Elkins J
Int J Psychoanal. 1994 Feb;75 ( Pt 1):119-32.
The history of art-historical responses to psychoanalysis has yet to be written. Art historians have imported a wide variety of psychoanalytic concepts, and psychoanalysis continues to be a major interpretive resource for the discipline of art history. But beyond the core of art-historical texts that are directly and explicitly influenced by psychoanalysis is a much larger, and I think more important, class of texts that do not cite psychoanalytic concepts, but would nevertheless not be possible without psychoanalysis and especially the fundamental concept of the unconscious. This paper examines the ways that the idea (or notion) of the unconscious affects current thinking about the control artists have over their works; I argue that, in this more general sense, psychoanalysis has tended to help art historians to take away artists' control and awareness of their own work, replacing it with the model of artists as workers largely unaware of what they do. Against this I argue that artists who are imagined to 'preside over their work with their eyes open' can be more interesting subjects, both historically and psychologically.
艺术史对精神分析的回应史尚待书写。艺术史学家引入了各种各样的精神分析概念，精神分析仍是艺术史学科的主要解释资源。但在受精神分析直接且明确影响的艺术史文本核心之外，还有一类数量更多且我认为更重要的文本，这些文本并未引用精神分析概念，但如果没有精神分析，尤其是无意识这一基本概念，它们便不可能存在。本文探讨了无意识观念影响当前关于艺术家对其作品控制的思考方式；我认为，从这种更普遍的意义上说，精神分析往往有助于艺术史学家剥夺艺术家对其自身作品的控制和意识，代之以艺术家作为基本上未意识到自己所作所为的工作者的模式。与此相反，我认为那些被想象为“睁大眼睛主持自己作品”的艺术家，从历史和心理角度来看，可能是更有趣的研究对象。
