In a nutshell, this is my view on the subject: art is helpful in discovering and nourishing one’s soul, psychoanalysis is helpful in pointing out the already existing flaws and limitations in thinking. I think this is what Grey was trying to say, too.

that I wouldn’t add mathematicians or physicists to that. while a mathematician does use his psyche (intellect), that’s actually not the same.

No. I do agree with that to an extent. I took your remark personally, and was trying to remind you that this whole conversation started when Grey ‘s compared art to psychology. so I found ironic how you’ve said that when “just because you aren’t good at psychoanalysis or know nothing about it doesn’t mean it’s not important”.

Anyway..
” You seem like the type of person who believes we live, we die, and our body is left to rot and that’s it. ”
You have no idea how mistaken you’re.

” You can keep believing that everything that is real can be measured, but there is something magical – en energy – that you can’t measure. THIS is where your soul belongs. Soul is not psyche; it resides in a place not in the physical world. You can laugh at my reasoning if you want, but I hope one day you will experience something incredibly magical and see that this world is so much more vast, mysterious and immeasurable than you thought was possible. ”

….. This is ridiculous. What I find humorous is that I somewhat think the same way as you, but I’m just aware of the progress people ‘ve made with psychoanalysis and etc. Psyche resides in the physical world?? Where on earth did that come from? I’ve said we’ll be able to explain our psyche someday in a way most people understand, like we were able to do with body. Point is, we’ll be able to explain psychic part of the man like we explained his physical part.. Mind, soul – that’s all inside a vast psychic world – PSYCHE. I’m in fact aware of your “magical” experiences and the such, I did experience that things.. Look, it all depends on the person – what his psychic impulses are, what he makes of them.. He might be a priest, an artist or a programmer (they all require psychic (“spiritual”) work.

” You cannot explain to someone (*an individual*) how to be closer to their soul; it must be discovered by oneself. ”
I never argued with this.
A person does indeed have to discover that by himself, albeit psychoanalysyis can help him.

You seem like the type of person who believes we live, we die, and our body is left to rot and that’s it. Mediums are a load of bull, right? You can keep believing that everything that is real can be measured, but there is something magical – en energy – that you can’t measure. THIS is where your soul belongs. Soul is not psyche; it resides in a place not in the physical world. You can laugh at my reasoning if you want, but I hope one day you will experience something incredibly magical and see that this world is so much more vast, mysterious and immeasurable than you thought was possible. You cannot explain to someone (*an individual*) how to be closer to their soul; it must be discovered by oneself.

Anyway.

Perfectly fine, aside from two world wars to begin with.

For the record, I never said art is “not needed”, nor did I say anything about my choices and what’s most important to me. however I do anyway believe it doesn’t play as huge role for people as it did say, in the times of Edgar A.Poe.

“There is no way you can explain how music makes us feel the way we do – it’s an indefinable energy. ”
Sure you can, just because it is not explained on the level that all people can grasp doesn’t mean it’s impossible. It will be.

“if a person’s soul is dishonest then there is no hope for true emotional freedom. ”

You ‘re entitled to your views on this, but I find it a bit humorous these days some people still divide psyche into mind and soul. Psychoanalysis studies psyche, not “mind”. Don’t mix it with psychology.

It is quite humorous as well you’re saying this, because that’s exactly what psychoanalytical studies ‘re trying to do. Help people be “honest” with their psyche (“soul”).

“Trying to “fix emotions” is silly anyway. Some of the greatest minds of all time have been influenced by mental illness.”
Once again, psychoanalysis doesn’t “fix” “emotions” in the way some people ‘re implying. And besides, you make it seem as if these great minds were mentally ill not in spite of the society they ‘re living in..

I think Budda said it best when he said, “all suffering is a direct result of failure to understand the true nature of oneself” – and he is absolutely right. Psychoanalysis may be able to apply “bandaid fixes” to mental illness, through medication and whatnot, but if a person’s soul is dishonest then there is no hope for true emotional freedom. Trying to “fix emotions” is silly anyway. Some of the greatest minds of all time have been influenced by mental illness.

On a side note, this conversation reminds me of Ghost in the Shell 2. The future as represented in this film is deprived of emotions. But still, humans have an urge to find meaning in life. Without emotions, the only thing left is reason. They spend their time analysing the human psyche, looking for answers. A realisation occurs; the solution to life is not in the mind (psychoanalysis) but in the soul – an infinitely complex and intangible energy. There is no way you can explain how music makes us feel the way we do – it’s an indefinable energy. It connects people and makes us feel human and whole. That is far more important to mental health than anything.

“The original creator *was* Freud. It developed past the primitive ideas belonging to him and his colleagues, if you can call that development.”
Yes he was, and what? Today’s (and tomorrow’s) computers are Von Neumann’s machines, does that make them as primitive? Besides, who are you? A man of art or a psychiatrist? Yes, for your information it did develop a lot.

you do realize art and people’s psyche are connected to the world they were (and are) living in? to religion and society? do you think we would have the same artists and musicians if Christianity wouldn’t be the Europe’s religion, but say, Satanism would be?.. Art is sublime. and say, XVII century art is more sublime than today’s art. It’s not Freud’s fault that human’s psyche isn’t as “beautiful” as you wish it to be.

“Identifying where an impulse comes from does not help most people understand it.”
“Most”? if we’d base our studies on what “most” of the society understand we would still use ancient methods of pain management instead of novocaine.

The discovery of LSD made a huge impact on understanding human psyche, and on society as well. Further proving original Freud’s theories.

“It treats people like individuals, not text book cases.”
It scares me to think what would become of medicine if people thought like this.. We are not quite capable of understanding psyche like we do body, but some day we’ll be, no doubt about it. and psychoanalysis is the tool to achieve this. not sublime emotional messages that is art.

“Most importantly, art helps us deal with everyday life instead of targeting abnormalities and chasing geese.
It’s a shame you can’t see it, but maybe you will some day.”
.. You make it seem as if our society is the only possible one. and I do “see” it, it “helped” 200 years ago, not quite “succesfully” in fact. What you call “abnormalities” are they key to your everyday’s life..

and yes this is indeed off-topic.. You’ve made a good point about games and art, completely agreed. But don’t pretend art is so ultimate and can compete with true studying of psyche.

“and that it’s original creator was Freud.”
The original creator *was* Freud. It developed past the primitive ideas belonging to him and his colleagues, if you can call that development.

“That’s just an insult to all psychoanalysts”
Identifying where an impulse comes from does not help most people understand it.

Cassavetes actually did make a film that helped the mentally ill (not in the narrow way you mean it, I’m assuming) called A Child is Waiting. Unfortunately, the final cut was stripped of its meaning by a Hollywood producer.

Most importantly, art helps us deal with everyday life instead of targeting abnormalities and chasing geese. Will art benefit one specific person more? Probably. It treats people like individuals, not text book cases. It’s a shame you can’t see it, but maybe you will some day.

But this is straying too far off topic. I’ll just reiterate that simple entertainment has no place in art and that one should be cautious when dismissing it.

I don’t remember psychoanalysis trying to isolate feelings or making a person “normal” in the way you’re implying.. on the contrary in fact.

“I never studied Freud or his successors, and that may be evident,”
Indeed. Your whole knowledge of it is that it’s about sex and/or vilolence and that it’s original creator was Freud. That’s like saying art is just drawing or composing a song.

“Why does it matter whether they’re a product of the conscious or unconscious mind? ”
That’s just an insult to all psychoanalysts and Albert Hoffman. Way to go.

I hope your Cassavetes will someday help mentally ill persons, instead of being a high emotional way of expressing yourself.

Watch a film by Cassavetes and tell me what psychoanalysis can say about the unpredictable, constantly shifting motions his actors go through. What does it have to say about the simplest actions that can’t be aligned with any general emotion or conflict? Why does it matter whether they’re a product of the conscious or unconscious mind? What, really, can it tell you about the pauses and the silences between actions and words? You can’t predict human nature in any way that’s meaningful to the *individual*, and psychoanalysis tries to do this. When would you ever hear a psychoanalyst tell you that a man is a man because of, not in spite of, the burdens he has borne like Frank Capra does?
I never studied Freud or his successors, and that may be evident, but I understand that psychoanalysis associates aggressive and sexual desires and involves semiotics. That’s laughable for something that purports to understand human nature.

I’d wager that someone would be able to see more of themselves when viewing vulnerable humans in films than by reading up on Freudian theories (and I mean theory in the non-scientific sense). Art is more recognisable and relays things in more human terms. Of course, with art, they’d have to work at a solution or an understanding. So yes, art and psychoanalysis are not equal at all.

Better than cheap american psychological surveys? yes. better than Psychoanalysis? Not even equal.

Furthermore, video games are not a medium. They are what exploitation is to the film medium. They are what pop is to music. Tailor made using certain mechanics and rigid formulae to serve an ultimately meaningless and shallow purpose. They are a product for mass consumption. If they aren’t fun or challenging, they fail. We all enjoy them, but let’s not pretend they’re at all relevant to art.

Duchamp and the Dada movement? Embarrassing blemishes on the past century. It’s something we should forget. No, creating art isn’t ‘easy,’ and understanding it is much harder than physics or calculus. It’s about humans, their relationships and the individual. Modern day people get swept up in commercialised society. They’re told what to think and how best to act normal. Some people are actually taught that “commercial viability out-legitimizes artistic integrity any day of the week.” How does that not ring alarm bells in everyone? Dadaism is a diversion, whereas actual art is the one that allows expression and sets you free.

Look, I’m not talking about the warped views and analyses applied to art by some theorists and schools. Art isn’t about metaphors or meaningful composition or quality narrative. Duchamp and the Dadaists thought it was and ended up rebelling against nothing.
I’m talking about works that speak about the complexity of a person and of life and of nature. Something honest that may not involve reality, but does feature real emotion. Spirituality, even. Henry James’ The Golden Bowl, Joyce’s Ulysses, John Cassavetes’ A Woman Under the Influence, Tarkovsky’s Andrei Rublev and the masterworks of Beethoven and of Mozart.

It pains me to see those works robbed of their majesty by comments like “anything can be art” or “high art is pretentious and we should work to disassociate ourselves from it.” Art is the most normal thing. It’s the one closest to us and the one that helps us understand ourselves and our world better than by using any psychological survey or text-book. It’s inviting, not elitist. How in the world do games fit into this?