Changes

==Sigmund Freud==[[Freud]] valued [[art]] as one =Works of [[human]]ity's great [[culture|cultural]] [[civilization|institutions]], and dedicated many papers to discussing both the process of [[art|artistic creation]] in general and certain [[art|works of art]] in particular.  Art====Sublimation===He explained [[art|artistic creation]] by reference to the concept of [[sublimation]], a process in which [[sexual]] [[libido]] is redirected towards [[sublimation|non-sexual aims]].  ===Works of 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.

While most of [[Freud]]'s [[====Jacques Lacan=========Works of Sigmund Freud|papers]] on particular [[art|works of art]] concern [[art|works of literature]], he did not entirely neglect other [[art|art forms]]; for example he devoted one paper to discussing [[Michelangelo]]'s statue of [[Moses]].<ref>{{F}} "[[The Moses of Michelangelo]]," 1914b. [[SE]] XIII, 211.</ref> Art===Jacques Lacan==

* [[art|prose ]] (e.g. the [[discussion ]] of The [[Purloined Letter ]] by [[Edgar Allan Poe]]<ref>{{S2}} Ch. 16; {{1955}}</ref>), * [[art|drama ]] (e.g. the discussions of [[Shakespeare]]'s [[Hamlet in Lacan, ]] <ref>{{1958-9}}</ref>, and of [[Sophocles]]' [[Antigone in ]] <ref>{{S7}}, chs Chs. 19-21</ref>) and * [[art|poetry ]] (e.g. the discussion of [[Booz endormi ]] by Victor [[Hugo in ]]<ref>{{S3, }} p. 218- 25; {{S4, }} p. 377-8; {{E, }} p. 156-8; {{S8, }} p. 158-9</ref>).

=====Visual Arts=====However, [[Lacan ]] also discusses the [[art|visual arts]], devoting several lectures in his [[Seminar XI|1964 ]] [[seminar ]] to discussing [[art|painting]], particularly [[art|anamorphotic art (Sll, chs ]].<ref>{{S11}} Chs. 7-9, where he discusses [[Holbein]]'s [[The Ambassadors]]; see also {{S7, }} p. 139-42</ref>).

====Differences- Freud and Lacan====There are, nevertheless, significant differences between the ways in which [[Freud ]] and [[Lacan ]] approach [[work|works of art]].

=====Psychology of the Artist=====Though [[Lacan ]] does [[speak ]] about [[sublimation]], unlike [[Freud ]] he does not believe that it is possible or even desirable for psychoanalysts [[psychoanalyst]]s to say anything about the [[psychology ]] of the [[art|artist ]] on the basis of an examination of a [[art|work of art (see ]].<ref>See his critical remarks on '"[[art|psychobiography']]"; {{Ec, }} 740-1). </ref>

Just because the most fundamental [[complex ]] ([[Oedipuscomplex|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|Lituraterre]]," ''Littérature'', no. 3, 1971: . p. 3).</ref>

==More===Authorial Intentions=====[[Lacan]]'s [[exclusion ]] of the [[art|artist ]] from his discussions of [[art|works of art ]] means that his readings [[interpretation|reading]]s of [[art|literary texts ]] are not concerned to reconstruct the [[author]]'s intentions[[intention]]s.

=====Discourse of the Analysand=====In his suspension of the question of authorial [[author]]ial [[consciousness|intent]], [[Lacan ]] is not merely aligning himself with the [[structuralism|structuralist movement ]] (after all, authorial [[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 which the [[analyst ]] should proceed when [[free association|listening ]] to and [[interpretation|interpreting ]] the [[discourse ]] of the [[analysand]].

The [[analyst ]] must, in other [[words]], treat the [[analysand]]'s [[discourse ]] as a [[art|text]]:

<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-pusher, and he comes second. . . . Similarly, when it comes to our [[patients]], please give more attention to the text than to the psychology of the author - the entire orientation of my teaching is that.<ref>{{S2}} p.153</ref></blockquote>

==More===Method of Reading=====[[Lacan]]'s discussions of [[art|literary texts ]] are thus not exercises in [[art|literary criticism ]] for its own sake, but performances designed to give his audience an [[idea ]] of how they are to read the [[unconscious ]] of their patients[[patient]]s.

This [[interpretation|method of reading ]] is similar to those employed by [[structuralism|formalism ]] and [[structuralism]]; the [[signified ]] is neglected in favour of the [[signifier]], [[structure|content ]] is bracketed in favour of [[structure|formal structures]].<ref>(although Although [[Jacques Derrida ]] has argued that [[Lacan ]] does not in fact follow his own method; see [[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 [[Derrida]]'s followers.<ref>Lacoue-Labarthe, Philippe, and Nancy, Jean-Luc. 1973. ''Le Titre de la [[lettre]]'', [[Paris]]: Galilée.</ref>

==More===Illustrative Models=====Besides serving as models of a [[interpretation|method of reading]], which [[Lacan ]] recommends analysts [[analyst]]s to follow when [[interpretation|reading ]] the [[discourse ]] of their patients[[patient]]s, [[Lacan]]'s discussions of [[art|literary texts ]] also aim to extract certain elements which serve as metaphors [[metaphor]]s to illustrate some of his most important [[ideas]].

For example, in his [[reading ]] of [[Poe]]'s ''[[The Purloined Letter]]'', [[Lacan]] points to the circulating [[letter]] as a [[metaphor ]] for the [[signifier|determinative power ]] of the [[signifier]].

A new branch of so-called "=====Analytic Interpretation=====That is, while [[art|psychoanalytic literary criticism" now claims ]] aims to be inspired by say something about the [[texts]] studied, both aspects of [[Lacan]]'s approach (to literary texts (e.g. Muller and Richardson, 1988illustrate a mode of [[interpretation|analytic interpretation]], and Wrightto illustrate [[psychoanalytic]] [[:category:concepts|concepts]]) are concerned not with saying something about the texts themselves, 1984; other works dealing but merely with Lacan and cultural theory are Davis, 1983; Felman, 1987; MacCannell, 1986)using the texts to say something about [[psychoanalysis]].

However, while such projects are interesting in their own right, they do not usually approach literature in This is perhaps the same way as most important [[difference]] between [[Lacan]]'s approach to works of art and [[Freud]]'s.

That is, while psychoanalytic literary criticism aims to say something about the texts studied, both aspects =====Metalanguage=====Whereas some of Lacan[[Freud]]'s approach (works are often taken to illustrate imply that [[psychoanalysis]] is a mode of analytic interpretation[[metalanguage|metadiscourse]], and to illustrate psychoanalytic concepts) are concerned not with saying something about a [[metalanguage|master narrative]] providing a general lutmeneutic key that can unlock the texts themselveshitherto unsolved secrets of [[art|literary works]], but merely with using the texts it is [[impossible]] to say something about psychoanalysisread [[Lacan]] as making any such claims.

This is perhaps the most important difference between =====Methods and Concepts=====<b>For [[Lacan]]'s approach , while [[psychoanalysis]] might be able to learn something about [[art|literature]], or use [[art|literary works ]] to illustrate certain of its [[treatment|methods]] and [[:category:concepts|concepts]], it is doubtful whether [[art and |literary criticism]] can learn anything from [[Freudpsychoanalysis]]'s.</b>

Whereas some of [[Freud]]'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 concepts, it is doubtful whether literary criticism can learn anything from psychoanalysis. ====="Applied Psychoanalysis"=====Hence [[Lacan]] rejects the idea that a [[art|literary criticism ]] which makes use of [[psychoanalytic ]] [[:category:concepts |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>