On The Id-entity of Art

I will here speak of the views on Art and Intensity as held by Freud and Baudelaire.
I commence by observing how both seem concerned with these matters, and also
the matter of the repression of impulse and instinct, although exposing these concerns in
different ways, reflecting their own statuses: on the one hand we have a Doctor, a
Therapist, someone who is concerned with the health, in this case the mental health, of
people. Freud addresses these concepts in rational disquisitions of the human psyche and
how it relates to a society that, inevitably, influences it. On the other hand we have a Poet,
an Artist, someone who is at least concerned with aesthetics, and perhaps interestingly in
the case of Baudelaire, the aesthetics of the minds of his so called innocent monsters[1]
as a way to make art. It is by art that he seeks to reach intensity, and by intensity he hopes
to find ways to make art.
I turn now to Freuds regard for art as being a palliative measure[2]. Let us start by
examining the following excerpt from Civilization and its Discontents:
Life, as we find it, is too hard for us; it brings us too many pains, disappointments
and impossible tasks. In order to bear it we cannot dispense with palliative measures. (...)
There are perhaps three such measures: powerful deflections, which cause us to make
light of our misery; substitutive satisfactions, which diminish it; and intoxicating substances,
which make us insensible to it.[2]
He then explains the nature of substitutive satisfactions:
The substitutive satisfactions, as offered by art, are illusions in contrast with reality,
but they are none the less psychically effective, thanks to the role which phantasy has
assumed in mental life.[2]
It seems here patent that art is, in his view, a palliative measure which consists in a
substitutive satisfaction, illusory in its contents when contrasted with reality, but
nonetheless a consolation. A consolation towards what?
Just as a satisfaction of instinct spells happiness for us, so severe suffering is
caused us if the external world let us starve, if it refuses to sate our needs. One may
therefore hope to be freed from a part of ones sufferings by influencing the instinctual
impulses.[2]
We thus add to the characterization of Freuds view on art as a palliative measure
in that it serves as a consolation which influences the instinctual impulses that have been
repressed by the mind to rid us of suffering.
In what way does art influence the instinct?
Another technique for fending off suffering is the employment of the displacements
of libido which or mental apparatus permits of and through which its function gains so much
in flexibility. The task here is that of shifting the instinctual aims in such a way that they
cannot come up against frustration from the external world. In this, sublimation of the
instincts lends its assistance. One gains the most if one can sufficiently heighten the yield
of pleasure from psychical and intellectual work. When that is so, fate can do little against
one. A satisfaction of this kind, such as an artists joy in creating, in giving is phantasies
body () has a special quality[2]
We here learn that intensity from Art can be found if we select or shift the aspects of
the instincts that permit access to intensity in a way which guarantees that they do not
come at a struggle with the repression that we generate in our contact with the external
world. Intensity through Art comes as a sublimation of the instincts to which fate can do
little against.
We hence conclude that Freud does indeed see Art as a method to sublimate the
instincts, and as such, to fulfill the longing for intensity in a way that does not endanger our
health, as long as not taken to the extreme, as he further warns in his work.
How does this compare to Baudelaire? It seems that poet is less concerned with
reducing suffering or offering a solution of any kind. He too longs for intensity, he too is
aware of the repression of instinct around us, but he uses both of these to create art. Art for
Intensity and Intensity as art seems to be part of his thought. His prose-poem The Bad
Glazier from Paris Spleen offers us an invaluable insight into his ideas of intensity and
repression of impulses. He begins by introducing several examples of men living repressed
lives in modern society as well as describing some examples of the most absurd and the
most dangerous acts[1] which Freud would likely have seen as consisting in sublimation of
the instincts. In the prose-poem Baudelaire seems to focus on the acting on these impulses
as a way to achieve intensity, as a way to Make Life Beautiful![1]. This is further confirmed
by the following statements:
It is the kind of energy that springs from boredom and day-dreaming; and those
who display it so unexpectedly are, in general,(), the most indolent and dreamiest of
mortals.[1]
And
Such erratic pranks are not without danger and one often has to pay dearly for
them. But what is an eternity of damnation compared to an infinity of pleasure in a single
second?[1]
We see here a claim that this acting on impulse, although not without danger,
usually results in indolence, that is lack of pain, a view that would easily be held by Freud.
In this prose-poem the poet reveals to us an instance in which he himself has acted on
intensity, an intensity that has allowed him to write the very same prose-poem. Whether the
artist used art as a palliative measure is a matter that would easily lead us into controversy,
however we note another common point with Freud which is the importance of contrast in
generating happiness in this question of economics of the individuals libido[2].
On this matter Freud states:
We are so made that we can derive intense enjoyment only from a contrast and
very little from a state of things.[2]
Indeed, many artists resort to the technique of contrasts to generate tension and
opposition, and eventually an illusion of suffering. Does Baudelaire agree on this point? It
would seem that he does, based on his prose-poem XXVI. Notice how it opens with a
declaration of hatred towards his lover. Hatred is an intense feeling, a way to intensity. He
himself has used this to make art. Hatred not without a contrast, which is displayed further
along the prose-poem:
I plunged my eyes into your eyes, so beautiful and so curiously soft, into those
green eyes, home of Caprice and governed by the Moon, you said: Those people are
insufferable with their great saucer eyes. Cant you tell the proprietor to send them
away?[1]
The contrast here arises from the attraction to the beauty of his lover faced against
the impermeability to each other given away by their disagreement in contemplating the
poverty around them.
In summary, both thinkers agree on the crucial role of instinct and its repression in
Art. One does so by examining the economics of an individuals libido amidst a society
pressurizes into repressing such libidinous impulses; whilst the other opts for using the
aesthetic proprieties of the contrast between impulse and repression as generating
Intensity to make art - art for intensity, and intensity as means to make art.
[1]Charles Baudelaire, Paris Spleen
[2]Sigmund Freud, Civilization and its Discontents, Chapter II