Sie befinden Sich nicht im Netzwerk der Universität Paderborn. Der Zugriff auf elektronische Ressourcen ist gegebenenfalls nur via VPN oder Shibboleth (DFN-AAI) möglich. mehr Informationen...
According to Wyndham Lewis, he possessed an unenviable knack of providing, at a week’s notice, almost any movement, or sub-movement, in the visual arts, with a neatly-cut party-suit—with which it can appear, appropriately caparisoned, at the cocktail-party thrown by the capitalist who has made it possible, in celebration of the happy event.3 Certainly, his enthusiasm for new artistic and intellectual initiatives at times led Read to make what were, even in his own estimation, some questionable alliances. First encountering Jung in the 1930s, Read quickly became a convert,eventually ending up as the chief editor of his collected works.38 The benefit of Jung’s model as he saw it was that while Freud’s unconscious was as individual and unpredictable as the surrealist art it inspired, Jung’s unconscious was populated by an order of collectively recognized archetypes. [...]without circumventing the quasi-egoist agency of the artist—by the 1940s, Read was able to figure aesthetic judgement as being “the discrimination of effective shapes,” and an individual’s “preference for certain physical laws” as a sign that the unconscious was engaged in “seeking an archetypal order.” [...]when Read replied he openly acknowledged to Gabo that “you express the philosophy which I also believe in”: constructivism, guided by an altruistic form of egoism, chimed closely with the ontology behind of the “community of individuals” that Read had been outlining in his social criticism.43 While he agreed with Gabo that the creative impulse should be essentially egoistic, however, the vocabulary that Read had picked up from Jung also allowed him to channel that egoism towards essentially collectivist ends.