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.
This paper is based on an article by E. Kris, 'The Psychology of Caricature, ' published in this JOURNAL, 1936, Vol. XVII. It deals with the historical problems of caricature from a psychological point of view.
Portrait-caricature is a surprisingly recent achievement in art. We have no evidence that it was practised before the late sixteenth century when it makes its appearance in the orbit of the Bolognese 'Academicians', viz. the Carraccis. The comic type has, of course, a much older history, which leads back to the fertility demons of primitive cults. In the same way the derisive picture depicting an opponent hanging on the gallows contains an unveiled remnant of image-magic. But mocking distortion of individual physiognomy, without giving up the sense of likeness, is not used in the field of either comic or aggressive art before the rise of caricature in the period about 1600.
The first part of the paper is devoted to an attempt at explaining this fact. It cannot have been a lack of skill which made previous periods of unchallenged artistic fame shrink from the simple art of caricature. Nor is a sociological explanation satisfactory, because in writing the most witty personal satire was used long before caricature in the modern sense was introduced.
A psychological insight into the mechanism of caricature helps to clear the ground. The principles of caricature coincide with those of verbal wit as defined by Freud. In both cases the mechanisms of the primary process are used to bring about those changes which satisfy the aggressive impulse. In the same way as the verbal material, the images are subjected to condensation (e.g. with features of an animal), or reduced to mere 'tabs of identity'. Caricature is, in fact, nothing but a graphic joke. We are thus faced with the question: 'Why is it that so primitive a mechanism makes so late an appearance in pictorial art?' The answer must necessarily be a psychological one. If one examines the state of art i