Freud has always seemed like more of a case study than a psychologist to me, so while I enjoy reading his work, I can't fully ascribe to what he says. I think the main reason for this is that many of Freud's theories seem extremely tenuous. In the textbook, for example, Freud says that Leonardo da Vinci based the Mona Lisa's smile on his mother's smile, because da Vinci once recounted a dream (Freud claims it to be a fabricated memory) about being chased by a vulture. This dream supposedly symbolized da Vinci's reliance on his mother rather than his father. I have difficulty seeing how these two things are supposed to relate to each other, or how Freud could know that da Vinci invented a dream to summarize his relationship with his parents. It's true that a lot of people live in the shadow of their parents. Your upbringing affects you in minor and major ways throughout your entire life. However, I don't think this is how it comes out. It seems to me like Freud is looking for meaning in all the wrong places, and is very quick to assume the worst in people.

Is it possible for something in your past to unintentionally pop up in your art?

Does our past play that large a role in our basic life?