A (Brief) Psychoanalytic Conceptualization of the Creative Process

In my very first post, I theorized about a possible Oepidal reading of the creative process.  The thought has crept in and out of my attention over the past weeks and so I thought I would spend some time playing with the idea in this post.  What I would like to potentially chart out, mostly for my own amusement, are some possibilities for reading the creative process as running parallel to the relational developmental process that individuals go through—from the monadic, to the dyadic and onto the triadic—noting the potential relevance this could contribute in terms of understanding not just the development of a work of art, but whether or not that work of art could be considered “successful”, “important”, “viable”, etc.

Some things that are probably worth observing right off the jump.  First (and most obvious), this is a blog, not a doctoral dissertation.  I’m going to dedicate a handful of words to these ideas.  They are going to be incomplete, a bit sloppy, and are being constructed largely in the interest of having fun with some theory.  Let’s not take this one too seriously.  Second, these are primarily my own ideas.  I did a quick search to see if anything interesting popped up, but I think grounding this in serious theory would take more research than would be commensurate to whatever effort I intended to vest in this particular post.  Third, this is only going to be useful to you if it’s useful to you.  I know that seems a bit tautological, but nonetheless, if what follows feels fun/interesting/relevant to your own creative process or helps you in engaging with the creative output of others, great.  If not, then it’s probably not for you, and that’s OK.

The trajectory I’m using as a theoretical reference point primarily harkens back to the work of Margaret Mahler in terms of conceptualizing development as monadic (the organism before the developmental ability to recognize the other), dyadic (the onset of the process of separation and individuation from the caregiver), and triadic (oedipal process and beyond).  I think what structurally makes the most sense is to first identify the potential parallels in the creative process, and following that, to discuss what various developmental arrests or progressions might look like in the actual process of the working through of a creative project.

The monadic, as I see it, is the beginning of the creative process.  This is the germinal phase where the idea is little more than a whisper whirring around in the artist’s head.  That is not to say that there are no environmental factors that influence the inception and initial execution of an idea.  Moreso, I would say it is such that, in as much as environmental factors are having an influence at this stage, the influence is less conscious, and far more instinctual or intuitively fortified, deriving instead from the density of undifferentiated lived experience.  Most often, the initial step is the recognition of an idea that “seems interesting” and then the process of iterating and reconstituting begins, which enables the transition into the second developmental phase.

The dyadic is the point in the creative process where whatever is being worked out beings to take shape.  Or said another way, it is how the objects being used are sufficient or insufficient for communicating the concept.  In human development, this is the point in time where the heretofore seemingly singular organism of the mommy-baby begins to work through the process of separating and differentiating its two components.  Winnicott notes the use of transitional objects during this period, the most common examples of which are something like the doll, teddy bear, or blanket.  Transitional objects help ease the inevitable anxiety that comes along with that separation.  The idea of the transitional object can in itself be a useful transitional object if we expand its application to any real world or interpsychic phenomenon which aids us in the process of psychic movement and reintegration.  The idea of the work of art as transitional object is perhaps one of the few things I think I’ve read where a relationship between psychoanalytic ideas and the creative act is signaled outright (though I can’t remember in what papers I saw this point being made).  The work of art, and the metaphors being employed in that process, very much serve as transitional phenomena for the one doing the creating.  The object takes on a meaning in excess of what it is, and this meaning helps to organize and expand the possibility of outreach and human connection in the realm of ideas.

I think the other dyadic element worth noting, is the sense of separation one begins to undergo with whatever it is they are creating.  With each working through of a new problem and each advancement to a new phase in the creative process, the creator who is engaged in an authentic relationship with their creation is already in the process of grieving and letting go.  This is the transition that will bring us to one of the Oedipal features of this process.  Loewald has a nice summary in his paper on repetition, but the essential element is that the resolution of and successful navigation of the Oedipal arrangement is organized around the mourning and healthy internalization of the idealized parental relationships, so that future instances of relational conflicts can be approached creatively rather than compulsively.  In one of his papers exploring the schizoid position, Fairbairn actually talks about a kind of artist who, following the completion of a project, feels a sense of attachment and ownership for fear that releasing their work out into the world means a relinquishing of some aspect of the self.  I think there is a kind of healthy possessiveness to the working through phase.  However, most creative types who seem to have a—and this may be my own bias—“healthy” relationship to what they create will tell you that once a work is shared in any way that allows it to be consumed by others, there is some element of it that is no longer theirs.

This transitions us to one version of the triadic phase of the creative process.  There is an obvious triadic relationship between the artist, the creative act, and the one interpreting the creative act.  Depending on which position you find yourself in (that of creator or consumer) will likely influence which position the other elements in that process take up, some of which are mildly interesting to think about in terms of the potential psychological and neurotic impact on one’s own process for engaging with art (and what that might reveal about one’s own Oedipal organization).  For instance, as the consumer, what would it mean if one had a relationship where the work of art took up more of the super-ego position and the artist the position of the id-based instinctual impulses, resulting in an organization where the realm of Art was seen as the ultimate authority on whether a work of art “has worth” and the kind of creative measures the artist employs to render their work is secondary.  Conversely, there could be an organization at play which privileges a desire to connect sensually with the work of the artist at the expense of the typical “rules” of the creative act as an ostensible “work of art”.  We could also likely flip these positions and map them out again with subtle effects on what it might mean to appreciate a work of art (that is put the artist in more of a super-ego position and the creative output in the id-based position).

I think there is another Oedipal configuration worth noting, and one that (for me) has a considerable bearing on whether I find myself willing to positively value a work of art.  I’m thinking about the creative output of the artist as Oedipally arranged, wherein ideas are not rendered into simple binaries, but rather are explored as complex algorithms of human thought and emotion.  The healthy Oedipal position is one in which the subject is capable of holding tension, delaying gratification, and wending their way through a complex maze of human experience.  I would suggest that a sufficiently complex work of art should be able to do the same.  This is almost certainly a bias on my part to want to elevate works of art that are “difficult”, but I think also carries some kernel of truth and might be able to tell us about the kind of “need” that is being satisfied when a person engages with a particular kind of artwork.  To translate this idea to something like the realm of literature, the “difficult” works would likely be those executed by those types of writers who are clearly striving for some sort of critical recognition, who see themselves as engaging in a craft where some personal perception of what constitutes “quality” supersedes a kind of consumability that the marketplace often dictates.  The more dyadic version of this might be something like the “dime-store novel”, which often trades in pulpy, easily digestible genre fare, which is intended to be almost predictable in the kind of effect it elicits in the reader.  There is a binary at play (it either has the intended effect or it doesn’t) which is purely rooted in the ability of the writer to identify and gratify the expected need.

These are just some initial thoughts.  I’m sure there will likely be opportunity to expand on these ideas further and I look forward to returning to them at some point.  Particularly as it pertains to either using other psychoanalytic theories to expand on these ideas further, or stumbling upon theoretical crumbs in other writers who spend time thinking about the overlap in the realms of psychoanalysis and the creative process.