File this, for now, under unfinished thoughts. Unfinished thoughts that gloss quickly over the definitions of clinical psychology, as well as ignoring lots of philosophy about subject and object, and generally uses a lot of straw man arguments. But, like I said, unfinished thoughts.
Narcissism, in the colloquial definition, is often used to describe the need for attention, the need to be viewed and listened to, the need to be the object of other's eyes. Technically speaking, this definition has more to do with being histrionic than being narcissistic, but their is a lot of overlap. But I would say that a performer, despite a surface desire for attention, has to in some ways come to terms with reality. They know that there is an objective standard that they must meet. They must, at the least, show up. They have to hit their marks and tell their story. The show must go on. They are making some type of commitment, taking some type of risk, to appear before an audience, knowing that they might fail or be inadequate.
But the audience? They are just there. By dint of nothing else but an ass in a chair, they are sitting on a throne. They can be pleased or displeased. They can dissect and criticize. They can decide that something is the best or the worst. They are, seemingly, pure subjective consciousness, experts and deciders just because of what they see or hear. They commit nothing, they risk nothing, and yet they are somehow special.
So, in those terms, which group has narcissism?