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.
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?