Changes

Freud valued art as one of humanity's great cultural institutions, and dedicated many papers to discussing both the process of artistic creation in general and certain works of art in particular. =====Artistic Creation==========Sublimation=====He explained [[art|artistic creation ]] by reference to the [[concept ]] of SUBLIMATION[[sublimation]], a process in which [[sexual ]] [[libido ]] is redirected towards [[sublimation|non-sexual aims]]. Freud also dedicated a number of papers to analysing particular 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 poetic form truths about the psyche, which implies that creative writers can intuit directly the truths which psychoanalysts only discover later by more laborious means. Secondly, Freud also argued that a close psychoanalytic reading of works of literature could uncover elements of the author's psyche. While most of Freud's papers on particular works of art concern works of literature, he did not entirely neglect other art forms; for example he devoted one paper to discussing Michelangelo's statue of Moses (Freud, 1914b).Lacan's works also abound in discussions of particular works of art. Like Freud, Lacan devotes most of his attention to works of literature 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. the discussions of Shakespeare'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). However, Lacan also discusses the visual arts, devoting several lectures in his 1964 seminar to discussing painting, particularly anamorphotic art (Sll, chs 7-9, where he discusses Holbein's The Ambassadors; see also S7, 139-42).There are, nevertheless, significant differences between the ways in which Freud and Lacan approach works of art. Though Lacan does speak about sublimation, unlike Freud he does not believe that it is possible or even desirable for psychoanalysts to say anything about the psychology of the artist on the basis of an examination of a work of art (see his critical remarks on 'psychobiography'; Ec, 740-1). Just because the most fundamental complex (Oedipus) in psychoanalytic theory is taken from a literary work, Lacan says, does not mean that psychoanalysis has anything to say about Sophocles (Lacan, 1971: 3).Lacan's exclusion of the artist from his discussions of works of art means that his readings of literary texts are not concerned to reconstruct the author's intentions. In his suspension of the question of authorial intent, Lacan is not merely aligning himself with the structuralist movement (after all, authorial intent had been bracketed by New Criticism long before the structuralists appeared on the scene), but is rather illustrating the way in which the analyst should proceed when listening to and interpreting the discourse of the analysand. The analyst must, in other words, treat the analysand's discourse as a text:

You must start from the text=====Works of Art==========Literature=====[[Freud]] also dedicated a [[number]] of papers to analysing particular [[art|works of art]], start by treating itespecially works of [[literature]], as Freud does and as which he recommends, as Holy Writargued could be useful to psychoanalysis in two main ways. The author# Firstly, these works often express in [[poetry|poetic form]] [[truth]]s [[about]] the scribe[[psyche]], is which implies that [[art|creative writers]] can intuit directly the [[truth]]s which [[psychoanalysts]] only discover later by more laborious means. # Secondly, [[Freud]] also argued that a pen-pusherclose [[psychoanalytic]] [[interpretation|reading]] of [[art|works of literature]] could uncover elements of the author's [[psyche]]. =====Michelangelo's ''Moses''=====While most of [[Freud]]'s [[Works of Sigmund Freud|papers]] on particular [[art|works of art]] concern [[art|works of literature]], and he comes second. . . . Similarly, when it comes did not entirely neglect [[other]] [[art|art forms]]; for example he devoted one paper to our patients, please give more attention to the text than to the psychology discussing [[Michelangelo]]'s statue of the author - the entire orientation [[Moses]].<ref>{{F}} "[[The Moses of my teaching is thatMichelangelo]]," 1914b. (S2[[SE]] XIII, 153)211.</ref>

=====Visual Arts=====However, [[Lacan's discussions of literary texts are thus not exercises ]] also discusses the [[art|visual arts]], devoting several lectures in literary criticism for its own sake, but performances designed to give his audience an idea of how they are [[Seminar XI|1964]] [[seminar]] to read the unconscious of their patientsdiscussing [[art|painting]], particularly [[art|anamorphotic art]].<ref>{{S11}} Chs. This method of reading is similar to those employed by formalism and structuralism; the signified is neglected in favour of the signifier7-9, content is bracketed in favour of formal structures (although Jacques Derrida has argued that Lacan does not in fact follow his own methodwhere he discusses [[Holbein]]'s [[The Ambassadors]]; see Derrida, 1975{{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 [[psychoanalyst]]s to say anything about the [[psychology]] of the [[art|artist]] on the basis of an examination of a [[art|work of art]].<ref>See his critical remarks on "[[art|psychobiography]]"; {{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|Lituraterre]]," ''Littérature'', no. 3, 1971. p. 3</ref> =====Authorial Intentions=====[[Lacan]]'s [[exclusion]] of the [[art|artist]] from his discussions of [[art|works of art]] means that his [[interpretation|reading]]s of [[art|literary texts]] are not concerned to reconstruct the [[author]]'s [[intention]]s.  =====Discourse of the Analysand=====In his suspension of the question of [[author]]ial [[consciousness|intent]], [[Lacan]] is not merely aligning himself with the [[structuralism|structuralist movement]] (after all, [[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> =====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 [[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 [[Jacques Derrida]] has argued that [[Lacan]] does not in fact follow his 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 [[Derrida]]'s followers.<ref>Lacoue-Labarthe, Philippe, and Nancy, Jean-Luc. 1973. ''Le Titre de la [[lettre]]'', [[Paris]]: Galilée.</ref> =====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 [[letter]] as a [[metaphor ]] for the [[signifier|determinative power ]] of the [[signifier]]. ====="Psychoanalytic Literary Criticism"=====A new branch of so-called '"[[art|psychoanalytic literary criticism' ]]" now claims to be inspired by [[Lacan]]'s approach to [[art|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 [[art|literature ]] in the same way as [[Lacan]].  =====Analytic Interpretation=====That is, while [[art|psychoanalytic literary criticism ]] aims to say something about the [[texts ]] studied, both aspects of [[Lacan]]'s approach (to illustrate a mode of [[interpretation|analytic interpretation]], and to illustrate [[psychoanalytic ]] [[:category:concepts|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 [[Lacan]]'s approach to works of art and [[Freud]]'s.  =====Metalanguage=====Whereas some of [[Freud]]'s works are often taken to imply that [[psychoanalysis ]] is a [[metalanguage|metadiscourse]], a [[metalanguage|master narrative ]] providing a general lutmeneutic key that can unlock the hitherto unsolved secrets of [[art|literary works]], it is [[impossible ]] to read [[Lacan ]] as making any such claims.  =====Methods and Concepts=====<b>For [[Lacan]], 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|literary criticism ]] can learn anything from [[psychoanalysis]]. </b> ====="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>). ==References==<div style="font-size:11px" class="references-small"><references/></div>[[Category:Freudian psychology]][[Category:Psychoanalysis]][[Category:Jacques Lacan]][[Category:Dictionary]][[Category:Culture]] __NOTOC__