ABSTRACT
Jung’s distinction here between the psychic potency of the symbol and aesthetic completeness is perhaps a clue to more than just his distinguishing between two kinds of images in art. For whereas he calls a “sign” those motifs that denote a single, straightforward meaning, he insists that “symbols” point to something mysterious, not fully understood and yet cannot be represented in any other way (Jung, 1922, para. 105). Given this dichotomy, symbols might be characterized by “incompleteness” for they represent an invitation to the psyche to co-create meaning.
