Too much Freud in art now?
Jul 1st, 2008 by Brad
Last November, I read a NYT article that said that Freud and psychoanalysis form a key part of humanities teaching, while in those same universities his teachings are virtually extinct in psychology courses. Read Patricia Cohen’s article “Freud Is Widely Taught at Universities, Except in the Psychology Department”
In the day, I took enough psychology to minor in it. Courses, at all levels, would spend a couple of weeks talking about Freud and then spend the whole rest of the course showing how science-flimsy Freudian ideas didn’t bare out. I’ll freely admit I don’t have the chops to argue with Psychoanalysts or Psychologists on that side of the debate, I do think that too many artist just rely on simple Freudian descriptions in their art (maybe that they learned from an art prof when they got their MFA?).
Over the past several year, I’ve seen too many references to Freud or Freudian imagery in shows in both New York and Portland. Freud isn’t the only well to go to, artists need to dig deeper and cast a wider net. It is like trying to only using the 4 Greek elements (Earth, water, Air, and Fiber) to provide the only vocabulary to talk about modern physics. … or only using Aristoliean art theories to create art.
…sure there are some classic ideas that are at the foundations of cultural thought, but my advice, don’t be lazy, read everything, there are some amazing new ideas in every field of study and thought.
