Le symptôme-art
Freud did not consider the artist as a patient but rather as a subject who is supposed to know how to deal with his jouissance. Nevertheless, it did not elude him that a work of art may disclose a suffering, a disease. Love mobilizes libido, just as sublimation awakens the death drive, and both evok...
Enregistré dans:
| Auteur principal: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article ou chapitre numérique |
| Langue: | Français |
| Publié: |
2024
|
| Sujets: | |
| Accès en ligne: | Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM |
| Résumé: | Freud did not consider the artist as a patient but rather as a subject who is supposed to know how to deal with his jouissance. Nevertheless, it did not elude him that a work of art may disclose a suffering, a disease. Love mobilizes libido, just as sublimation awakens the death drive, and both evoke this disease (such as the narcissistic overinvestment in 1914, or the release of the death drive following a disentanglement of drives and 1923). For his part, Lacan, in 1974-1976, connected art to the symptom. This means that, contrary to Freud’s disciples, he does not think that a work of art gives access to the artist’s unconscious. In that respect, a work of art should be considered as substitution. Franz Kaltenbeck addresses this issue from a different point of view when he underlines the “offensive” aspect of the art-symptom, a symptom addressed to the other which is rather similar to analysis, leading sometimes to a “transference of creativity”. Kaltenbeck provides several examples: Peter Weibel crawling behind Valie Export on all fours on a leash, in Vienna in February 1968, Beckett’s writing turned into the vector of Giorgione’s radiance; Dieter Roth creating his works out of the most concrete transience to prevent the spectator from overlooking waste and failure. |
|---|