Changes

==Sigmund Freud===Works of Art==========Literature=====[[Freud]] also dedicated a [[number]] of papers to analysing particular [[art|works of art]], especially works of [[literature]], which he argued could be useful to psychoanalysis in two main ways. # Firstly, these works often express in [[poetry|poetic form]] [[truth]]s [[about]] the [[psyche]], which implies that [[art|creative writers]] can intuit directly the [[truth]]s which [[psychoanalysts]] only discover later by more laborious means. # Secondly, [[Freud valued ]] also argued that a close [[psychoanalytic]] [[interpretation|reading]] of [[art as one |works of literature]] could uncover elements of the author's [[psyche]]. =====Michelangelo's ''Moses''=====While most of humanity[[Freud]]'s great cultural institutions[[Works of Sigmund Freud|papers]] on particular [[art|works of art]] concern [[art|works of literature]], and dedicated many papers he did not entirely neglect [[other]] [[art|art forms]]; for example he devoted one paper to discussing both the process [[Michelangelo]]'s statue of artistic creation in general and certain works [[Moses]].<ref>{{F}} "[[The Moses of art in particularMichelangelo]]," 1914b. [[SE]] XIII, 211. </ref>

He explained artistic creation by reference to the concept ====Jacques Lacan=========Works of SUBLIMATION, a process Art=====[[Lacan]]'s [[Works of Jacques Lacan|works]] also abound in which sexual libido is redirected towards non-sexual aimsdiscussions of particular [[art|works of art]].

=====Literature=====Like [[Freud also dedicated a number ]], [[Lacan]] devotes most of papers his attention to analysing particular [[art|works of literature]] of all genres: * [[art|prose]] (e.g. the [[discussion]] of The [[Purloined Letter]] by [[Edgar Allan Poe]]<ref>{{S2}} Ch. 16; {{1955}}</ref>), especially works * [[art|drama]] (e.g. the discussions of [[Shakespeare]]'s [[Hamlet]] <ref>{{1958-9}}</ref>, and of literature[[Sophocles]]' [[Antigone]] <ref>{{S7}}, which he argued could be useful to psychoanalysis in two main waysChs. 19-21</ref>) and * [[art|poetry]] (e.g. the discussion of [[Booz endormi]] by Victor [[Hugo]]<ref>{{S3}} p. 218-25; {{S4}} p. 377-8; {{E}} p. 156-8; {{S8}} p. 158-9</ref>).

Firstly=====Visual Arts=====However, these works often express [[Lacan]] also discusses the [[art|visual arts]], devoting several lectures in poetic form truths about the psychehis [[Seminar XI|1964]] [[seminar]] to discussing [[art|painting]], particularly [[art|anamorphotic art]].<ref>{{S11}} Chs. 7-9, which implies that creative writers can intuit directly the truths which psychoanalysts only discover later by more laborious meanswhere he discusses [[Holbein]]'s [[The Ambassadors]]; {{S7}} p. 139-42</ref>).

Secondly====Differences - Freud and Lacan====There are, nevertheless, significant differences between the ways in which [[Freud also argued that a close psychoanalytic reading of ]] and [[Lacan]] approach [[work|works of literature could uncover elements of the author's psycheart]].

While most =====Psychology of the Artist=====Though [[Lacan]] does [[speak]] about [[sublimation]], unlike [[Freud']] he does not believe that it is possible or even desirable for [[psychoanalyst]]s papers to say anything about the [[psychology]] of the [[art|artist]] on particular works the basis of an examination of a [[art concern works |work of literature, he did not entirely neglect other art forms]].<ref>See his critical remarks on "[[art|psychobiography]]"; for example he devoted one paper to discussing Michelangelo's statue of Moses (Freud, 1914b).{{Ec}} 740-1</ref>

==Just because the most fundamental [[complex]] ([[Oedipus complex|Oedipus]]) in [[psychoanalytic theory]] is taken from a [[art|literary work]], [[Lacan]] says, does not mean that [[psychoanalysis]] has anything to say about [[Sophocles]].<ref>{{L}} "[[Works of Jacques Lacan==Lacan|Lituraterre]]," ''Littérature''s works also abound in discussions of particular works of art, no. 3, 1971. p. 3</ref>

Like Freud, =====Authorial Intentions=====[[Lacan devotes most ]]'s [[exclusion]] of the [[art|artist]] from his attention to discussions of [[art|works of literature art]] means that his [[interpretation|reading]]s of all genres: prose (e.g. the discussion of The Purloined Letter by Edgar Allan Poe in S2, ch. 16, and Lacan, 1955a), drama (e.g. [[art|literary texts]] are not concerned to reconstruct the discussions of Shakespeare[[author]]'s Hamlet in Lacan, 1958-9, and of Sophocles' Antigone in S7, chs 19-21) and poetry (e.g. the discussion of Booz endormi by Victor Hugo in S3, 218- 25; S4, 377-8; E, 156-8; S8, 158-9)[[intention]]s.

However=====Discourse of the Analysand=====In his suspension of the question of [[author]]ial [[consciousness|intent]], [[Lacan also discusses ]] is not merely aligning himself with the visual arts[[structuralism|structuralist movement]] (after all, devoting several lectures [[author]]ial [[consciousness|intent]] had been bracketed by [[art|New Criticism]] long before the [[structuralism|structuralists]] appeared on the [[scene]]), but is rather illustrating the way in his 1964 seminar which the [[analyst]] should proceed when [[free association|listening]] to discussing painting, particularly anamorphotic art (Sll, chs 7-9, where he discusses Holbein's The Ambassadors; see also S7, 139-42)and [[interpretation|interpreting]] the [[discourse]] of the [[analysand]].

==Differences==There areThe [[analyst]] must, neverthelessin other [[words]], significant differences between treat the ways in which Freud and Lacan approach works of [[analysand]]'s [[discourse]] as a [[art. |text]]:

Though Lacan <blockquote>You must start from the [[text]], start by treating it, as Freud does speak about sublimationand as he recommends, as Holy Writ. The author, the scribe, unlike Freud is only a pen-pusher, and he does not believe that comes second. . . . Similarly, when it is possible or even desirable for psychoanalysts comes to our [[patients]], please give more attention to the text than to say anything about the psychology of the artist on author - the basis entire orientation of an examination of a work of art (see his critical remarks on 'psychobiography'; Ec, 740-1)my teaching is that.<ref>{{S2}} p. 153</ref></blockquote>

Just because the most fundamental complex (Oedipus) =====Method of Reading=====[[Lacan]]'s discussions of [[art|literary texts]] are thus not exercises in psychoanalytic theory is taken from a [[art|literary workcriticism]] for its own sake, Lacan says, does not mean that psychoanalysis has anything but performances designed to give his audience an [[idea]] of how they are to say about Sophocles (Lacan, 1971: 3)read the [[unconscious]] of their [[patient]]s.

==More==Lacan's exclusion This [[interpretation|method of reading]] is similar to those employed by [[structuralism|formalism]] and [[structuralism]]; the artist from his discussions [[signified]] is neglected in favour of works the [[signifier]], [[structure|content]] is bracketed in favour of art means [[structure|formal structures]].<ref>Although [[Jacques Derrida]] has argued that [[Lacan]] does not in fact follow his readings own method; [[Jacques Derrida|Derrida, Jacques]] 1975. "Le facteur de la vérité," in ''The Post Card: From [[Socrates]] to Freud and Beyond'', trans. Alan Bass, Chicago and [[London]]: [[University]] of Chicago Press, 1987, pp. 413-96.</ref> and by two of literary texts are not concerned to reconstruct the author[[Derrida]]'s intentionsfollowers.<ref>Lacoue-Labarthe, Philippe, and Nancy, Jean-Luc. 1973. ''Le Titre de la [[lettre]]'', [[Paris]]: Galilée. </ref>

In his suspension =====Illustrative Models=====Besides serving as models of the question a [[interpretation|method of authorial intentreading]], which [[Lacan is not merely aligning himself with ]] recommends [[analyst]]s to follow when [[interpretation|reading]] the structuralist movement (after all[[discourse]] of their [[patient]]s, authorial intent had been bracketed by New Criticism long before the structuralists appeared on the scene), but is rather illustrating the way in [[Lacan]]'s discussions of [[art|literary texts]] also aim to extract certain elements which the analyst should proceed when listening serve as [[metaphor]]s to and interpreting the discourse illustrate some of the analysandhis most important [[ideas]].

The analyst mustFor example, in other wordshis [[reading]] of [[Poe]]'s ''[[The Purloined Letter]]'', treat [[Lacan]] points to the analysand's discourse circulating [[letter]] as a text:[[metaphor]] for the [[signifier|determinative power]] of the [[signifier]].

<blockquote>You must start from the text, start by treating it, as Freud does and as he recommends, as Holy Writ. The author, the scribe, is only a pen====="Psychoanalytic Literary Criticism"=====A new branch of so-pusher, and he comes second. . . . Similarly, when it comes called "[[art|psychoanalytic literary criticism]]" now claims to our patients, please give more attention be inspired by [[Lacan]]'s approach to the text than to the psychology of the author - the entire orientation of my teaching is that.<ref>{{S2}} p[[art|literary texts]].153</ref></blockquote>

==More==Lacan's discussions of literary texts However, while such projects are thus not exercises interesting in literary criticism for its their own sake[[right]], but performances designed to give his audience an idea of how they are to read do not usually approach [[art|literature]] in the unconscious of their patientssame way as [[Lacan]].

This method of reading =====Analytic Interpretation=====That is similar , while [[art|psychoanalytic literary criticism]] aims to those employed by formalism and structuralism; say something about the signified is neglected in favour of the signifier[[texts]] studied, content is bracketed in favour both aspects of formal structures.<ref>[[Lacan]]'s approach (although Jacques Derrida has argued that Lacan does to illustrate a mode of [[interpretation|analytic interpretation]], and to illustrate [[psychoanalytic]] [[:category:concepts|concepts]]) are concerned not in fact follow his own method; see Derridawith saying something about the texts themselves, 1975)</ref>but merely with using the texts to say something about [[psychoanalysis]].

==More==Besides serving as models of a method of reading, which Lacan recommends analysts to follow when reading This is perhaps the discourse of their patients, most important [[difference]] between [[Lacan]]'s discussions of literary texts also aim approach to extract certain elements which serve as metaphors to illustrate some works of his most important ideasart and [[Freud]]'s.

For example, in his reading =====Metalanguage=====Whereas some of Poe[[Freud]]'s The Purloined Letterworks are often taken to imply that [[psychoanalysis]] is a [[metalanguage|metadiscourse]], a [[Lacanmetalanguage|master narrative]] providing a general lutmeneutic key that can unlock the hitherto unsolved secrets of [[art|literary works]], it is [[impossible]] points to the circulating read [[letterLacan]] as a metaphor for the determinative power of the signifiermaking any such claims.

==More== A new branch of so-called ="psychoanalytic literary criticismApplied Psychoanalysis" now claims to be inspired by Lacan's approach to literary texts (e.g. Muller and Richardson, 1988, and Wright, 1984; other works dealing with Lacan and cultural theory are Davis, 1983; Felman, 1987; MacCannell, 1986). ===== However, while such projects are interesting in their own right, they do not usually approach literature in the same way as Lacan.  That is, while psychoanalytic literary criticism aims to say something about the texts studied, both aspects of Lacan's approach (to illustrate a mode of analytic interpretation, and to illustrate psychoanalytic concepts) are concerned not with saying something about the texts themselves, but merely with using the texts to say something about psychoanalysis.  This is perhaps the most important difference between Hence [[Lacan]]'s approach to works of art and rejects the idea that a [[Freudart|literary criticism]]'s. Whereas some which makes use of [[Freudpsychoanalytic]]'s works are often taken to imply that psychoanalysis is a metadiscourse, a master narrative providing a general lutmeneutic key that can unlock the hitherto unsolved secrets of literary works, it is impossible to read [[Lacan]] as making any such claims.  For [[Lacan]], while psychoanalysis might be able to learn something about literature, or use literary works to illustrate certain of its methods and :category:concepts|concepts, it is doubtful whether literary criticism can learn anything from psychoanalysis.  Hence [[Lacan]] rejects the idea that a literary criticism which makes use of psychoanalytic concepts could be called '"[[art|applied psychoanalysis']]", since "[p]sychoanalysis is only applied, in the proper [[sense ]] of the term, as a [[treatment]], and thus to a [[subject ]] who speaks and listens."<ref>{{Ec}} p.747</ref>).

 </div>