Filtern
Sprache
- Englisch (2) (entfernen)
Dokumenttyp
- Artikel / Beiträge (2) (entfernen)
Volltext vorhanden
- ja (2)
Instead of using a psychological grid when reading literature, Freud recommended that we let the actual writer instruct us. The same applies to artists. Here I will be asking two questions: can one make a formal comparison between the painter's visual approach, and the analyst's psychic approach which leads him to form a particular interpretation? Can one compare the spectator's feelings when a painting imposes itself on him, with the analyst's feelings when confronted with the silence of the analysand? Out of these two questions another, more general one arises: what can the psychoanalytical approach to artistic representation bring to the understanding of the analytical process?
The pleasure of thought during the session is an intellectual feeling, that can take several forms at different moments during the analyst's thought process. The following should be distinguished: the disruption introduced by interpretative interference, which by underlining an unconscious element, upsets the conscious logical flow of the analysand's speech; finding the key-word or the overdetermined image which springs to the mind in the same way as a poet finds a rhyme; the resurgence of a memory, once evoked and subsequently forgotten again by the analysand, which imposes itself with quasi hallucinatory sharpness in the analyst's representative space; the experience of co-thought, either on one particular occasion related to a specific representation, or as a complement, accompanying the analysand's associative process.