This reading raises the crucial question of where can we find the line between narcissism and art? The New York Times article highlights Dürer’s connection between himself and divine portraits as well as the extreme amount of time the artist would have had to look in the mirror. On the one hand, Dürer’s self-portrait ushered in an unprecedented level of detail within renaissance painting. We could call his work simply photograph-like. On the other hand, the artist’s pious motif in lighting and placement liken him to Christian works. We could call that conceited, and at the time, some may have gone so far as heretical. In today’s world, selfies often provoke the same question. Do we take the photos for ourselves, or to make ourselves front and center in an image meant to convey our status online? Dürer pioneered monogram branding. In a similar fashion, many students carry laptops labeled “Dell.” We may be quick to look judgmentally on Dürer’s trademark-like labeling. However, it was that very approach that fostered successful self-brand identifiability and quality-control labeling. If an idea stems from vanity but has a lasting impact, does that make it a “good” idea? I would argue yes, and the reading takes a critical look into the evolution of this concept.