- Email: [email protected]
Portraits of the artist
7‘/lcAr1\
,!I P.\?l~/I~,l/1~,~Cl~~, Vol.
I? pp. IS?-153.
Ankho
John (New
York:
International
E. Gedo,
The Guilford
Press.
This is a brilliant. gem-like book: multifaceted. reflecting many sources, sparkling with ideas. Its author is a psychoanalyst whose practice in Chicago has included an unusually large number of creative people. He has written a number of books and articles challenging and revising current theory and practice in his field. His wife. Mary Gedo, is an art historian whose books and writings have focused on the psychological sources of the artist’s work. Picasso has been her main subject to date. This is a book that speaks of partnership in many ways. Psychoanalysis and art history are melded in it. just as the author, often quoting his wife’s work, shows her co-work and influence. More subtly. one of the pervasive themes in all the portraits is that of the need of the creative person for a supporter, a partner, Moreover, more than half the even a “double.” book is devoted to psychological portraits of famous men, most done as comparisons in ptri~s. The first two chapters give us a summary of what psychoanalysis has contributed to questions of art. creativity, aesthetics and the understanding of the artist. First there is a review of biographical writings about famous artists of the past. The following chapter reviews the course of psychoanalytic theory about creativity. Here we have a penetrating review and critique of the work of such writers (among other significant contributors) as Waedler, Winnicott, Greenacre, Ehrensweig and Rose-fourteen pages which I would recommend to all arts therapists. The theoretical search starts with Freud’s focus on symbolic content in art and the motivations of the artist. The psychopathology of the artist is investigated. Id function and regression are seen as wellsprings. with sublimation as the mechanism by which primitive material is turned into art. As theory evolved. we have come to think not only about content but also about form and perceptual elements. particularly as the artist
Inc..
1986. PrInted in the U.S.A
0197.4556/86$3
00 + .OO
MD 19X3. 303 pages. %20.00)
is able to organize form as a way of mastery in self-organization. We are now seeing ego function as being more significant in the artistic process, creativity as a healthy development, and the creative process as having the nature of dialogue. There is promise in the first two chapters that the portraits to follow will differ from past psychoanalytic portraits of artists, reflecting more of the new theory. They do and they don’t. 1 was disappointed that they didn’t enough. Early in the book Gedo raises the question and aesthetic re(p. 28). “Do artistic creation sponse belong in the realm of psychic conflict at all’?” The implication is that we may consider a possible “no” answer. However, the clinical and historical portraits to follow do focus on the psychological conflicts of the artist. And Gedo states (p. 102) that he devotes much of his attention to the “dialectic relationship between the creative process and psychopathology within the artist’s personality.” In the clinical studies which follow in the next section, Gedo looks at blocks to creativity. special problems of creativity in women, male homosexuality and creativity. and, finally, the particular psychological problems of those patients of his who were creative geniuses. There are many valuable clinical ideas in these interesting case histories. The last two sections of the book consist of the historical studies, or portraits, to which I referred earlier. The artists he chose to study are all. he says, disturbed personalities, with only Freud as one who has made a satisfactory adjustment psychologically. They all succeeded in making extraordinary contributions to the world of art and the humanities despite their disturbances. Dr. Gedo gives us an understanding of each one’s most basic disturbance by reviewing his personal history and his work. To this task Gedo brings a mix of psychoanalytic insightIS?
BOOK including his own contributions to psychoanalytic theory-cultural erudition, wit, and the driving curiosity and wonder of a creative artist. His discussions comparing artists (Picasso and van Gogh) or examining the meaning of their relationships in terms of their work (van Gogh and Gauguin; Freud and Jung) are rich in surprises. This kind of analysis of pairs of creative men repeats in another form the book’s pervasive theme: the need for the creative artist to be supported and encouraged. For many, their fathers supplied this. As with Nietzche, Gedo says of similar depend(p. 204) ‘I. . . the frequency ence on a benign father is startling in the biographies of great men.” In their later lives many sought a very close, often secret partner, a He points to Picasso and Braque, “double.” Conrad and Heuffer, van Gogh and Theo. This idea, suggested earlier by Kohut, is abundantly illustrated by these portraits, most significantly, I feel, in the account of Freud and Jung’s relationship. Gedo clearly states his purpose (p. 103) as showing how these artists (and his patients) struggled to overcome “personal distress through the act of making art while simultaneously attempting to protect their creativity by keeping their psychopathology isolated from the sphere of his art.” He also says (p. 103), “I do not regard the correlation between creativity and significant psychopathology as an unvariable one.” Then why devote so much of this bookhowever fascinating the portraits of these particular artists may be-to the study of (p. 102) the “dialectic relationship between the creative process and psychopathology within the artist’s personality”? Do these artists. then. comprise thr artist of the book title? What about artists not so disturbed, not so famous? And what about analyzing the life and work of the artist with regard to the formal aspects of the art rather than exclusively on the artist’s psychological history? He writes about Picasso (p. 110) who couldn’t deal with mathematics because he could see numbers only abstractly as configurations. And as Mary Gedo writes (p. 140), “Psychological vicissitudes of Picasso’s life are reflected in his art not through changes in overt subject matter. but in formal innovations and even technical inven-
REVIEWS
153
tions.” John Gedo (p. 188) points to Cezanne as being so disturbed by his chronic paranoia and his own fantasies around sexual matters that he avoided “subject matter of his own bizarre fantasy” and “focused his emotional power on the formal aspects of his compositions.” I would have wanted him to pursue this, especially since new aesthetic theory, particularly that of Rose, point in the direction of the artist as a manipulator or organizer of perception, a maker of form. Does a psychoanalyst have the tools to do this’? An art historian’? The concluding chapters, dealing with Freud and Jung, give us much by way of understanding why these two men were so important to each other, why they diverged, personally and theoretically, and characterizes each in that divergence: Freud as the Socratic rationalist: and Jung as the religionist, the prophet. “Freud’s aim is to know; Jung’s was the cure of souls.” Then, with admirable humility. Gedo adds (p. 272) .. in our disdain of the irrational we have learned all too little.” It is this kind of open-mindedness that gives heart, for without it the author might remain trapped in the rationalism of Freud and never be able to fully deal with the mysteries of art. Gedo points several times to the analyst himself as a kind of artist, searching the mysteries. 1 believe this. The epilogue is devoted to questions of creativity in everyday life. He draws the line rather sharply here between “true” art-which involves commitment, discipline and must have universal, human meaning-and much of what our present culture calls art or creativity. What I miss in this dichotomy is the area we, as arts therapists, are devoted to: creative and aesthetic activity as a way to develop mastery, meaning, and healing of sorts. even for those without major artistic talent. Creativity as a healing element is the continuing focus of our work and certainly a mystery to be further examined. Had I more space, I would discuss some of the many stimulating ideas in this book. You will have to read the book yourselves and I recommend that you do so.
Mildred
Lachman-Chapin, MEd, ATR Deerfield, Illinois
,!I P.\?l~/I~,l/1~,~Cl~~, Vol.
I? pp. IS?-153.
Ankho
John (New
York:
International
E. Gedo,
The Guilford
Press.
This is a brilliant. gem-like book: multifaceted. reflecting many sources, sparkling with ideas. Its author is a psychoanalyst whose practice in Chicago has included an unusually large number of creative people. He has written a number of books and articles challenging and revising current theory and practice in his field. His wife. Mary Gedo, is an art historian whose books and writings have focused on the psychological sources of the artist’s work. Picasso has been her main subject to date. This is a book that speaks of partnership in many ways. Psychoanalysis and art history are melded in it. just as the author, often quoting his wife’s work, shows her co-work and influence. More subtly. one of the pervasive themes in all the portraits is that of the need of the creative person for a supporter, a partner, Moreover, more than half the even a “double.” book is devoted to psychological portraits of famous men, most done as comparisons in ptri~s. The first two chapters give us a summary of what psychoanalysis has contributed to questions of art. creativity, aesthetics and the understanding of the artist. First there is a review of biographical writings about famous artists of the past. The following chapter reviews the course of psychoanalytic theory about creativity. Here we have a penetrating review and critique of the work of such writers (among other significant contributors) as Waedler, Winnicott, Greenacre, Ehrensweig and Rose-fourteen pages which I would recommend to all arts therapists. The theoretical search starts with Freud’s focus on symbolic content in art and the motivations of the artist. The psychopathology of the artist is investigated. Id function and regression are seen as wellsprings. with sublimation as the mechanism by which primitive material is turned into art. As theory evolved. we have come to think not only about content but also about form and perceptual elements. particularly as the artist
Inc..
1986. PrInted in the U.S.A
0197.4556/86$3
00 + .OO
MD 19X3. 303 pages. %20.00)
is able to organize form as a way of mastery in self-organization. We are now seeing ego function as being more significant in the artistic process, creativity as a healthy development, and the creative process as having the nature of dialogue. There is promise in the first two chapters that the portraits to follow will differ from past psychoanalytic portraits of artists, reflecting more of the new theory. They do and they don’t. 1 was disappointed that they didn’t enough. Early in the book Gedo raises the question and aesthetic re(p. 28). “Do artistic creation sponse belong in the realm of psychic conflict at all’?” The implication is that we may consider a possible “no” answer. However, the clinical and historical portraits to follow do focus on the psychological conflicts of the artist. And Gedo states (p. 102) that he devotes much of his attention to the “dialectic relationship between the creative process and psychopathology within the artist’s personality.” In the clinical studies which follow in the next section, Gedo looks at blocks to creativity. special problems of creativity in women, male homosexuality and creativity. and, finally, the particular psychological problems of those patients of his who were creative geniuses. There are many valuable clinical ideas in these interesting case histories. The last two sections of the book consist of the historical studies, or portraits, to which I referred earlier. The artists he chose to study are all. he says, disturbed personalities, with only Freud as one who has made a satisfactory adjustment psychologically. They all succeeded in making extraordinary contributions to the world of art and the humanities despite their disturbances. Dr. Gedo gives us an understanding of each one’s most basic disturbance by reviewing his personal history and his work. To this task Gedo brings a mix of psychoanalytic insightIS?
BOOK including his own contributions to psychoanalytic theory-cultural erudition, wit, and the driving curiosity and wonder of a creative artist. His discussions comparing artists (Picasso and van Gogh) or examining the meaning of their relationships in terms of their work (van Gogh and Gauguin; Freud and Jung) are rich in surprises. This kind of analysis of pairs of creative men repeats in another form the book’s pervasive theme: the need for the creative artist to be supported and encouraged. For many, their fathers supplied this. As with Nietzche, Gedo says of similar depend(p. 204) ‘I. . . the frequency ence on a benign father is startling in the biographies of great men.” In their later lives many sought a very close, often secret partner, a He points to Picasso and Braque, “double.” Conrad and Heuffer, van Gogh and Theo. This idea, suggested earlier by Kohut, is abundantly illustrated by these portraits, most significantly, I feel, in the account of Freud and Jung’s relationship. Gedo clearly states his purpose (p. 103) as showing how these artists (and his patients) struggled to overcome “personal distress through the act of making art while simultaneously attempting to protect their creativity by keeping their psychopathology isolated from the sphere of his art.” He also says (p. 103), “I do not regard the correlation between creativity and significant psychopathology as an unvariable one.” Then why devote so much of this bookhowever fascinating the portraits of these particular artists may be-to the study of (p. 102) the “dialectic relationship between the creative process and psychopathology within the artist’s personality”? Do these artists. then. comprise thr artist of the book title? What about artists not so disturbed, not so famous? And what about analyzing the life and work of the artist with regard to the formal aspects of the art rather than exclusively on the artist’s psychological history? He writes about Picasso (p. 110) who couldn’t deal with mathematics because he could see numbers only abstractly as configurations. And as Mary Gedo writes (p. 140), “Psychological vicissitudes of Picasso’s life are reflected in his art not through changes in overt subject matter. but in formal innovations and even technical inven-
REVIEWS
153
tions.” John Gedo (p. 188) points to Cezanne as being so disturbed by his chronic paranoia and his own fantasies around sexual matters that he avoided “subject matter of his own bizarre fantasy” and “focused his emotional power on the formal aspects of his compositions.” I would have wanted him to pursue this, especially since new aesthetic theory, particularly that of Rose, point in the direction of the artist as a manipulator or organizer of perception, a maker of form. Does a psychoanalyst have the tools to do this’? An art historian’? The concluding chapters, dealing with Freud and Jung, give us much by way of understanding why these two men were so important to each other, why they diverged, personally and theoretically, and characterizes each in that divergence: Freud as the Socratic rationalist: and Jung as the religionist, the prophet. “Freud’s aim is to know; Jung’s was the cure of souls.” Then, with admirable humility. Gedo adds (p. 272) .. in our disdain of the irrational we have learned all too little.” It is this kind of open-mindedness that gives heart, for without it the author might remain trapped in the rationalism of Freud and never be able to fully deal with the mysteries of art. Gedo points several times to the analyst himself as a kind of artist, searching the mysteries. 1 believe this. The epilogue is devoted to questions of creativity in everyday life. He draws the line rather sharply here between “true” art-which involves commitment, discipline and must have universal, human meaning-and much of what our present culture calls art or creativity. What I miss in this dichotomy is the area we, as arts therapists, are devoted to: creative and aesthetic activity as a way to develop mastery, meaning, and healing of sorts. even for those without major artistic talent. Creativity as a healing element is the continuing focus of our work and certainly a mystery to be further examined. Had I more space, I would discuss some of the many stimulating ideas in this book. You will have to read the book yourselves and I recommend that you do so.
Mildred
Lachman-Chapin, MEd, ATR Deerfield, Illinois