australasian journal of

Psychotherapy
Vol 28 N 1 & 2 2009

Book Reviews
Janet Sayers
127

Freuds ArtPsychoanalysis Retold

Routledge, London, 2007, 217 pages, paperback Eugen Koh
The interface between psychoanalysis and art is a source rich in fascination, and one that has been explored by psychoanalysts, artists and academics from a wide range of disciplines. The approaches adopted by the writers from these disciplines and their perspectives are in themselves worthy of consideration. A brief overview of this field of writing may be useful in putting into context this contribution from Janet Sayers.
Book Reviews

The focus of psychoanalysts has tended to be on the artworks themselves, and such approaches have varied from the crude and simplistic decoding of symbols to a more sophisticated deconstruction of an artwork within what is known about the life history of an artist, as compared with Freuds writing on Michelangelos Moses (1914). Much less commonly has the focus been on the process of art making. This is not surprising as psychoanalysts rarely have access to the artists while they are creating their works. Melanie Klein and the tradition of the analysis of children might prove the exception, as here analysts have the privilege of observing children drawing and creating. Donald Winnicotts writings on the parallels between creativity and play, and on the role of the transitional object and transitional space also provide some understanding of the artistic process. Interestingly, this is rarely discussed in literature on psychoanalysis and art. By and large, the approach of psychoanalysts has rested on the application of psychoanalytic theories to art.

Eugen Koh

128

The approach of artists on the other hand, has been to treat psychoanalysis as a set of ideas or concepts, and too many artists have often ended up doing no more than illustrate various aspects of psychoanalytic theories through their art. Consider for instance, the surrealists, their artists and writers. In the first surrealists manifesto, written by Andre Breton in 1924, the author speaks at length about the unconscious process of art making, in particular the surrealists attempts to replicate the process of free association through so-called automatismwriting without construction or censorship. Since then, much of surrealism has been about illustrating unconscious processes; for instance, paintings that depict dreams. Between the psychoanalyst and the artist, emerges the art historian and art critic. Art historians and critics might argue that unlike psychoanalysts, they bring a greater understanding of the art, the artists and the process by which art evolves. Some, perhaps many, art historians and critics who have written in this field often appear to have only a theoretical understanding of psychoanalysis, making its application seem superficial. The late Peter Fuller, one of the more influential art critics in Britain in the 1980s, was an exception. His seminal book, Art and Psychoanalysis (1988), offers an excellent account of object relations psychoanalytic theories. His consideration of the artistic process within that paradigm is rich and illuminating. Perhaps such in-depth treatment of the subject was only possible because of Fullers personal experience of a Kleinian analysis.

Vol 28 N 1 & 2

Australasian Journal of Psychotherapy

Where do I locate Janet Sayers in this field of writing about art and psychoanalysis? Sayers is a psychoanalytic psychotherapist, and clinical psychologist trained at the Tavistock Clinic, who teaches psychoanalysis at Kent University, United Kingdom. Her writing suggests a passionate interest in art, and demonstrates her considerable knowledge about the subject, or at least what has been written about the subject. Sayer includes no less than 750 references in some 200 pages. It is unclear however, whether Sayer is an artist or has significant experience in the analysis of artists, or whether and how she uses art in her psychotherapy practice. Such information, I think, is relevant as it offers a context for the authors opinion. Freuds Art is undoubtedly a rich book, as it makes extensive reference to a broad range of psychoanalytic theories and, to a lesser extent, to writings about art (most of these by authors from the field of psychoanalysis). Although Sayers declared aim is to cast the story of psychoanalysis through the lens of art, I remain unclear as to what she had hoped to achieve and, particularly, whom she intends as her readers. Those with a strong psychoanalytic background, who are looking forward to an in-depth treatment of the psychoanalysis of art, may find this book tedious, as much of it covers the basic principles of the main psychoanalytic theories. References to art are present but they are sporadic by comparison.

On the other hand, those who are unfamiliar with psychoanalytic theories may find this book inaccessible. Although it attempts to introduce the basic principles of the various schools of psychoanalysis, the writings are too dense to be useful to the uninitiated. Is it possible to explain the basic principles of Freud, Klein, Jung, Lacan, Winnicott and Bion in less than a hundred pages? Thankfully, Sayers aims to go beyond simply providing an overview of psychoanalysis. However I am uncertain about how well she succeeds in exploring the interface between art and psychoanalysis. She has managed to unearth what certain key psychoanalytic figures have written about art, but while most of what Freud, Klein and Lacan write about art is interesting, it is the contribution of so-called followers such as Adrian Stokes, Marion Milner and Julia Kristeva that offers deeper and more meaningful insights. For instance, Freud contrasts paintingin his view a constructive processwith psychoanalysis, a deconstructive process, which is more akin to carving. Sayers notes that the art critic and painter, Adrian Stokes (who was analysed by Klein) has criticized artists who exercise manic and omnipotent control over their material by imposing their preconceived feelings and fantasies onto it. In modeling, Stokes writes, artists do not allow their medium any rights of its own. Modelers begin their art making from their own ideas and fantasies, not from ideas and fantasies, which they find revealed to them by the material with which they work. Sayers notes that in Stokess view, artists who adopt a carving approach respond to what they find in their material. Sayers, however, appears eager to highlight the similarities between the analytic process and the artistic/creative process. She observes that carving can serve as an emblem of how psychoanalysts respond to what they find in what their analysands say and do by free association. It also serves as an emblem of analysts adjusting their interpretations to take into account what emerges from the analysands subsequent free associations in their work together (p. 66). Sayers returns repeatedly to the theme that just as painters make what is meaningless and potentially traumatic into what can become conscious, meaningful and manageable through being made into the palpable stuff of meaning which we can see, so too analysts make what is silent and unconscious into the palpable stuff of meaning through transforming its signs into words that the analysand can hear. (p. 178 ) In my personal opinion, in the interface between art and psychoanalysis one of the most interesting though largely unappreciated writers is Marion Milner, author, artist and psychoanalyst, who was both supervised by Klein and a close colleague of Winnicotts. I am glad that Sayers devotes a whole chapter to

129

Book Reviews Eugen Koh

Milners contribution, but her discussion focuses largely on the theme of feminine receptivity. Regrettably, Sayers mentions only in passing Milners important observation of destructiveness in the creative process. Winnicott (1963) writes about the ambivalence of artists, to reveal or not to reveal. To this I would add: to create or to destroy. I wonder if Sayers was afraid to explore the parallel between destructiveness in the analytic setting and that of the artists studio. I believe analysts and artists have much to learn from the destructiveness and creativity that occur in each setting.
130

In reflecting on the creative processes that underpin this book, at first I was impressed by its ambitious aims. I wondered if the original draft may have been twice or three times the length of the final outcome. This book is perhaps far too dense. Many important and interesting ideas are raised but not followed through with sufficient depth. The 750 references bring in many, perhaps far too many observations, too many to cram into less than 200 pages. In the end, the overall treatment appears superficial. Furthermore, as new ideas are introduced, as a reader I find I am distracted by a stream of free associations from a large number of related works that come to mind (hence the numerous references). I find this frustrating. Perhaps I was disappointed in my hope for a book that could explore the creative process from a psychoanalytic perspective in considerable depth, namely a book that could systematically and critically examine certain ideas and build upon them with fresh insights from the author. This is not such a book. It is instead, a pot-pourri of interesting psychoanalytic ideas through the artistic lens. The reader who is interested in simply lying on the couch with a wealth of free-associated ideas about art and psychoanalysis will find this to be much more than a feast.

Vol 28 N 1 & 2

Australasian Journal of Psychotherapy

References:
Freud S. (1914). The Moses of Michelangelo. S.E., 13 , pp 21136. Hogarth, London. Andre Breton. Manifesto of Surrealism. 1924. Peter Fuller. (1988). Art and Psychoanalysis. Hogarth, London. Donald Winnicott. (1963) Communicating and Not Communicating Leading to a Study of Certain Opposites. The Maturational Process and the Facilitating Environment. Karnac, 1984. Eugen Koh 8/206 Albert Street, East Melbourne, Victoria, 3002