Out of the whole article this stood out to me the most (particularly the first sentence):
“If love is the province of the idol and desire is the province of the fetish then friendship is the province of the totem — so goes Mitchell’s logic. “Totemism,” he says, “allows the image to assume a social, conversational, and dialectical relationship with the beholder, the way a doll or a stuffed animal does with children.” Images, in this view, are like toys to be played with (perhaps to be altered, cut, or customized), and like D.W. Winnicott’s transitional objects, they are to be “neither forgotten nor mourned” when they go—when, for example, with the shake of an iPad, they disappear only to be replaced by new ones in different configurations.”
This article itself was very confusing to read, but this last paragraph stood out to me the most because I agree with “Totemism”. I don’t know if this is what he really meant, but I took it as he is saying that something, such as images, can mean different things to each person depending on how they feel about it and look at it. Like he said, things can be cut, altered, and changed, but all this can be done to your own desire so that they are not forgotten and treasured by you.