism with Stakes
Or maybe the writer
Knows his own narcissism
And that we all
When under threat
Must obsess over ourselves
To be true
To our reality
So that the difference
Is not
Whether we are narcissists
For everyone is
But rather
Whether we insist reality
Must submit to our narcissism
When we have the power
To impose it on others
Or choose
To expose it as art
So that others
Have the opportunity
To see it
Judge it
Hate it
Love it
Understand it
Misunderstand it
That
Is the stakes