Archetypal psychology and non-figurative painting

Abstract

Given that the idiom of archetypal psychology is emphatically figurative, how do we deal with non-figurative painting from this perspective? This paper focuses on the kind of abstract painting in which spontaneous, gestural marks create a ground where specific forms cannot be clearly distinguished (Jackson Pollock's ‘drip’ paintings being a well-known example). Such ‘chaotic’ paintings call into question the whole notion of what we mean by ‘image’. I relate these to Anton Ehrenzweig's concept of ‘inarticulate form’, as well as to some of James Hillman's ideas about aesthetic apprehension, and also draw on my own experience as an artist in creating a series called ‘The ground of All Being’.

Keywords:

• abstract painting
• nature of image
• inarticulate form
• chaos

Notes on contributor

David Maclagan is a writer, artist and retired art therapist. He was a full-time lecturer at the University of Sheffield 1992-2005. He has published many articles on archetypal psychology and on various aspects of art and art therapy. His books include: Creation Myths (Thames & Hudson 1977), Psychological Aesthetics (Jessica Kingsley 2001), Outsider Art (Reaktion 2009).