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...
Gespeichert in:
| 1. Verfasser: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article ou chapitre numérique |
| Sprache: | Français |
| Veröffentlicht: |
2024
|
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online Zugang: | Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM Accès Université d'Orléans et IFPM |
| id |
cairn-SC_031_0013 |
|---|---|
| record_format |
cairn |
| spelling |
cairn-SC_031_0013SCSavoirs et clinique https://shs.cairn.info/revue-savoirs-et-cliniques-2024-2-page-13?lang=fr https://doi.org/10.3917/sc.031.0013 Le symptôme-art Kaltenbeck, Franz2024 artBeckettdéchetdéfensifDieter RothGiorgioneHeinz KohutinconscientlibidomaladieoffensifPeter Weibelpulsion de mortratageSymptômetransfert de créativitéValie ExportartBeckettdeath drivedefensiveDieter RothdiseasefailureGiorgioneHeinz KohutlibidooffensivePeter WeibelSymptomtransference of creativityunconsciousValie Exportwastefre Savoirs et clinique | 31 | 2 | 2024-09-18 | p. 13-21 | 1634-3298 SC_03186 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.Pour Freud, l’artiste n’est pas un patient, mais un sujet supposé savoir faire avec sa jouissance. Il n’a pourtant pas échappé à Freud qu’une souffrance, une maladie se révèlent dans l’acte de création. Et c’est la mobilisation de la libido dans l’amour, comme celle de la pulsion de mort dans la sublimation, qui rappellent cette maladie (du surinvestissement narcissique, en 1914, et de la libération de la pulsion de mort suite à la désintrication des pulsions, en 1923). C’est Jacques Lacan qui articulera, dans les années 1974-1976, l’art au symptôme. Cela veut dire qu’à la différence des élèves de Freud, il ne croit pas que l’œuvre d’art nous donne accès à l’inconscient de l’artiste. On a souvent parlé à ce propos de l’œuvre d’art comme d’une suppléance. C’est un autre aspect qu’aborde ici Franz Kaltenbeck, mettant en évidence le côté « offensif » du symptôme-art, c’est-à-dire orienté vers l’autre d’une façon « pas si différente de l’acte analytique », utilisant même parfois un « transfert de créativité ». Franz Kaltenbeck en donne des exemples : Peter Weibel se faisant le chien de Valie Export à Vienne en 1968, Samuel Beckett se faisant dans son écriture le vecteur du rayonnement de Giorgione, Dieter Roth installant ses œuvres dans l’éphémère le plus concret, afin que le spectateur ne ferme pas les yeux sur le déchet, le ratage.Cairn restricted access |
| language |
Français |
| format |
Article ou chapitre numérique |
| building |
0/Bibliothèque numérique/ 1/Bibliothèque numérique/Cairn/ |
| topic |
art Beckett déchet défensif Dieter Roth Giorgione Heinz Kohut inconscient libido maladie offensif Peter Weibel pulsion de mort ratage Symptôme transfert de créativité Valie Export art Beckett death drive defensive Dieter Roth disease failure Giorgione Heinz Kohut libido offensive Peter Weibel Symptom transference of creativity unconscious Valie Export waste |
| spellingShingle |
art Beckett déchet défensif Dieter Roth Giorgione Heinz Kohut inconscient libido maladie offensif Peter Weibel pulsion de mort ratage Symptôme transfert de créativité Valie Export art Beckett death drive defensive Dieter Roth disease failure Giorgione Heinz Kohut libido offensive Peter Weibel Symptom transference of creativity unconscious Valie Export waste Kaltenbeck, Franz Le symptôme-art |
| topic_facet |
art Beckett déchet défensif Dieter Roth Giorgione Heinz Kohut inconscient libido maladie offensif Peter Weibel pulsion de mort ratage Symptôme transfert de créativité Valie Export art Beckett death drive defensive Dieter Roth disease failure Giorgione Heinz Kohut libido offensive Peter Weibel Symptom transference of creativity unconscious Valie Export waste |
| description |
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. |
| author |
Kaltenbeck, Franz |
| author_facet |
Kaltenbeck, Franz |
| author_sort |
Kaltenbeck, Franz |
| title |
Le symptôme-art |
| title_short |
Le symptôme-art |
| title_full |
Le symptôme-art |
| title_fullStr |
Le symptôme-art |
| title_full_unstemmed |
Le symptôme-art |
| title_sort |
le symptôme-art |
| publishDate |
2024 |
| container_title |
|
| container_issue |
|
| url |
https://ezproxy.univ-orleans.fr/login?url=https://shs.cairn.info/revue-savoirs-et-cliniques-2024-2-page-13?lang=fr https://ezproxy.univ-orleans.fr/login?url=https://doi.org/10.3917/sc.031.0013 |
| _version_ |
1877246818331394048 |