You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
No I would not give you false hope
On this strange and mournful day
But the mother and child reunion
Is only a motion away…
Psychoanalysis has long been intrigued by art and the creative process. By using various theories, analysts have speculated on the meaning of art, symbolism, and the motivation to create. One might put it this way: What light can psychoanalysis shed on artistic production? This approach has been quite insightful. At times, though, psychoanalytic theory found self-validation in the enterprise, shedding light on itself: art being used to substantiate particular psychoanalytic ideas.
Gilbert Rose has taken a different, highly productive approach. Through a series of books and seminal articles since the mid-1960s, Rose has searched for the roots of the emotional power of art — how art deeply moves us, leads to growth and, in traumatic states, integration and healing (1963, 1971, 1980, 1987, 1991, and 1996). His particular talent is the exploration of non-verbal, non-representational art forms. Rose believes aesthetic response is primarily an emotional experience: artistic expression “gets right on to the nervous system” as Francis Bacon describes it (, p. 25) — and it is Rose's main interest. Perhaps most important to the practicing analyst, Rose has theorized how aesthetic experiences may have a parallel in the therapeutic action of therapy. As Rose is especially interested in the non-verbal arts (see his wonderful paper on abstract art [Rose, 1991]),