Many forays have been made by psychoanalysts into the aesthetic realm, particularly in the form of interpretations of works of art and discussions of the particular or general pathology that may predispose individuals toward artistic creativity. Likewise, occasional philosophers have commented on the usefulness of psychoanalysis as a way of approaching areas of mutual interest. This study aims to contribute to this ongoing interdisciplinary dialogue, primarily through a focus on pathography, the term and method originated by Freud in his 1910 (...) monograph on Leonardo da Vinci. ;The thesis begins with an attempt to establish grounds for a dialogue between aesthetics and psychoanalysis by offering a selective review of the literature, identifying three fundamental problems in aesthetics and three basic approaches within psychoanalytic theory, and presenting a discussion of the application of these three modes of psychoanalytic thought to problems of form and content in modern art. ;Next, it is established that pathography, which attempts to probe associations between works of art and the minds that created them, derives from the nineteenth century critical tradition to which Freud was heir. Pathography is subjected to a critique in terms of the ongoing debate in aesthetics concerning problems of intention and expression; finally, its special contributions and limitations are explored. Three models of pathography are presented in detail. Each model with its differing context, motive for interpretation and methodology is scrutinized from an interdisciplinary perspective. ;Beyond pathography, we consider finally the contribution of several post-Freudian theorists who have emphasized the importance of preoedipal development and illuminated certain more general problems of aesthetic interest, i.e., issues centering on response to works of art, creativity and the importance of the external object. The possibility of a developmental line for aesthetic experience is considered, and relevant contemporary infant research is summarized. ;The Appendix offers, beyond pathography, yet another approach of psychoanalysis to art in which the work of art is considered sui generis, not, as in pathography, tied inextricably to the mind of its creator. A statement concerning the vicissitudes of interdisciplinary scholarship concludes the study. (shrink)