Changes

====Sigmund Freud ====[[Freud]] valued [[art ]] as one of humanity[[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 works of art in particular. He explained artistic creation by reference to the concept of SUBLIMATION, a process in which sexual libido is redirected towards 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, start =====Artistic Creation==========Sublimation=====He explained [[art|artistic creation]] by treating it, as Freud does and as he recommends, as Holy Writ. The author, reference to the scribe[[concept]] of [[sublimation]], a process in which [[sexual]] [[libido]] is only a penredirected towards [[sublimation|non-pusher, and he comes secondsexual aims]]. . . . 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. (S2, 153)

=====Literature=====Like [[Freud]], [[Lacan's discussions ]] devotes most of literary texts are thus not exercises in literary criticism for its own sake, but performances designed his attention to give his audience an idea [[art|works of how they are to read the unconscious literature]] of their patientsall genres: * [[art|prose]] (e. This method g. the [[discussion]] of reading is similar to those employed The [[Purloined Letter]] by formalism and structuralism[[Edgar Allan Poe]]<ref>{{S2}} Ch. 16; {{1955}}</ref>), * [[art|drama]] (e.g. the signified is neglected in favour discussions of the signifier[[Shakespeare]]'s [[Hamlet]] <ref>{{1958-9}}</ref>, content is bracketed in favour and of formal structures [[Sophocles]]' [[Antigone]] <ref>{{S7}}, Chs. 19-21</ref>) and * [[art|poetry]] (although Jacques Derrida has argued that Lacan does not in fact follow his own methode.g. the discussion of [[Booz endormi]] by Victor [[Hugo]]<ref>{{S3}} p. 218-25; {{S4}} p. 377-8; {{E}} p. 156-8; see Derrida, 1975{{S8}} p. 158-9</ref>).

Besides serving as models of a method of reading=====Visual Arts=====However, which [[Lacan recommends analysts to follow when reading ]] also discusses the discourse of their patients, Lacan's discussions of literary texts also aim to extract certain elements which serve as metaphors to illustrate some of his most important ideas. For example[[art|visual arts]], devoting several lectures in his reading of Poe's The Purloined Letter, Lacan points [[Seminar XI|1964]] [[seminar]] to the circulating LETTER as a metaphor for the determinative power of the signifier.A new branch of so-called 'psychoanalytic literary criticism' now claims to be inspired by Lacan's approach to literary texts (e.g. Muller and Richardsondiscussing [[art|painting]], 1988, and Wright, 1984; other works dealing with Lacan and cultural theory are Davis, 1983; Felman, 1987; MacCannell, 1986)particularly [[art|anamorphotic art]]. However, while such projects are interesting in their own right, they do not usually approach literature in the same way as Lacan<ref>{{S11}} Chs. That is7-9, while psychoanalytic literary criticism aims to say something about the texts studied, both aspects of Lacanwhere he discusses [[Holbein]]'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 Lacan's approach to works of art and Freud's. 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. Hence Lacan rejects the idea that a literary criticism which makes use of psychoanalytic concepts could be called 'applied psychoanalysis', since '[[The Ambassadors]]; {{S7}} p]sychoanalysis is only applied, in the proper sense of the term, as a treatment, and thus to a subject who speaks and listens' (Ec, 747. 139-42</ref>).

==References===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.<references/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 [[analyst]]s to follow when [[interpretation|reading]] the [[discourse]] of their [[patient]]s, [[Lacan]]'s discussions of [[art|literary texts]] also aim to extract certain elements which serve as [[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]]. ====="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]].  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]].

==See Also===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>

[[Category==References==<div style="font-size:Culture]]11px" class="references-small"><references/></div>