Notes on the Leonardo Case

Conceived as the first part of an unpublished broader study, this brief essay by Alessandro Serra analyzes different reactions towards one of Freud’s most famous works: "Leonardo da Vinci and a Memory of His Childhood" (1910). From Ernst Kris to Meyer Schapiro, psychoanalysts, psychologist...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Alessandro Serra
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: University of Bologna 2010-12-01
Series:PsicoArt
Online Access:http://psicoart.unibo.it/article/view/2059
id doaj-c144531ea75a47a7b3950f4b7a656dd6
record_format Article
spelling doaj-c144531ea75a47a7b3950f4b7a656dd62020-11-25T00:46:12ZengUniversity of BolognaPsicoArt2038-61842010-12-011110.6092/issn.2038-6184/20591954Notes on the Leonardo CaseAlessandro Serra0Università di BolognaConceived as the first part of an unpublished broader study, this brief essay by Alessandro Serra analyzes different reactions towards one of Freud’s most famous works: "Leonardo da Vinci and a Memory of His Childhood" (1910). From Ernst Kris to Meyer Schapiro, psychoanalysts, psychologists and art historians agreed to reject the general conclusions of Freud’s essay, yet saving its theoretic assumptions. In fact, Freud’s work would remain an important part of author’s opera only because it represents the first time in which the “pulsion theory” appeared and the concept of “sublimation” is completely developed. But for Serra this is not enough. The author quotes a long passage from Freud’s paper, highlighting the historical and critical influences that contributed to its realisation. He dwells upon the famous mistranslation, which transforms Leonardo’s ‘kite’ into Freud’s ‘vulture’, and reviews Jung’s and the Protestant minister Pfister’s positions (mentioning also that of Christensen, who in a paper published in the influential “Psychoanalytic Review” in 1944 even talks about Leonardo’s eagle). In this way, while emphasizing the sequence of errors in this specific case, Serra reaffirms the importance of the psychoanalytic contribution – and in particular the “psychobiographical” one – for a flexible comprehension of the act of making art, which in the words of Merleau-Ponty which conclude the essay, is understood as an interpretation of the “exchange between the future and the past”.http://psicoart.unibo.it/article/view/2059
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Alessandro Serra
spellingShingle Alessandro Serra
Notes on the Leonardo Case
PsicoArt
author_facet Alessandro Serra
author_sort Alessandro Serra
title Notes on the Leonardo Case
title_short Notes on the Leonardo Case
title_full Notes on the Leonardo Case
title_fullStr Notes on the Leonardo Case
title_full_unstemmed Notes on the Leonardo Case
title_sort notes on the leonardo case
publisher University of Bologna
series PsicoArt
issn 2038-6184
publishDate 2010-12-01
description Conceived as the first part of an unpublished broader study, this brief essay by Alessandro Serra analyzes different reactions towards one of Freud’s most famous works: "Leonardo da Vinci and a Memory of His Childhood" (1910). From Ernst Kris to Meyer Schapiro, psychoanalysts, psychologists and art historians agreed to reject the general conclusions of Freud’s essay, yet saving its theoretic assumptions. In fact, Freud’s work would remain an important part of author’s opera only because it represents the first time in which the “pulsion theory” appeared and the concept of “sublimation” is completely developed. But for Serra this is not enough. The author quotes a long passage from Freud’s paper, highlighting the historical and critical influences that contributed to its realisation. He dwells upon the famous mistranslation, which transforms Leonardo’s ‘kite’ into Freud’s ‘vulture’, and reviews Jung’s and the Protestant minister Pfister’s positions (mentioning also that of Christensen, who in a paper published in the influential “Psychoanalytic Review” in 1944 even talks about Leonardo’s eagle). In this way, while emphasizing the sequence of errors in this specific case, Serra reaffirms the importance of the psychoanalytic contribution – and in particular the “psychobiographical” one – for a flexible comprehension of the act of making art, which in the words of Merleau-Ponty which conclude the essay, is understood as an interpretation of the “exchange between the future and the past”.
url http://psicoart.unibo.it/article/view/2059
work_keys_str_mv AT alessandroserra notesontheleonardocase
_version_ 1725266205225254912