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.
The art of Marie Bashkirtseff is psychologically significant in connection with the “self revelation of the Journal,” used as a key to the mainsprings of her artistry.
According to Alice Hermann-Cziner, Marie Bashkirtseff's drawing ability is based on hand libido combined with bodily beauty.
Such factors Imre Hermann had previously equated with early childhood experiences revealed in certain case histories.
But Alice Hermann-Cziner's evidence as derived from the “Journal” belongs chiefly to adolescence rather than to childhood.
In the present study, on reexamining the evidence presented in the ‘Journal,’ no preference for manual activity is found, as oral activity, based on late weaning, appears about equally developed.
A study of the “Journal” reveals a regression to infancy, jealousy masking homosexuality, exhibitionist tendencies, masculine traits, a narcissistic emphasis on all parts of her body, and a preference for white and red.
A childhood experience of her third year, perhaps an instance of a “spiritualizing act” linked to the hand, relates to her brother, and suggests sadistic-masochistic roots. Painting may be a kind of aggression to revivify some unconscious infantile occurrence.
Dreams, her attitude toward men, marriage and parents, and her frequent travels, indicate a mother attachment.
An hallucination reveals an œdipus situation based on penis envy.
A libidinal satisfaction is derived from the voice functioning through song, indicating a longing for a return to infancy.
An interest in sculpture is due to a link established with the œdipus situation.
Painting represents an outlet for instinctual drives traced to childhood, and was not selected because of any single-minded devotion to art based on a confidence in her own talent.
An interest in painting is conditioned by a narrow range of ideas with a strong emotional basis.
Individual paintings reveal an erotic source, though outwardly conventional and conforming to the academic standards of her period.
A final impetus toward painting accrues from a death wish, perhaps founded in childhood and developed in a narcissistic conflict.
In conclusion, what has a study of one artist through the analytical approach established in regard to the problem of artistic talent? Emotional drives engendered in childhood provided the energy back of later artistic endeavors. That the path taken was along literary and artistic lines may have been due in part to a strengthening of a unified hand-mouth system as suggested by Imre Hermann, in this instance in the wake of late weaning. Though the evidence is not complete, it is also very probable that through some spiritualizing act her hand received a special emphasis during infancy. Through practice this became a skill, a special aptitude for drawing. That such skill eventually developed into professional painting was in part fortuitous. In the nascent emancipation of women in the late nineteenth century, literature and art above other professions were tolerated and even recognized as a proper sphere for feminine genius.
George Sand and Rosa Bonheur had paved the way. With such illustrious examples, it was perfectly feasible, and in no way revolutionary or masculine, to aspire to preëminence in these fields. Before she entered upon professional study of painting, several other possible, and more immediate and personal, ways to achieve renown were tried. One may wonder why such a combination of ability and industry did not result in artistically more significant paintings. Two circumstances throw some light on this question. A mother attachment and a premonition of an early death demanded a quick success. This was possible only in that sphere of painting which was established in the general esteem, the art of the “Salon,” sanctioned by official state support. Craving recognition and looking to authority for guidance in matters of art, she considered an award in a “Salon” exhibition the obvious goal to insure fame. On the other hand, the vital painting of her day, of the impressionistic school, had but a small following and lacked popular appeal. Hence, her most innermost emotional needs cut her off from those sources which might have given her artistic development a different direction. Nevertheless, in the particular artistic environment in which circumstances had placed her, she was successful. She never aimed at anything more specific in art than, celebrity, wherever it might be won.
If Marie Bashkirtseff it not linked even as pupil to the great names of modern French painting, it is because she never came under that influence. For this a general family environment, including a special childhood situation are more responsible than any specific hand cathexis. The latter predisposed generally to the field of painting; the former gave an impetus in a particular direction. Whatever element of rebellion Marie Bashkirtseff might have had, it did not carry over to painting sufficiently to make her seek out new paths. To satisfy unconscious promptings coming from infantile attachments, a literary subject-approach to painting served her better than any objective experimentation with problems of color, light and atmosphere could possibly have done. It may be stated categorically, her neurosis and not the size of her talent made her the kind of painter she was.