William Phillips
ARTISTIC TRUTH AND
THE WA 'RPED VISION *
Almost from the beginning, our culture has had a double
image of the creative man: he was believed to be obsessed, perhaps
even mad, yet at the same time he was thought to have some extra–
ordinary gift of insight, some great wisdom not shared by ordinary
people. This apparent contradiction has never been resolved; some–
times it was the normality of the artist that was emphasized, while at
other times
his
prophetic powers were stressed, though usually the
question was solved by ignoring it. With the development of psycho–
analysis, the problem has taken on a new cast. At first, it was simply
assumed that art is in some manner connected with neurosis, though
there was disagreement about whether art expresses neurosis or the
catharsis of the neurosis. More recently, however, the trend has been
mostly the other way, to dissociate the work of art from the neurosis
of the author, and to regard it as a "normal" achievement, a triumph
of health over sickness.
This more wholesome view of the creative process
is
often put
forward in the language of psychoanalysis, but it also obviously
reflects the need for personal tranquillity and social adjustment
that dominates the mood of the present. For one thing, the discovery
that neurosis is curable, putting it within the domain of health and
hygiene, was bound to make creative aberration less palatable. Even
more important, the association of psychological disorder with the
estrangement of the modern artist-as in the cult of the unique,
from Rimbaud to Dylan Thomas-has made it difficult to distinguish
the neurotic from the anarchic personality. Though it
is
still not
clear whether the bohemian dedication to depravity simply releases
neurosis, or is tied up with it, we think of the two as belonging
• This essay will appear as the introduction to a forthcoming anthology,
Art
and Psychoanalysis,
to be published this spring by Criterion Books.
