Context
Lauren Berlant, Cruel Optimism (2011)
In her book Cruel Optimism, American theorist Lauren Berlant describes a state in which our hopes and desires become the very things that hold us back.
Cruel optimism refers to an attachment to something we believe will bring us happiness, stability, or success, even when it no longer serves us and may even harm us.
The pain lies not in loss, but in clinging to fantasies that quietly limit our potential to change.
This concept offers a useful lens for understanding narcissistic projection, not as self-obsession, but as a psychological mechanism in which we project emotional needs, identity ideals, and unresolved desires onto others or onto the objects around us.
Human beings often attach meaning to things not because they are meaningful, but because we need them to be. We form emotional dependencies on the non-human, not through logic but through repetition, fantasy, and refusal to let go. My work explores this fragile relationship between people and objects, the intimate yet unstable connection between what we want something to be and what it actually is. Objects in my installations—curtains, apples, fans, soft fabrics, or loops of projected video—are not passive props. They become sites of projected desire and failure. They hold traces of optimism but also resist the burden of meaning we try to give them.
Cruel optimism, in this sense, is not just a psychological state but a visual condition. What I’m interested in is not whether viewers understand the work, but whether they catch themselves projecting onto it. I want to know whether they notice the quiet moment when they speak to an object and realize it will never speak back. That is where the reality of the work begins.
No Exit (1954)
I watched this film a long time ago and was immediately struck by Sartre’s brilliance.
But my understanding of subjectivity didn’t truly begin to take shape until I came to the UK. In London, I felt lost—caught between language barriers and cultural disconnection. It wasn’t until I traveled to Egypt recently that I noticed something had shifted. In that unfamiliar place, where I didn’t speak the language, I no longer feared making grammar mistakes. When I stopped caring about how others perceived me, I moved from being an object to becoming a subject. This realization made me reflect on how I could express subjectivity in my work. For me, the subjectivity of the artist is deeply tied to the work itself, because much of what we call an artist’s “language” actually comes from their personal traits. I’ve been trying to figure out what mine are. The way I choose materials, and the way I present them, always reveals something about who I am.
At the same time, during this trip, a friend pushed me into unexpectedly meeting a local man. He wanted to travel abroad but couldn’t get a visa, so I became his window to the outside world. He responded passionately to everything I sent him, which gave me a feeling of being seen. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that our connection was built entirely on projection. We didn’t even know how to pronounce each other’s names properly, yet we talked every day. I didn’t enjoy the interaction, because we weren’t really interested in each other—we were only invested in the attention we were getting. This made me think about certain kinds of attractive multimedia installations or flashy light shows. I don’t reject commercial art. I actually believe that being visually appealing and widely accepted can be a strength. But this kind of human-to-human projection made me reconsider the relationship between artist and audience. If I walk into an exhibition and feel that the work only exists to entertain me, I sense that the artist is simply trying to win my attention. And that makes me cautious because attention is valuable. I only want to give it to works that feel sincere.
Tony Oursler
In the past, I often tried to please the audience. Whether or not to add more interactive elements was something I kept questioning in each project. If narcissism is a way to confirm one’s sense of subjectivity, then maybe that’s why I’m drawn to extremely narcissistic works. Tony Oursler’s practice is a good example. No matter how much time passes, I still remember the shock I felt when I first encountered one of his installations in a museum. That intense emotional jolt made the experience unforgettable. Interestingly, his works don’t directly interact with the audience. Instead, I think they break the viewer’s sense of safety through strong, non-contact sensory interference. His installations are filled with humanoid elements, which trigger the uncanny valley effect. When paired with the right spatial setup, this creates a disturbing, almost oppressive atmosphere. What he showed me is that aggression can be part of a work’s language. But the difficult part is deciding how far to go. In my undergraduate studies, I once used very blunt, obvious materials in a project. When my tutor came to review it, he could barely stand in front of the work. I could even sense his awkwardness. If “soft and harmless” can sometimes just mean “boring under control,” then the other side of sensory aggression might be empty theatrics.
Another important lesson I got from Oursler is that projection doesn’t have to be the subject—it can be an extension. This sounds simple, but it’s actually a key idea. Combining two different materials is never easy. How can new technology integrate with physical materials in a meaningful way? Tony Oursler gave an answer to that question more than 20 years ago. This kind of integration can be applied to almost anything. It also makes me reflect on how computers can truly function in art. NFTs, for example, are not really about the digital sculpture—they are about the transaction process. Just like how traditional art often “dies” when it enters the museum, digital art may only become real at the moment it’s exchanged. This might be a biased view, but it made me want to explore how technology can connect with other fields—projection with installation, coding with performance. His practice gave me ideas for daily exercises. I used to interpret text through my body or imagery, and then look for meaning through repetition.
Now I ask myself:
“If I had to use technology to describe a cabbage to an audience today, how would I do it?”
This marks a shift in my methodology, and a useful expansion of how I approach making.
The Cyborgs and Monsters seminar
This seminar on “Cyborgs and Monsters” deepened my understanding of the connections between fetishism, anime, and narcissism. In Donna Haraway’s Cyborg Manifesto, the cyborg is presented as a figure that blurs the boundaries between humans, machines, and nature. This reminded me of the concept of “fetish spirits,” where objects gain spiritual significance through human emotional projection. In a contemporary context, virtual anime characters can be seen as digital fetish spirits. They not only carry human emotions but also reflect narcissistic traits, externalizing idealized self-images and creating identities that exist between virtuality and reality.
Legacy Russell’s Glitch Feminism frames “glitch” as a tool to subvert established norms, inspiring me to consider how glitch art can deconstruct the “perfection” of virtual characters. Anime characters are often seen as idealized beings, but by generating images with AI and applying glitch effects, their perceived wholeness can be disrupted, exposing hidden societal tensions and identity conflicts. Referencing the works of Stelarc and Orlan, who use technology to intervene with the body and explore its boundaries with machines, I find new ways to redefine human identity.
Additionally, Moon Ribas and Neil Harbisson’s use of technology to extend sensory perception highlighted the relationship between narcissism and the extended self. Virtual characters serve as projections of humanity’s ideal self while revealing how technology reshapes emotional expression and identity construction. In my practice, I aim to integrate fetishism and glitch art using anime as a medium to explore how virtual characters become mirrors of human narcissism and to reveal the deep tensions between technology and emotion.
Pop-up Show
At the Pop-up Show, I had the opportunity to view many works from students of other departments, which led me to reflect on the themes and styles that I personally find less engaging. The exhibition, although brief, provided me with insight into the diverse ways artists approach their work. In particular, I found myself questioning some overly symbolic pieces, especially those in the traditional fine arts department. One series of paintings featuring apples and carousels left me perplexed. These are classic symbols of Chinese middle-class pop art—apples symbolizing wisdom and desire, and carousels representing lost childhood innocence.
I chose to view these works not merely as representations, but rather as satirical comments in the vein of Jeff Koons’ work, instead of simply conforming to the trends of the time. This experience made me realize that I have an ability to go straight to the essence of a problem when viewing art. Through conversations with my friends, I became more aware of my perspective and how I perceive the deeper meanings behind symbols, rather than just appreciating them for their visual appeal.
Etching Workshop
In the etching workshop, I was introduced to a fascinating medium that initially sparked my interest. The intricate process of carving into copper plates and transferring the image onto paper allowed for a level of detail and texture that felt like it could align well with my themes. I was particularly drawn to how etching could capture the subtle nuances of form, much like the fluid lines of anime or the delicate details often found in the depiction of material objects, such as the daffodil—my central motif. Daffodils, like many objects, can be seen as material symbols, carrying different layers of meaning, from beauty to transience.
However, as I began working with the medium, I realized that it didn’t quite align with the message I intended to convey. The physicality of etching, with its sharp contrasts and fine details, felt too rigid for the fluidity I wanted to express—especially when working with the idea of materialism or “fetishism” of objects, which I wanted to explore in my work. While the medium was engaging, it didn’t suit the narrative I was trying to build around themes of desire and symbolism.
I didn’t want to let my fondness for the technique compromise the core of my project. I believe that in art, form and content should be in harmony, and I wasn’t willing to let the appeal of a particular medium dictate the theme. As a result, I decided to abandon etching and look for other ways to express my ideas, prioritizing the alignment of my message over the medium’s technical allure.