Freud. Oh Freud.
Well it is simple to think that i do not get along with many of his theories. I think Freud and i should see other people. Especially if he thinks that every fantasy i have either involves being better than everyone else, or sex. I don't think i can take him seriously if he doesn't think that i can fantasize about dancing in the rain or coloring, because then i get the idea that he is expecting way to much from me in terms of intentions. And this is why freud and i are not lovers. We just wouldnt understand each other. I quite like fantasising about things that are neither ambition, nor erotic. This leads me to think that his view of art and intention is also very based on ambition and eroticism. Because, if those are the only things which people fantasise about, then it is obvious that it would manifest itself in their art. And then the meanings of art would be severely reduced to something that is no longer solely art, but a psychological expression of their surpressed desires. I think that Freud just had trouble pleasing women, so he theorized that everything is a result of supressed emotions/experiences, or hidden desires (hence all of the hyper-sexualized malarky). But that's just me. I mean, it does explain the concept of wish fullfillment in art, but the fulfilled wish may be something that the artist does not need to cope with or get out in an artistic medium. And child play is very important becuase that is where all of our basis of understanding things comes from.

So my question for right now is how can art be an expression of something originating in childhood if the artist, is a child, or does not remember their childhood?