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.
Artemisia Gentileschi is of interest to us as a remarkable painter of the 17th century, as a remarkable woman, and as the subject of miscellaneous voices in her time and in our time that illustrate our all too human tendency to stereotype minorities, especially women, and our tendency to embrace prejudices that try to explain (away) the challenges of their existence. For reasons of their own, psychoanalytic voices with their zeal for interpretations have added comments that reduce a phenomenon rather than illuminate them. The oedipal conflict, in the early days of psychoanalysis, were invariably found to be the prime motor energizing artists’ personalities or their creations. In recent times, as Mohacsy emphasizes, the theory of trauma has replaced the Oedipus conflicts in causal explanations. Mohacsy, in contrast, in her multidimensional, multifacetted presentation illuminates Artemisia and her art in many ways and accepts the phenomena of creativity as fundamentally unexplainable, as a magical happening that we can appreciate and enjoy.
Artemisia was not only a great painter but also a remarkable woman who coped admirably with the considerable challenges in her life. Mohacsy makes an important point when discussing our predilection to be drawn to a dynamic theory that emphasizes trauma. We have been pathologyminded and have failed to fully appreciate the many vital dimensions in our modes of adaptation and failed to appreciate our extraordinary ability to cope with adversity as well as our failures to cope. Our psychoanalytic science arose out of psychopathology. We formulated ideal norms which invariably included loving and nourishing parents, but rarely addressed the capacity to cope in spite of horrendous circumstances in childhood or at a later date. Our inherent human potential to adapt to difficulties in our own individual ways is tremendous. We, analysts, have tended to look for pathology and often missed pockets of strength, of vitality, and budding creativ